You're fighting a losing battle with this one I'm afraid. If you were to take parts (learnt) of X amount of songs to combine and form a new one, you'd have to pay the copyright holder of the original content

You're wrong
First of all in music there is a specific legal limit in terms of sounds and sequences in which you can claim a copyright infringment. That is quite obvious, because with only seven notes it's hard to create music without copying existing sequences.

Second, you are still thinking and telling that some parts of a copyrighted image is used inside the new image. That is simply not true.
AI create a completely new image, having an idea of how a wheel, a face, or a burger, is done.

Come on, it's called AI because it can do exactly the same operation that everyone of us do creating an image, having in mind the previous created images (created by others) with the same subject.


THERE IS AN ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUE BECAUSE THE FEED THAT AI HAS USED TO START IS PROBABLY STOLEN, OR WITHOUT APPROPRIATE RELEASE
This is the problem, and this is very serious.

But you think that a legal problem will be the use of copyrighted creation INSIDE a new AI generated image, you're wrong.
Any AI engineer will easily demonstrate that no part of copyrighted images has been used

Ah. Ok. I understand.
You're working for an agency.
Or you're trolling us.

Back to serious.

It seems the issue is going to be "free or not free".
I'm in the middle: the proposal has been tested with photos, and a lot of people was happy with it after one year. I'm one of them.
Giving to Adobe a small portion of still images for one year with reasonable amount in return was good for me, I see a good growth in sales, and I can think that this happened because a good free section has attracted new buyers in Adobe market.

Unfortunately, the video clip market seems to be very different: clip production can be much more expensive, and the produced clip can give much higher profit in return; 8$ a year for a free clip seems a very very low agreement. 5$ for still is really not comparable with 8$ for clip.

So for me the problem is the price, and not in general the "free against not free".
We all know that everything has a price (in normal market business I mean...). If Adobe should offer 40$ for one year free clip I'm sure a lot of us would change ideas about the answer.

Finally we have to admit that Adobe is transparent and never in any way forces contributors to partecipate, and this is fair and good.
It's an opportunity and everyone can take their conclusion.
This is the point we're talking about: the personal conclusion.
Apart from trolls

The math here is simple. The more videos that are initially nominated, the more videos will be included in the free collection and the more money will be transferred to you.

Unbelievable. Quite the same as selling clip in standard market. Great math.

Did you understand that footages chosen in the free collection won't sell anymore on adobe and probably way less on other sites too??

No, he doesn't understand; at the third page of thread, because he doesn't want to waste time reading the first one.
He doesn't understand that proposal is to sell the clip to Adobe for one year

The idea of putting up an $8 video is a good idea. This is advertising for the portfolio and income. But, it makes sense if adobe selects more videos.
In general, I recommend Adobe to create a subscription collection following the example of Envato Elements, I am ready to give all my videos to it. I think that subscription sales will bring more income.

You haven't understand nothing on how it works; it would be nice if you read the rules before giving away your ideas.

First of all, Adobe has already subscription offers alive.
Second, the "8$ proposal" is for one year of your clip in the free section; nothing to do with subscriptions.
Last but not least, you cannot give away your full portfolio: Adobe "nominate" some elegible assets, and AFTER this they choose a (little) slice of them to be payed for the free section.

So, usually if you have, let's say, 1000 clips, you will find 300 nominated for the 8$ proposal, and after this a small part, let's say 30, will be accepted and payed.

Please read before posting strange opinions

In principle, I find the FreeCollection offers quite good, but $8 for a video clip does not seem to me to be in proportion to $5 for a photo.
I will definitely not participate in this programme with my videos.

Agree.
8 for one year is really poor for what clips could generate. I'm a little disappointed

Didn't receive any letters. I don't think this is true.

Why on earth Matt should announce something not true 

Last weekend I invested on an old green suitcase at a flea market and using Dalle2 very useful to brainstorm various concepts for book covers.

This is a GREAT way using AI! 👍👍👍

Obviously all agencies will have their own ai tool at some point.

This will be for sure.
Soon there will be first tests, giving buyer otpion to create their own unique images instead of doing database search.
For tomatoes on white background will be the end, but for more complex images there will be always space for human work; also editorial will still have life.

There are a couple of big issues in AI:

It's not so easy for buyer to give an exact description; probably most of the buyer only search for a subject without exact idea of the way in which they want to see it. AI works well only if you give detailed descriptions.

About legal issue, I don't think an agency can use its own database to feed AI learning. Maybe some will offer a fee to authors. Once the feed issue will be solved, also legal issues about ownership of new images will be solved as well.

So there are some questionable points, but I'm sure that they will be managed and soon we'll see an option in search page, something like "describe and create your own original unique image"

Why don't people show the links to their ports?

This is a super super competitive business.
If you find a new subject, a new style, a new image source, or something else that sell well in any way...
It's quite obvious that no one want to reveal his way and share a portfolio, no surprise at all.
By the way, in general, it's very easy to search for most sold images, just do very large search on any agencies database and you will have a clear landscape of subjects, theme, styles

That's interesting. I tried in last years to push editorial motor sport and other international sports events to microstock.
Not super top events, no Formula 1, but still international events like world championship, european championship, global motor sports category.

After last four years results has been lower than expected: I can't say I get nothing, but I get much more from "microstock oriented" images than from editorial events themselves.

For example, you can sell more an asphalt close up background on motor sport track than a scenic Ferrari racing.

So my answer is yes, it's worth to upload, and no, it's not worth to shoot for specific events. In my experience you can use the events to take unique images, but you will not sell the classic panning of car on tracks. Or, probably, you will sell some, and you will have rare occasional high value sales.
But the best results will be with general, microstock oriented, racing concept images, If you have that, I suggest to go on. At the contrary I don't think it worth to spend time to work on and keywording on classical editorial sport events images.

Quote from: Roscoe on August 19, 2022, 11:27

Million dollar question: which parameters trigger a higher probability? 

Too easy to answer "the right mix" of all 😁
That is probably true...
By the way,  great congrats to Zero Talent,  who seems having found the right recipe 👍👍👍

Sorry for quoting myself... But I would like to add something: a good old question...
Quality or quantity?
I mean,  and this is direct question to Zero Talent: could you let us know how many of your works gain high price sales? Percent on all your uploads? That's would be really interesting for me,  as I can't find an answer for myself,  after years of microstock...
I had several good high price sales,  both for images and clips,  but sincerely never understand how much the upload quantity count.
Better one great image,  or ten middle value images,  in your experience?

Interesting thread; in the next future there will be a lot of discussion about this.

From my point of view (I'm not a lawyer, so just an opinion):

If I wanted a monkey, riding a rocket, eating a banana, then I'd have to upload all of those elements myself.

That is simply what we do every day: almost any image in the world is created having in mind other previous images of the same kind.
AI use images to create new (and different) ones on the same subject. So in my opinion there is no need to own copyright on every sigle part of source image.

Images are generated by typing a description, without upload any picture. They are 1024x1024p which is not enough for Selling them as such. After a few tries, i understand images seems uniques and do not really yet exist(but i know it comes from a training on similar pictures result).

I tried some caricatural work below(see downsized image in attachment). The swimming pool picture is mine.

Every single added item is AI generated ( towels, buoys, waterguns, footprints, human legs...)

Before i go further, my question is : can i sell this picture ?

For me the answer is YES. But is of course questionable.
And agencies will have big issue to manage these kind of images