|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - HalfFull
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
176
« on: September 27, 2022, 11:38 »
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?
Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?
Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.
This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand. 
...
The problem is that AI generated photos have nothing to do anymore with the art of photography. ...
stock photography itself has little to do with art! and who says art has to be created by humans?
Nothing. However, with regards to submitting work to agencies, they require you to be the original copyright owner. If you use AI software, you're not! Same as submitting someone else's work as your own. AI software is scraping images and metadata from the internet without the original copyright owners permission and using it to create the images in the AI software. So, submitting images from AI software under your name is similar to you downloading images from the internet, slicing and dicing them, merging them and then selling them as your own. How happy would you be if someone did that to your portfolio?!?!
177
« on: September 23, 2022, 11:21 »
Good job banning these AI images, but how do they know it was generated via AI? How will they be going back to purge previously accepted AI imagery?
It shouldn't be that hard. If it's a real model the person submitting the image will need a model release. You can't get a model release from an AI, so no model release, no acceptance.
Not quite. If its a photo and contains any person, it requires a model release. My understanding is you can only submit your own work, you have to be the copyright owner. Submitting AI images you neither created it or own the copyright and therefore should not be submitting the image to the agency. End of. If you have created a rendered illustration, you are submitting your own work, you have the copyright and I'd imagine, if it's not the case already, you will need to provided a property release stating it is your own work (inc reference material).
178
« on: September 21, 2022, 11:03 »
I've been opted out for years and it still doesn't stop them. They just say, "Oops, our mistake. We'll not do it again! Until next time!".
179
« on: September 21, 2022, 09:17 »
Getty & iStock have just banned all images from AI software and will be be removing all existing ones submitted to them over concerns around copyright of the raw images used to create the finished images as well as the metadata.
I have a feeling they won't be the only ones, it could be a potential legal minefield.
180
« on: September 21, 2022, 09:10 »
Yeah, don't worry... it bounced back today. I'd imagine it might have been the initial reaction until the traders etc knew exactly what it meant. Once they did, catch it on the bounce and make more money. Who knows, but ultimately, it will head back up and exceed where it left off. As markets do.
181
« on: September 16, 2022, 16:18 »
I wrote to them last week and still nothing so I'm just deleting them. If it's of any use anyone, it takes approximately 5 1/2 minutes to delete a 1000 images. 10k in an hour... dull, yes, but worth it!
Edit... well, that's it for 123RF for me. All deleted now. I'll give it a month to monitor any activity and then close the account. This has been a long time coming.
What has surprised me over the years and now with recent issues at 123, why don't more people do what you've done. Obviously not worth the money, a place that has no respect for the artists, can't be trusted/missing reporting, slow reviews, yet people stay with them for what? $7 a month at best, according to the poll here.
Why do people intentionally support and feed the parasites?
For me I was being a little lazy. They only ever made me about $100 a month but dropped to $20. Basically 2hrs @ AS. So that new package reached a point where it was becoming damaging. They never had all my work and I'd stopped uploading a long time ago. There is possibly another 2 that could be culled. There are 4-5 I supply with 3 that get everything. For me, there is only one that seems to make an effort and consistently is increasing 10% reaching year.
182
« on: September 16, 2022, 03:41 »
anyone still having images in their PLUS collection deserves even less then 0.03
Maybe but some of us have been trying for weeks to get the moved or close account and receiving no reply. And havent had the 4-5 hours it'll take to do each page individually yet.
I wrote to them last week and still nothing so I'm just deleting them. If it's of any use anyone, it takes approximately 5 1/2 minutes to delete a 1000 images. 10k in an hour... dull, yes, but worth it! Edit... well, that's it for 123RF for me. All deleted now. I'll give it a month to monitor any activity and then close the account. This has been a long time coming.
183
« on: September 16, 2022, 03:10 »
"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. "
Exactly. A lot of times people will look for something without knowing exactly what they want. They're looking for a Christmas background and after several pages, ah, that's what I want. But if you were to ask them to describe what they want before seeing anything... not so easy. Creatives don't just create the image, they come up with the idea... and for non-creative types, that is just as hard if not harder than creating the actual image.
Mind you, I'd have thought those who produce white background imagery would still make money. They'd sell them to the AI software companies who store them as reference and would either buy them exclusively or, as a per usage in an each AI created image.
184
« on: September 14, 2022, 03:23 »
These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines.
Adobe does not accept current news editorial image, they only accept illustrative editorials or their very own definition of it I don't understand half of the time.
.. we don't accept content that sells ....
Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if they did full editorial but they don't. They've made no secrete that they don't accept normal editorial work and it has been pointed out quite often. Why try to force a square peg into a round hole. Just submit them to an agency that accepts that type of work.
185
« on: September 07, 2022, 06:34 »
I just realised I passed the 100k DL marker this month and $100k last month... Really should pay more attention  As always... thanks Adobe for making it possible! For me, this is the time of year that the volume really starts to increase until December... then 3-4 weeks of being a little quieter before it all licks off again.
186
« on: August 17, 2022, 08:39 »
Exactly. I've just deleted the PNG files I uploaded that already have a high ranking jpgs and I'm going to hold off sending any more files until nearer the release time. By then I'll have a large batch to do at once but rather that than annoying customers or, damaging the ranking of the new / existing files. I wish they would just approve the PNG files but hide all .png extensions until they were ready to launch. At the moment it looks (to the customer) that we have submitted duplicate files and it may well have an adverse effect on ranking if they are ignored.
187
« on: August 16, 2022, 15:55 »
There is no need to put the word "transparent" in your title or keywords if that is what you mean.
No, that's not what I mean. It's not me. It's Adobe that automatically puts the word "transparent" into the keywords when uploading a png. Sure, I could remove the keyword again, but apparently Adobe seems to think it should be there and since - once the feature is actually launched - I want people to actually find my pngs I don't see why I should remove this relevant keyword after Adobe added it. But as of now that means that Adobe automatically adds the keyword "transparent" to images that, at least for now, are not transparent. And that's very misleading to customers.
I've submitted a couple of batches but I think I'll hold off on any more until they're actually ready to go live. My concern is now I've submitted a batch of PNG's that look like jpgs I've already submitted and are successful. The PNG's will drop down the ranking as they may not compete against the established files over the next two months... or, they have a detrimental effect on the jpgs that are selling well. The same way too many similars do. I think it would be better if they allow us to submit the PNG's and for Adobe to hold off releasing them until they're ready to start the service. That way we can submit the files and customers aren't presented with confusing titles, keywords and files that look the same as existing ones. It should be easy enough for Adobe to hide these from customers based on the png file extension until they're ready to release the service.
188
« on: August 16, 2022, 11:37 »
Mat, something just occured to me - I submitted some png files and today one of them was sold. But if these images are now not sold as transparent pngs, but jpgs to the customers, isn't it highly misleading to them, when they have "transparent" in title and keywors? At least the keyword "transparent" is automatically filled in by adobe when submitting a png file. Wouldn't it be better to hide them from customers alltogether, till Adobe is ready to launch them as pngs instead of selling them as jpgs while claiming they were transparent?
That's exactly how it is with me, Firn. I have uploaded a few png files - online since two days. The same images are also available in my portfolio as jpg with white background. And now the first of the png images has been sold.
I too see the danger that buyers might feel fooled when they realize that the images are not clipped at all.
Mat, what do the buyers actually get? A jpg or a png?
For now, these files are only available as JPG on the customer facing site. Once the feature is launched, they can download PNG files.
Thank you for the feedback,
Mat
Thanks for this... noticed that they were showing as jpg on the customer side but PNG on my portfolio. I presume this won't have a negative impact on the actual jpgs files that exist already. It wouldn't be ideal if the jpgs to competed with the already established successful files. Do we have an approx time scale in terms of when the PNG service will be activated? Thanks
189
« on: August 13, 2022, 12:07 »
Thanks for the updates on the new feature Mat...but it is Saturday... surely you're allowed to take a break from work?!?! I think you've earned a pint or two...
190
« on: August 12, 2022, 03:45 »
So far this month...
Enhanced x 2 - $20 + 26
SOD x 3 - 2x $32 1x 18
Video 1 - $18
That said, there have been a lot of $0.10 sales with below average daily totals.
Edit... another $33 SOD today.
191
« on: July 22, 2022, 02:55 »
I noticed an email from a footage rep from Shutterstock asking us to shoot footage for the travel genre and providing a list of destinations. I laughed... given the commission you get and the cost of traveling, production gear etc there is no chance we'd shoot that for them. I didn't even bother replying as it's been said a 1000 times. A lot of contributors will just quietly move on.
Agencies will reap what they sow and if they're not careful they'll only get the easy to produce work and the the footage they say is in demand is in demand because contributors can no longer afford to make it.
That said, I still receive plenty of higher value sales of footage from AS but obviously, I have to be selective in what I produce as it's a lot harder to make the costs back now.
192
« on: July 08, 2022, 16:34 »
I'm quite sure its a Eizo ColorEdge CG2730. It was around 1350 mark. If the Benq has hardware calibration as well don't discount it. As I said, I was very happy with mine and used it for years!
193
« on: July 08, 2022, 10:30 »
I'd say the Eizo is worth the extra provided you have the built in calibration tool. The monitor is still better than the BenQ without it but one of the biggest perks is not having to worry about calibration. It just does it itself when X amount of time has elapsed when you're not working.
I used a BenQ monitor for years and the monitor was really good. Not as many features and possibly not as even as the Eizo but still very good.
Now, is that very good quality calibration tool and software worth it. We all need to use one in order to make sure what we see is what the clients see so, if you bought a monitor without it you still need to buy one.
Sadly my 27" Cintiq doesn't have a built in calibration tool and I've bought a number of Xrite calibration tools over time and they have an annoying habit of stopping support at the earliest opportunity. I use an older one now thats no longer supported but use it with an app called DisplayCal. Free to use and if you like, donate. It's worth a donation.
I'd imagine I've spent a good 300-400 on calibration tools so you have to take that into account when buying an Eizo with it built in. The software naturally is updated and I'm not aware of them just pulling support.
It's also very easy to flick between a different profiles Adobe1998 etc and it has a whole host of other things that I probably don't make use of. So, for me the ability to avoid all the hassle of using separate calibration tools (and remembering to use them) I personally think it's worth it. I just get on with my work and let it sort itself out!
Hope this helps a little.
194
« on: July 07, 2022, 02:49 »
If you've opted out, report it to Alamy. I did and ended up getting 100% commission. There was a fault (which has been corrected) but you'll need to check and get in touch with them
Congrats  - good for you but what did you say, and who did you email to?
I reported my 0.01 sales and all I got back the usual "long lead times" BS. And yes I've opted out both NU and distribution.
I knew I'd opted out of Distribution sales in China back in April this year and that I'd opted out of novel use scheme back in 2013. That's all I told them and that I'd already complained about receiving 100 of these sales at the end of last year. I was told that there had been an error (now corrected) and that they'd refund 100% commission. That was it.
195
« on: July 06, 2022, 10:22 »
I have a 27" 2k Eizo ColorEdge monitor and before that a BenQ. The BenQ was a great monitor but not really a patch on the Eizo. I never have to worry about calibration, it does it automatically for you with it's own built in calibration tool. The screen is very clear and even. Good selection of ports etc. If I had to buy another monitor now, Eizo would be my first point of call.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the pixel ratio of a 2k monitor at 27" is about perfect for assessing picture sharpness.
196
« on: July 05, 2022, 09:01 »
If you've opted out, report it to Alamy. I did and ended up getting 100% commission. There was a fault (which has been corrected) but you'll need to check and get in touch with them
197
« on: July 01, 2022, 03:03 »
I had 20 sales or more of less than $0.10 and I'm not part of the novel use scheme and I've opted out of third part distribution to almost all countries but especially China etc and yet I still get these pathetic sales. This was after I told them a few months ago when I received 80 of these sales (which were Novel Use to China) that I wasn't parti of these schemes. Alamy monthly sales represent about 1-2 hours worth on AS so the time has come to delete the images I have there.
198
« on: June 30, 2022, 06:35 »
Just received a payment for 58 images.
Some new images to the free collection are showing as "Free" while others show "Free" + In Review. Not sure if this means another payment maybe due if the ones in review are also accepted.
199
« on: June 28, 2022, 03:51 »
SS has the bigger sales ($). I've had one $112 & $91 this week. Adobe does have quite a few from 20-60 mark as well but whereas SS has loads for $0.10 AS is more consistently around the 1 mark with far more sales. SS is only 1/3 - 1/2 of AS for me, even with the bigger SS sales.
200
« on: June 26, 2022, 14:05 »
Thanks Mat. I'll just stick to C1 for now then. The day LR allows for manual ordering of keywords I'll be able to drop C1. I did some testing in the past and enjoyed using both classic and mobile LR but I still had to use C1 for keywording so it was just complicating my workflow using LR.
Here's hoping they'll allow it some day soon!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
