|
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 - Uncle Pete
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 197
176
« on: December 25, 2024, 12:57 »
Hasn't been worth uploading to SS for ages now because new photos just aren't selling,
You can speak for yourself, the new photos are selling very good if you produce the right quality, my downloads doubled this year compared with last year on SS and the new material is selling very well for me.
I find some of each. New photos that catch on, do just as well as the old. Also the easy sales for new photos, aren't what they used to be. But that's because instead of being one new photo in thousands, for that day, I'd be one new in hundreds of thousands. Same thing for competition. When the agencies had 50 million images, we could sell more. Now they have 500 Million. Logically, nothing will sell as many or as much. But you're right, something new, top quality, will eventually sell.
177
« on: December 25, 2024, 12:42 »
Aim for 15 seconds clips
From advice of others, 15 to 30 seconds at most. A longer clip can be made into more shorter clips to offer.
178
« on: December 24, 2024, 12:53 »
That or half of Pakistan downloading them with someones subscription account, mirroring the image and then reuploading for sale themselves.
Or dozens of new copycat accounts who all share stolen images and then upload to a dozen agencies that don't care enough to check for dupes and stolen images.
179
« on: December 24, 2024, 12:39 »
I'll side with what majority seems to believe, which is that Microstock is on its deathbed with AI placing final nail in the coffin. At some point these famous photographers like Yuri were paving the road and showing what's possible with skill and hard work. Not anymore; microstock is nowdays "Uncle Pete hobby", which for average contributor can hardly even finance cost of gear. I look sometime at amount of work Brutally Honest Microstock guy Alex Rottenberg invests, shooting, technology, extremely well researched blogs - and what does he have to show for it? Few 100's a month.
It's really a shame because photography, when done properly, is form of self expression, art and can bring lots of joy beyond just financial aspect. In particular this downright despicable mess AI is creating. Today, while researching potential trip to Alaska next summer, I went to Adobe (as customer would) and searched for "Chilkoot Lake". Wanted to throw up when I saw results - some guy spammed with 100s of AI generated shots of grizzly bears that look about just as ridiculous as anything I have ever seen. Shooting wildlife is art, waiting, patience in the wild, having proper equipment/lens - not this.
Yes, Go High or Go Low.  Either be very serious or make it a hobby. I decided hobby in 2012 when I saw what was going on with agencies, cutting our returns, along with the supply being far more than the demand. There was a false belief, being promoted by agencies like Shutterstock, that there was a hug untapped demand, and that there was potential for growth of the business. I think you hit the point very well, that AI ended the slow death of Microstock accelerating the final crash.
180
« on: December 22, 2024, 14:46 »
Deepmeta is the answer to the IS system that's worse and doesn't work and doesn't give us stats. There is also Qhero https://qhero.com/ if you want another. But here's what works for stats. https://deepmeta.creativ.zone/
Yes. Stats reporting is great example of something that was conceived very poorly in the beginning, and now just getting hacked over and over. Building 20th floor of a highrise that rests on rotten soil. IS Platform should be taught at college level software design courses as example now NOT to do things.
 
181
« on: December 21, 2024, 13:52 »
The inability to modify keywords, descriptions etc. after submission is very annoying. If you discover a "typo" after submission, you have to generate a ticket to get it corrected.
And after you write, more than once, the spelling error remains unchanged for years. I used to try to add words to the CV, there's a contact for that. Not worth the time.
It's just platform rigidity that makes no sense to anyone except maybe the guy that originally designed it, and now likely gone. Another nonsense is "Deep Meta" - heavy, monolithic Microsoft.NET standalone app, likely a nightmare from source code standpoint. IS already has Web Front End, that more or less does the job. Absolutely no need for Deep Meta, except maybe to keep the guy that works on it employed.
Deepmeta is the answer to the IS system that's worse and doesn't work and doesn't give us stats. There is also Qhero https://qhero.com/ if you want another. But here's what works for stats. https://deepmeta.creativ.zone/The problem is Getty and their system of cataloging everything. That's where CV came from. CV is not something that someone at IS just dreamed up to make everything convoluted and impossible. It's a cataloging system, used by large archives, museums and research facilities. I didn't say it was good for stock, in facts it's terrible for the application, for us and for customers. But that's what it is and why Getty chose it. https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/index.html
182
« on: December 21, 2024, 13:38 »
I agree. The 100% is the money they say they made. You get your share, be it 15% as non-exclusive or 25-45% as exclusive. Your part is calculated (before your percentage) as 50% of the files having been used for the dataset and the other 50% as the weighted factor of how many files you have licensed of those files during that year.
Yes, that's nice and simple and fits what we already get by contract. 15% of the total that IS takes in. But you know that someone will read the 50% and 50% and somehow imagine that we are getting 100% of something, which is impossible. IS gets paid 100% from the licensing for training, we get 15% of that number.
183
« on: December 20, 2024, 13:35 »
The CV is very frustrating if you are uploading editorial and they don't have the name of a store or business....and that happens a lot.
That's another example. Just leave it, it will still get indexed which is all you care about
Managed keyword concept is incredibly dumb. Capturing entire dictionary of modern language is virtually impossible. No wonder nobody else is doing it. If this idea had any worth to it, rest assured Adobe would be doing something similar on their platform
If you followed the links I included, you will see, this isn't for us or stock photos, it's for large archives. The idea is something like taxonomy, in that, you can't include everything, but you need relationships, groups, and names. There's a conformity that's supposed to make things less confusing and more organized. I don't think CV makes sense for our use or stock photos. But that's what Getty decided as they are running a huge archive, that needs to be searched. One thing, maybe, it does cut down on spam and useless words?
184
« on: December 19, 2024, 14:30 »
Hasn't iStock said that if you don't disambiguate the kw's they won't be translated into other languages and you could therefore be missing out on a lot of sales from non-English speaking regions.
I believe you are correct. Hello guys,
Maybe someone know where can find Istock controlled vocabulary (CV)? Maybe somewhere can download this vocabulary?
Didn't you get the study guide and dictionary when you signed up for iStock.  Here's some good reading: https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/intro_to_vocabs.pdfAnd here's the Getty Vocabulary, which will make some people say "I'm sorry I asked"? It is open source. https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/index.html
185
« on: December 19, 2024, 14:14 »
Here's my answer, like the drones in New Jersey, which aren't drones, but mistaken identity or ordinary UAVs, this is 100% conjecture, from what I've read. Translated, that means I might be imagining things or I could be right? Or none of the above.
Training share: 50% of the revenue will be divided between all of the files used to train our AI Services, giving an equal share for each file. This rewards every file that was part of the value created by our AI Services in each year.
Weighted share: 50% of the revenue will be weighted to each file in the training set, based on the royalties that file earned from traditional licensing in the same year. This rewards the proven commercial value of your content in each year.
50% plus 50% = 100% Half will be an equal share of the money, received by Getty, for each file. Half will be based on royalties that the file earned, in the same year. That's for each of our files or each of our files that were used, that also had sales.
50% plus 50% = 100% and we get 15% of that total amount, the 100%, for images. A further guess is video gets 20% of that 100% if the files used for AI training are videos.
They probably had meetings and committees that met and studied for months to come up with this. 
Until someone comes up with the real answer, from support, or finds a better made up version, that's mine. We get 15% of that 100% and Getty keeps 85%
What you wrote is almost as convoluted as IS platform ;=)
That's why I think I understand it? Real simple and straight. The number we see for the CONNECT SUMMARY STATEMENT Summary of Connect-based revenue by customer and product. AISERVICES United States ##.## is the License fee Commission = varies ##.## is what we get. (mine was just over 15%) The second AISERVICES for location says "varies" then License Fee Total, Varies for Commission, and the number we are credited. (mine was just under 15%) So the numbers for AISERVICES are the 100% and we get, around 15% of that. The whole 50% of each file and 50% of each file that has downloads, is just mystical, magic, Getty math, and irrelevant. They pay us a roughly 15%, just like everything else.
186
« on: December 18, 2024, 17:25 »
I found "AI Services" in PDF as well (no need to use TodayIs20).
Just like everything else on IS Platform things are super convoluted. It's almost like they are trying very hard to make it as complicated as possible. Maintaining this bloated system must be real nightmare, no wonder errors happen. It is also significant overhead in terms of $$ required to pay people that work on this. This is why we get 15%. Modernize the system, reduce the overhead --> Contributors get at least 5% more, IS maintains same profit.
Here's my answer, like the drones in New Jersey, which aren't drones, but mistaken identity or ordinary UAVs, this is 100% conjecture, from what I've read. Translated, that means I might be imagining things or I could be right? Or none of the above. Training share: 50% of the revenue will be divided between all of the files used to train our AI Services, giving an equal share for each file. This rewards every file that was part of the value created by our AI Services in each year.
Weighted share: 50% of the revenue will be weighted to each file in the training set, based on the royalties that file earned from traditional licensing in the same year. This rewards the proven commercial value of your content in each year. 50% plus 50% = 100% Half will be an equal share of the money, received by Getty, for each file. Half will be based on royalties that the file earned, in the same year. That's for each of our files or each of our files that were used, that also had sales. 50% plus 50% = 100% and we get 15% of that total amount, the 100%, for images. A further guess is video gets 20% of that 100% if the files used for AI training are videos. They probably had meetings and committees that met and studied for months to come up with this. Until someone comes up with the real answer, from support, or finds a better made up version, that's mine. We get 15% of that 100% and Getty keeps 85%
187
« on: December 17, 2024, 13:04 »
I don't confirm the slowdown,in fact this week is already better than last week,and I have already reached last December's sales number.
From January my sales should increase further,I don't have much Christmas content and I definitely need to do more people,I already have ready and selected more generated people content,but I have to start working on it as soon as I finish the current project.
Lots to do,better get to work! 
I'd agree that there's no telling. I just had a burst of sales today. I never know why or when someone is going to want something. Cobalt is right about the Holiday sales, I always get a boost from that. But, I just had an Easter image download. Something I uploaded two years ago. My St. Patrick's Day project was a dud. Maybe they will pick up after two years of laying dormant? No I don't mean rank, just sales would be good. I'm done uploading new, for this year. I'm saving anything else for 2025, to kick off the New Year with some uploads.
188
« on: December 16, 2024, 12:06 »
Hello everyone. There's a statistic I'm curious about. What's the most you've earned from selling a single photo or video on Adobe Stock?
I've been uploading for two years. The most I've made on a single sale is $6 for photos. $7 for videos.
I have no idea. Adobe doesn't tell us that kind of thing, and I'd have to dig through years and years, one year at a time, pages and pages of activity, just to see.
189
« on: December 16, 2024, 11:17 »
Received notice a few days ago that they are relocating their photo section over to Yay images.
Which is the reason why they may not be accepting any contributions at this moment.
both these companies truly suck! Remember nothing plus nothing still equals nothing...
Two dead agencies, pooling their resources, to make a slower and more painful, slow death. This is the end my friend.
190
« on: December 13, 2024, 14:22 »
As if they weren't unpopular enough, Shutterstock now have a new rejection policy.
Shutterstock Content Resubmission Guidelines
Guidelines on submitting content that has been previously reviewed or already approved.
Previously Rejected Content
Content can only be submitted once. When submitting content for the first time, please ensure it meets all Shutterstock Content Publishing Standards and Guidelines before submitting it for review. In most cases, our system will not allow you to resubmit content that has already been reviewed and rejected.
If you attempt to resubmit content that has been previously rejected, it will generally be rejected again for Previously Rejected.
https://submit.shutterstock.com/en/dashboard
Except that SS doesn't reject much anymore. Everything now is put into "Eligible for data licensing". To get a rejection, you have to do something pretty extreme. Someone will have to test the theory that a missed check box, for Editorial, for example, makes an image impossible to upload again. How about rejection for improper Editorial caption, is that a death sentence for the image? Doesn't sound right, but this is Shutterstock. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely or illogical.
191
« on: December 13, 2024, 13:30 »
So... maybe it's you or your location. 
No, it's just that my questions are more complex than yours, they are technical in nature. And how they will solve them is not yet known.
You can read my questions now? Yes, my question was about their system, submission and reviews, Editorial and things that I do, so it wasn't technical "technically". The reply took a week. But in other instances, they have been faster and gave personal responses, not some boilerplate "expert" who probably knows less than you or I about how SS works, and then says, they will forward the question to someone else, which means two things: 1) It's going into a black hole and we'll never see an answer OR 2) It's going to the real SS assistance people. Where they will file it as #1 on their priority list. (see #1 here)
192
« on: December 12, 2024, 13:13 »
Curious, what do you propose doing?
40%->30% for regular is a 25% income steal.
60%->40% for exclusive is a 33% income steal.
Has nothing to do with "market" conditions, but rather simple theft, and the execs giving themselves between a 25%-33% Christmas bonus to buy new yachts (or maybe 'acquire' more companies), then saying happy hanukkah while they do it grinning from ear to ear, calling the "exclusive" as well an "increase", like what?
Very wrong. Thoughts?
It's on the stock news for SSTK. This explains much of it. Bullish Shutterstock Insiders Loaded Up On US$679.5k Of Stock
Simply Wall St. 4 days ago Insiders knew they were cutting our commissions and bought stock. 1-Year Return SSTK Down 26.54% / S&P 500 up 31.40% Many years ago, I said SS was a $30 stock. Now it is. I would have considered it at $29 a share, but now I wouldn't be an investor for anything. They are unethical and nothing but money grubbers. As for the questions about closing P5, keep in mind the history. They are still operating BigStock and I believe everyplace that they bought. It was Getty that bought IS and then shut down all of the agencies that IS grabbed up, early on. Veer, StockExpert, Thinkstock, and the long list.
193
« on: December 12, 2024, 12:59 »
The only thing that worries me is the dismissal of people from the support pond5. No one answers my questions now. 
See the other thread where I answered your claims. No need to post this over and over. We need a "-1" button
You have my support on that. Bring back the fun. There was a - vote, way back, but it was just silly sometimes, as someone would post, "Hey, it's Monday" and if they were an unpopular member, they would get -25 in an hour. Leaf removed it, I believe, to make things a little less contentious and adversarial. But I miss it, even if people disagree with me, I recognize and support their opinions and rights. Too bad Ambu left, they had some good points about P5
194
« on: December 12, 2024, 12:44 »
195
« on: December 12, 2024, 12:20 »
I suggest your 3hr 14min course should be broken up into 7 segments, with a short review at the start of each, so your course will get many more views and minutes viewed on YouTube. "Yes! Yes You Can! You can MAKE UP TO AS MUCH AS 5 CENTS A MONTH IN 2025!"I'm, way beyond that level as I made over $5 last month on IS and $8.25 on SS. Imagine that, all those dimes just adding up to almost a whole large $10. Why, in a few months I could cash out and get paid by Shutterstock. iStock will take a year or longer. Dreamstime only took four years, or was it five? Feel free to hire me as a consultant for your program. Here's to your success in the marketing business. 
196
« on: December 11, 2024, 13:27 »
How is life in your fantasy world?
Everybody knew that when pond5 was sold it was over.
And yet people kept promoting the p5 exclusive thing although anyone with half a brain knew they are riding a dead horse.
The SS rat race would be much worse, the current rate is industry standard.
So yes, it is better than what I expected.
But go and whine that the stockworld doesnt worship you
Some of us run this as a business, which means you also anticipate the bad news
I'll have to read further and what everything is going to be, unless I'm just not reading this right? Starting on January 15, 2025, we will introduce new contributor royalty rates. Artists will now earn a 30% royalty from licensing activity on Pond5, while Exclusive video artists will earn an increased royalty of 40%.Old in case anyone doesn't have that handy. Video: Exclusive video contributors receive 60% revenue share. Non-exclusive video contributors receive 40% revenue share. Contributors who license photographs, illustrations, After Effects, and other templates receive 50% revenue share. Funny to call it an increased royalty when it's going down  If I have this right, 60% exclusive video, will now be 40%. Everything else was 50% and is moving to 30%? In shorter terms, a 20% cut off of everything? Yes, we all knew that SS would cut and chop, I was surprised that it didn't happen faster. I think you're correct, whether I like it or not, that does bring them into the range of the industry standard, maybe slightly higher for video exclusive and above most for photos, illustrations, but below Alamy 40% or Adobe 33%. (IS 15% & SS so low they have to pay the minimum instead of a percentage 10 ) DT whatever that is a percentage of what you can find in a Black Hole. What? The world of stock doesn't worship me and think I'm the reason they are a success? I'm hurt. Well there we go, whatever Shutterstock touches turns to crap and that is true here.
First they remove the ability to set your prices and adjust your own prices, often downwards. Now they cut the percentage you can earn from those prices.
Everyone knew this would happen after SS bought them. It's the slow process of them being absorbed and cease to exist as a separate entity. I cant wait for 12 cent video sales to start.
100% right.
197
« on: December 10, 2024, 12:27 »
So, what do I see. Lately, many files are not uploaded via FTP. Pond5 has disabled its support, now all requests go to shutterstock support, which does not respond.
This is a disaster!
If that's what they just did to support, you have it perfectly described. 👍
Yes, pond support is no longer responding. Now probably only shutterstock support will respond, but how often and how effectively is unknown.
The people from pond support have been fired!
I'll wait and see, it could be you or you location. I wrote to P5 support and received and answer from P5 support, Yesterday. But I still believe what you have posted, as SS is very likely to kill off any useful support for us, because it costs them more than "Experts" who work for likes.
198
« on: December 10, 2024, 12:15 »
Maybe. Yes I know that's almost not and answer, but it's the truth. What puts me off is, only Adobe, and the millions of new images. What chance would me work have. I can do other real photos and illustrations. Part of that is, Does AI really sell, or is it like making best sellers and looking at what sells best and making hat, when there's already too much. Why should I work for one agency, when SS, IS, Alamy, don't want it, and DT is a black hole. The potential is not very hopeful.  So maybe on a limited basis, when I'm not doing something else? AI is becoming Sliced Tomatoes.
199
« on: December 09, 2024, 14:22 »
So, what do I see. Lately, many files are not uploaded via FTP. Pond5 has disabled its support, now all requests go to shutterstock support, which does not respond.
This is a disaster!
If that's what they just did to support, you have it perfectly described. 👍
200
« on: December 09, 2024, 13:34 »
Ah that old question, that has no answer? What is Art? I think the article covers AI pretty well. If the prompt creates something that is like something else, or mimicking someone else, in the style of someone famous, it's not the fault of the AI, it's the fault of the human writing the prompt. By design, everything AI creates, is new and not a derivative. I think there are still many people who are against AI, because they don't understand how training and creation works, or don't want to accept the facts. Machine learning, does not use the original images, in any way, when it makes something from the program. All the AI knows is language to styles, colors, patterns and bits and pieces. The original training data is never accessed again. What is art and what's not? I think Andy Warhol is not art. He was popular, and trendy and used a photo copier to take others images and make something new. Talk about derivatives? Talk about stealing and copying. But people pay big money for his garbage. I think Jackson Pollack is an artist, who created original and unique works. Other think he was a nut case and call him Jack the Dripper. I'd hand one of his works in my house. I wouldn't want to own a Warhol, unless it was to get rid of it, for a profit. Piet Mondrian? Nope, how does paining geometric patterns, come off as one of the greatest artists of the 20th Century and abstract art? I don't get it? Picasso, I get some of it, don't understand some of the rest. At some point, the creative style and expression, moves from fresh and new, into a cartoon of itself. I didn't say it's not art, I just think that at some point, it became a commercialized mockery of itself. Opinions differ. But as far as AI imaging, I'm still not convinced it's actually creative Art. A machine makes it. Someone can argue the machine is the tool. Maybe, but I'm still not convinced that the person making the image, is personally connected to the specifics and details of every part of the image, that a machine has created. If a human isn't putting everything down on the canvas, the image, the illustration or whatever the AI output is, then a machine is doing it and making part of the decisions. When human prompting gets complex enough that an artist can describe and place, every single element, texture, object, color, and background in an AI artwork, then I'm going to change my mind. Someone who sees it differently, tell me how you visualize your work, before the prompt and know, before the AI makes the image, if it's going to be what you imagined? Or if it's something like what you described, but the machine came up with the final version?
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 197
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
