|
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 - RalfLiebhold
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15
26
« on: September 09, 2024, 10:08 »
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
I don't necessarily want to say that your statement is not true. But I find it somehow illogical. Do you have a link where I can read your information? I'm not even sure whether rejected images affect the ranking. My personal experience in this regard is different.
27
« on: August 22, 2024, 13:56 »
This is a recurring and daily groundhog day discussion  There is in my opinion no fundamental general pro or con for Adobe or Shutter ... or any other agency. It all depends very much on the portfolio content. My personal reality at the moment is that Adobe has pretty much crashed. Adobe: approx. 200 DLs per month - RPD 80 - 90 Shutterstock: 800 - 900 DLs per month, RPD 70 - 80 Only Foto, no AI And yes, I hate the January reset at Shutter, but are several months of review times at Adobe really more ethical while those images are making money at other agencies in that time?
28
« on: August 16, 2024, 07:39 »
When/if you would like to discuss this rationally, I am open to it.
If you would like to answer the following questions, that would be okay.
a) How many medical reports did you read?
b) How many doctors, medical officers of health did you speak to personally?
c) What degrees, if any, do you have?
d) How many politicians did you have personal discussions with?
e) How many companies promoting this, did you look in depth into?
A lot and very intensive, including a doctorate in hematologic oncology. That's exactly why I don't even see the slightest basis for a discussion with you - although I myself take a critical view of many measures. Good Luck.
29
« on: July 27, 2024, 16:59 »
I am a little surprised at how many people here are talking down and bagetlizing a serious problem or even looking for explanations and excuses from an Adobe perspective. If another agency were to make such a mess, we would already have dozens of pages of ranting here.
If Adobe can establish world peace with the long review times - then I'm happy to join in.
And just to put a question in the room.
Why is it generally assumed that AI images are the future and will always be preferred by buyers?
30
« on: July 26, 2024, 13:57 »
..... but the answer to long waiting times could also be simpler,perhaps it simply depends on whether the content is useful or not.
as I said,I have no problem,as far as I'm concerned,all the reviews are done well below the current established times.
First of all, you deserve credit for being a very positive person. But somehow love seems to make you blind How can the reviewer assess the sales value of a picture right away? The value of a picture is made up of various aspects. Just 2 concrete examples. It took Adobe 2 - 3 months to review my images on the subject of fungal contamination in indoor air. The images were probably of little interest to the reviewers. Not so for the buyers. After activation, I had regular sales and Adobe lost me 3 months of revenue. From my area, quite simple landscape images are doing very well with all agencies - and some of them have been waiting in the queue since May. For the reviewer, it's probably another forest, river or lake. For the buyer, these are images to represent a specific landscape that is popular with tourists. The review times are disrespectful and there is no excuse for this. The problem has existed since the acceptance of AI images. A company like Adobe should actually have solutions for this.
31
« on: July 25, 2024, 15:39 »
Since 2015, artists have been uploading their work to Adobe with great commitment and expertise and have contributed to Adobe Stock becoming one of the largest agencies.
Many make a living from it or at least depend on the income.
Now we have AI. Any fool with a computer can now upload their work.
It's certainly not wrong to jump on this bandwagon from the adobe perspective.
Personally, I find the current review times completely unacceptable and disrespectful to those who made Adobe Stock great in the past.
Communication in this regard also seems to have fallen completely asleep.
I can't see anything positive about this development.
I would have expected at least equal treatment here, which is obviously not the case.
Adobe is really kicking its loyal and former useful contributors in the ass here.
32
« on: June 28, 2024, 13:10 »
A nice surprise this morning at Shutterstock. My highest image sale ever.
It's an editorial photo from the 50s with 2 American celebrities.
33
« on: June 06, 2024, 14:50 »
Like Steve, I don't analyse everything statistically in detail. At Adobe, 8 of the first 10 best sellers are editorials. The same ratio applies to the other agencies. Especially with regard to AI images, I see a competitive advantage in editorials. Editorials are not so easy to reproduce and offer significantly more possibilities for individual keywording than, for example, a simple landscape shot. Here's an example to illustrate this. I have several hundred commercial landscape images of the Chilean Atacama Desert. My bestselling image is one of the few editorials (there really aren't that many editorial motifs in the desert either ):
34
« on: June 03, 2024, 15:33 »
... in addition to companies like "ipsos mori" polls (which is latin for "they die") pushing the convid scam ....
Your Google translation is wrong. Ipsos is either a nomen or the plural pronoun of ipse. This would then mean themselves and not they. Depending on the context, mori has the meaning: dying, blackberry, law, regulation, etc. Latin cannot be translated, but must be analysed in context. But it doesn't matter. There is also a comprehensible explanation for the naming: Our name - Ipsos MORI - was formed in 2005 by the merger of Ipsos, founded in France in 1975 with its named derived from the Latin phrase ipso facto and Market and Opinion Research International (MORI), founded in the UK in 1969. This merger created our name: Ipsos MORI, it explained. Incidentally, I would also be careful with the MSG Forum. MSG = mori sadistici grex
35
« on: June 01, 2024, 16:22 »
You cannot request the money.
Check the payout limit in your account settings. There you can set the minimum payout for example to $25.
The money will then be paid out at the end of the month without any problems.
36
« on: May 27, 2024, 16:07 »
The trick for me is I have a bunch of eligible images that are part of a series. While individually it might be great to get $5 for one, I greatly fear it would cannibalize sales from the others. Why buy the image you really want if you can get a super close one for nothing?
Noting to Fear but Fear itself?  I have never seen sales change for anything, after years of allowing, almost all images into the free collection.
$5 for the accepted images, last year, is more than the lifetime for those same images, across all platforms and agencies.
Percentages just because someone asked.
Around 5% are nominated by Adobe, of those 20-25% when I click all (except one, for one round) are accepted and I got paid. Easier numbers, if it's at all relevant, 1% of my total images, have appeared in the Free and Other use collection. $5 each, in my pocket is more than all except that one, has made and I can't say what might happen, but if an image hasn't earned $5 in seven years, I'm not going to assume it will suddenly just leap off the page and grab $5 in the next year?
I'll stick with the sure thing.
I agree with you Pete. A sparrow in the hand is better than the pigeon on the roof. Adobe's remuneration for moderately performing images is fair, real and ends up as tangible money in your bank account. Everything else is speculation for which you can't buy anything.
37
« on: May 16, 2024, 15:22 »
My Editorial Illustrations that have popular landmarks get rejected. However, there are plenty Editorial Illustrations with same landmarks as editorial illustrations on Adobe Stock.
Guidance: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html
Reason:
The most common cases for rejection from that collection are:
- The file includes identifiable people. (Nope)
- The file is news or documentary editorial. (Nope)
- The file did not have a strong editorial concept. (My landmarks take about 1/3 to 1/2 of the image)
What am I missing?
This is difficult to answer without an example. We've had this topic already quite often. There seems to be quite a grey area at Adobe where neither we nor the reviewers really know what illustrative editorial is. First, I would simply submit it again.
38
« on: May 09, 2024, 15:07 »
You really don't have to be particularly clever or knowledgeable to realise that your portfolio has been copied here. This is not about a single image.
The answer from Adobe is, to put it kindly, a cheek.
If the current Adobe rules do not allow for any consequences here, then Adobe should adapt the rules to the current reality - which, incidentally, was promoted by Adobe in particular.
I can fully understand your frustration.
39
« on: May 02, 2024, 15:06 »
I don't know what it's like in the USA.
In Europe, for example, companies are obliged to carry out regular surveys in order to meet certain quality criteria. The result doesn't matter, the main thing is that you've done it.
I also don't understand the point. Adobe just did it.
But the fact is that Shutterstock doesn't give a * about our opinion.
40
« on: April 23, 2024, 14:08 »
The best way is to contact Adobe via the MatHayward PM in the forum.
41
« on: April 22, 2024, 12:31 »
And what about the number of sales?
you have a lower RPD,some sales below the normal threshold,but what about the total profit at least month by month if not year by year?
as far as I'm concerned,so far every month of this year I have earned more than all the months of 2023,this month too I have already exceeded both the number of sales and earnings of April 2023.
For me it's all uphill and I've been doing microstock for 6 years,and for 6 years everything has continued to rise,sometimes very slowly but it continues to rise.
obviously in my opinion everything is strictly linked to what and how much you produce,the time of sleeping on big,fluffy portfolios is over! 
I can't afford to think that things are going badly!
Looks the same for me. I've been around for about 7 years, since then there's been a slow but steady upward trend in downloads and revenue for all agencies. However, I also upload regularly, try to cover current topics and find new niches, especially in the editorial area. And my port is AI-free.
42
« on: April 19, 2024, 13:33 »
2. This young woman introduced herself and wrote her first and last name and attached a photo.
A little tip: If you accidentally write to your dating app support, you may not receive a reply from Adobe. Welcome to the real world.
43
« on: April 19, 2024, 11:34 »
It is better to never write to Adobe support regarding any issues. I once wrote, there was some kind of primitive question. In response, some Russian lady contacted me, who began to scare me with a ban and accuse me of not forming my briefcase correctly and she didnt like what I was uploading. She made some idiotic demands on me. In short, I dont write in Adobe anymore.
If your writing style and behavior is comparable to that in the "This should settle some different opinions" thread, Adobe's reaction is quite understandable. And of course it was a Russian Orc employee, what else  Of course you can write to Adobe support.
44
« on: April 19, 2024, 07:53 »
Worrying update here from Alamy.
I asked Alamy whether my token damages over some $25 would bring the matter to a close and their reply:
"This matter remains ongoing with the case currently in front of the German courts. As mentioned, legal costs are being incurred by Alamy in defending the claims which as a contributor to you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. In the event of any further developments in relation to your cost liability under this matter we would provide you with an update to advise of any changes."
To be continued...
That is indeed worrying. As a contributor, you are forced to pay for a court case without having a say in it, where you don't know what it's about, how long it will take and how much it will cost in the end. Above all, you don't know whether it would have been cheaper to settle the initial claim.
45
« on: April 16, 2024, 14:21 »
I assume the dispute with Axel Springer is over 5.1(i) - I looked online for information about this lawsuit but didn't find anything. Not sure how an editorial image could infringe a copyright or other IP - did the original email say anything about the details of the dispute?
It's all very strange and ominous. The court judgement was made here in Germany. Here, too, I was unable to find a corresponding judgment via legal databases.
46
« on: April 16, 2024, 12:34 »
Is there some other motivation behind Bild going after Alamy, because they are owned by PA News now?
Thanks, Pete. That was my impression as well, though I question how one can determine the exact costs for the defense in advance and know that Michael, for example, now has to pay 11.43 pounds. Yes, it seems to be something "personal". Other international and German Stock-agencies are apparently allowed to continue using the logo and cover pages in the collection.
47
« on: April 16, 2024, 10:30 »
I understand this bulky text to mean that Alamy wants to defend itself against the injunction.
Depending on how I read the text, the sum mentioned here then relates either to
a) the costs for the preliminary injunction as requested or
b) the costs for the coming defense against the preliminary injunction.
From my point of view, it is completely unclear whether further unknown costs will be incurred by those affected if the action is lost.
Perhaps native English speakers can clarify this.
48
« on: March 27, 2024, 17:19 »
Received $60.97 for the Contributor fund today.
I'm not complaining about the extra money, but my choice actually looked like this since about a year now  :
If the system works as I understand how it should work... you should have gotten nothing?
So this means either the checkbox is doing nothing, and your content is used for AI training, or they have a serious issue in contributor fund distribution.
Or maybe the checkbox only works for content uploaded after you changed the setting. (because before there was no choice)
None of the above is good, there should be transparancy.
First of all, I'm glad that I don't have to live off this crap Yes, it's not just maximum instraparent. But Shutterstock has probably decided to stop communicating with us altogether. As you can see from the new review times of 7 - 10 days. No Explanation. I would also assume that the images will continue to be used before the checkbox is clicked. At least that corresponds to the amount I have already received last year. I rejected the "data licensing" primarily because rejected images were included in the "data catalog" and could therefore no longer be resubmitted (because they had already been accepted) and were therefore completely lost for sale on Shutterstock. But that didn't change anything. Rejected images are now labeled as "Eligible for data licensing" and cannot be resubmitted either because they have supposedly already been accepted. I hope that I have been able to make this more or less clear.
49
« on: March 27, 2024, 16:28 »
Received $60.97 for the Contributor fund today. I'm not complaining about the extra money, but my choice actually looked like this since about a year now :
50
« on: March 27, 2024, 16:04 »
Received $60.97 for the Contributor fund today.
I'm not complaining about the extra money, but my choice actually looked like this:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
