Quote from: userpoland on September 26, 2025, 11:40
Is there an Adobe Stock representative here? They don't respond to emails. I don't understand Adobe Stock's terms and conditions. Adobe Stock requires copyright or a license for the work in its terms and conditions, but in another sentence it says something completely different, contradicting itself.

"You must own or control all the rights to the files you submit to Adobe Stock."

"Don't submit content that's partially based on the work of other artist"

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/ip-guidelines.html

I contacted a representative of a 3D asset marketplace and also contacted the asset creator.

I asked a simple question: does a 3D asset purchased under a Royalty Free commercial license allow graphic renders? Do I have the copyright to the renders for my render compositions? Can I sell such renders to stock agencies?

The marketplace representative and the asset creator replied that I do hold the copyright to the renders with my compositions from the assets purchased from them and that I can sell the renders to stock agencies.

However, Adobe Stock didn't answer my simple question: can I sell such renders according to their unclear terms and conditions?

This is unprofessional for such a large company.

The question is not so easy to answer.

Often, with free 3D files, it is not permitted to simply render the individual file and sell it for commercial purposes. You should carefully read the source of your free 3D data to find out exactly what is permitted.

And then there may be another problem: the person who created the 3D data and offers it for free use may also have committed a copyright infringement. For example, they may have replicated a protected design without being aware of it.

Therefore, it is important to know which specific 3D files you are referring to that you want to render. Adobe does not know the terms and conditions of the 3D model provider you mentioned. Do you expect them to?

There is 3D data available from commercial 3D databases that you have to pay for. To my knowledge, renderings of this data have always been accepted by Adobe (even when they contained protected designs).

Quote from: Pacesetter on September 26, 2025, 12:26
Don't know about that but you can upload and sell these by the truck load! 100% acceptance rate!

Fanstastic! Yeah!!!

Quote from: ShadySue on August 07, 2025, 23:17

Quote from: Wilm on August 04, 2025, 11:27
I closed my Alamy account a few years ago.

I also objected to the takeover by yayimages at panthermedia. As a result, my panthermedia account is also closed and the images are deleted, which was confirmed to me in a personal e-mail from panthermedia.

Today I discovered that my images are still for sale at Alamy. Under the contributor name "Panther Media Group". There are 8.1 million images under this contributor  name.

Now I ask myself: Why are the images still there? And where does the money go that is still being earned with my images, for example?

https://www.alamy.de/fotos-bilder/?cid=QDKVWB7TRGB48P48N8AEMUQKDTTTCZDKWNLEPDC4S7G6LNH4ZQA7J7MWR5CWLRZ3&name=Panther+Media+Global&sortBy=relevant

Anybody else concerned?

I hope you've asked PantherMedia to explain.

I did so. No answer!

I closed my Alamy account a few years ago.

I also objected to the takeover by yayimages at panthermedia. As a result, my panthermedia account is also closed and the images are deleted, which was confirmed to me in a personal e-mail from panthermedia.

Today I discovered that my images are still for sale at Alamy. Under the contributor name "Panther Media Group". There are 8.1 million images under this contributor  name.

Now I ask myself: Why are the images still there? And where does the money go that is still being earned with my images, for example?

https://www.alamy.de/fotos-bilder/?cid=QDKVWB7TRGB48P48N8AEMUQKDTTTCZDKWNLEPDC4S7G6LNH4ZQA7J7MWR5CWLRZ3&name=Panther+Media+Global&sortBy=relevant

Anybody else concerned?

Quote from: yuriy on July 15, 2025, 18:21
is it just me or has ss been miserable lately?  i mean besides the summer slowdown that most ports experience?  it's been way less than half of AS for me lately and even istock seems to be doing better this year.

For me, "miserable" is still a highly positive formulation. It's almost dead!

I still have credit with panthermedia.

Now I wanted to check whether new sales have been added under yayimages.

My old login no longer works.

It says I should enter my e-mail address to reset the password.

But then it says that my e-mail address is not known...

And now?

Dreamstime has gradually deteriorated over the years. The biggest drop was between 2018 and 2019.

I used to have just under $50 per month there with a good 1,000 images. In 2018, that went down to $22.50. Since 2019, it's only just under $10 a month with approx. 1,400 images. I only upload there because it's extremely fast and without any rejections.

Dreamstime has earned me a total of $4,500 so far. An absolute low earner.

But 123rf has developed much worse. I had double that. In the meantime, nothing is coming in at all - down form more than $100 to $2 per month. I sent an e-mail demanding for my account to be closed immediately. They didn't even respond.

The Shutterstock share is now significantly below the issue price at the time. The number of people interested in the share is close to zero.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on May 31, 2025, 19:24

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 31, 2025, 18:17
Why is it that conspiracy theorists always have this annoying habit of latching onto every new disaster or event like they know everything about it...?

Big difference between a conspiracy "theory" and an actual conspiracy.

Thinking would be wise. Automatically calling something a 'conspiracy theory' as ones only 'argument' is the lazy man's way of avoiding doing that.

A "theory" would be like me saying... You were cloned at birth, a basic install disk was inserted into you to parrot "conspiracy theory" whenever you came across something you didn't care to investigate or understand, but wanted the feeling of being smart without actually being smart. That - would simply be a "theory" - because I really don't have any actual evidence of you being like that, except observations. Simply a theory.

Discovering an actual conspiracy, and not just a 'theory' on the other hand - would be, say - upon reading financial reports and filings of corporations - seeing the connections/connecting the dots between... say several corporations conspiring to lowball residents for some land... the residents don't sell... so then "mysteriously" a wildfire erupts... the residents are "forced" to move out because their houses are burned to a crisp... and then the same corporations that lowballed the land, now conveniently happen to be there to get it for pennies on the dollar... and then afterwards - AMAZINGLY - there are no more wildfires in that specific area. Seeing those connections, and realizing that happens, would not be a theory, but an actual conspiracy.

Yes, these things happen. There are real estate speculators and others who will stop at nothing.

Nevertheless, I still find it astonishing that there are people who consider climate change to be a lie. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether climate change is mainly caused by us humans or mainly by natural causes. What matters in the end is that we humans could at least do our bit to prevent or at least delay the worst. After all, the earth is a transient element in the overall system anyway. Nevertheless, it would be nice if we could somehow manage to spare our direct descendants the worst. And doing that requires a change in thinking.

Not many people are prepared to do this. Least of all those who believe that we should continue to consume just as many of our limited resources as before. Or even more resources in order to become even richer - at least in the short term. And if that's what you want, then you can of course present things as if such fires are being set just to support a climate change lie. Personally, I think this theory is absolute nonsense. Just like all the many other false truths you have repeatedly presented here. And when it has been pointed out to you that you have been taken in by complete nonsense, not a single comment has come from you.

Personally, I would therefore be very grateful if you would continue to move around in your algorithm bubble with your nonsense and spare us from it here. Thank you in advance!

Quote from: SuperPhoto on May 31, 2025, 19:24

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 31, 2025, 18:17
Why is it that conspiracy theorists always have this annoying habit of latching onto every new disaster or event like they know everything about it...?

Big difference between a conspiracy "theory" and an actual conspiracy.

Thinking would be wise. Automatically calling something a 'conspiracy theory' as ones only 'argument' is the lazy man's way of avoiding doing that.

A "theory" would be like me saying... You were cloned at birth, a basic install disk was inserted into you to parrot "conspiracy theory" whenever you came across something you didn't care to investigate or understand, but wanted the feeling of being smart without actually being smart. That - would simply be a "theory" - because I really don't have any actual evidence of you being like that, except observations. Simply a theory.

Discovering an actual conspiracy, and not just a 'theory' on the other hand - would be, say - upon reading financial reports and filings of corporations - seeing the connections/connecting the dots between... say several corporations conspiring to lowball residents for some land... the residents don't sell... so then "mysteriously" a wildfire erupts... the residents are "forced" to move out because their houses are burned to a crisp... and then the same corporations that lowballed the land, now conveniently happen to be there to get it for pennies on the dollar... and then afterwards - AMAZINGLY - there are no more wildfires in that specific area. Seeing those connections, and realizing that happens, would not be a theory, but an actual conspiracy.
[/quote ]

You can compare the figures and see whether that seems realistic.
There are certainly deviations in the weekly ranking because it is not calculated in real time. These deviations should not exist in the overall ranking.

So: My lifetime ranking has fallen to 3,090 today.
I've had 45,625 downloads at Adobe so far - I have only images, no videos.
If there is someone who has sold a similar number of images sold, they can post their total downloads.
If there are significant deviations - which I don't believe - then the Adobe statistics would not be correct.

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2025, 12:35
now 6800

I seem to move up in increments of 20, like every week or 10 days

For me, it's exactly the opposite. I drop 10 positions every three to four weeks.

So you can see that your diligence is rewarded and my laziness is punished.

Quote from: alan b traehern on April 04, 2025, 22:17

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 01, 2025, 11:35

Quote from: synthetick on March 31, 2025, 22:06
For anyone deleting files from Adobe, note the following clause in your contributor agreement:

"6.2 Managing the Work. You may remove any Work from the Website at any time, provided, however, that you do not remove more than 100 items of Work or 10% of the Work, whichever is greater, in any 90-day period without 90 days' prior written notice to Adobe."

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20240216.pdf

ok,I missed this one.

anyway I was planning on deleting 500 images,which is less than 10% of my port,if I decide to do so.

thanks!

Please explain how less images and deleting images you already have accepted, will make more money? What's the secret.

I don't think your question can be answered seriously because nobody knows the algorithm.

But: It can be assumed that there is a portfolio ranking that influences where a contributor's newly accepted images are ranked. To put it simply: Poor portfolio ranking = poor classification of new images. And vice versa. And poor ranking of new images can lead to them never being found, which will further worsen the ranking of the entire portfolio. A vicious circle.

And also quite simply put: If you have a lot of images in your portfolio that don't sell at all or have never sold, it could therefore make sense to delete these images (after self-critical analysis) in order to improve the portfolio ranking (the portfolio quality).

This is all a thesis. Nobody can tell you whether this is really the case. But: If you have 10,000 images in your portfolio, of which 9,000 images have never sold, but the remaining 1,000 images are selling very well, such a cleaning action could - theoretically - be advantageous.

3080

Quote from: cobalt on March 19, 2025, 10:27

Quote from: Wilm on March 19, 2025, 10:14
Income half of February 2024.

How much content did you upload in the last 12 months?

18 files.

Compared to February 2024, revenue in particular has fallen. In terms of downloads, it was also less, but the main problem is a significant drop in RPD compared to February 2024.

Income half of February 2024.

Okay, let's discuss the "lottery factor".

Using Steve as an example:
His bestseller on shutterstock should, if only the factors "diligence, image composition/composition, aesthetics, keywords, commercial benefit" would count, also be a bestseller on AS or istock or somewhere else. But this is obviously not the case.

There may be 3 reasons for this:
- The agencies' clients have different tastes.
- The image only ranked well on shutterstock.
- Possibly: The image was only accepted by shutterstock.

From my point of view, it is therefore simply luck if shutterstock ranked the image so well after it was uploaded that it achieved sales right at the beginning and then continued to rise in the ranking.

How high the lottery factor is, as far as the assessment of the agencies is concerned, I simply compare just shutterstock with Adobe Stock based on my images. The ratings obviously were similar for a few images. For a few images, the differences are extreme.


                SS               AS
Image 1:   $ 4,400       $ 240
Image 2:   $ 1,645       $ 808
Image 3:   $ 1,630       $ 1,810
Image 4:   $ 1,190       $ 128
Image 5:   $ 1,130       $ 0 (was never accepted - despite several attempts)
Image 6:   $ 1.000       $ 230
Image 7:   $ 880          $ 307
Image 8:   $ 870          $ 201
Image 9:   $ 850          $ 225
Image 10: $ 760          $ 1.365

I have images that fetched $300 or $500 on AS, but only $3 or $5 on shutterstock - and the other way round. And of course there are images selling quite well on one agency that have no downloads at all on the other agency because of a miserable starting ranking. On istock, lots of my best selling images weren't even accepted (despite several attempts), so I only have about 800 images online there. And I know that the images that weren't accepted would have made thousands of dollars there too. But it's just not meant to be.

Another lottery factor is of course the copy cats.
If you are lucky in the lottery, you will only be copied a little. If you are unlucky, the usually worse copies will overtake the originals in a short time, because the novelty factor naturally also plays a role in the sorting of the images.

Yes - there is a big lottery factor! And it will have more weight because of AI in future.

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 13, 2025, 16:56
The information about his bestsellers is in one of the last analyses of his portfolio.
"How passive is income from microstock photography".

Thank you, Andrej. Found it!

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 13, 2025, 13:48

Quote from: Wilm on March 13, 2025, 12:35

Quote from: alan b traehern on March 13, 2025, 11:18
I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 20:16
What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Hmmm,

It's not that simple, Alan.

Sure, once an image has worked its way to the top of the search results, it should sell better and better.

But when you upload an image, it gets a starting ranking. If the image is ranked on pages 1 to 3 for certain search terms, that's great.

If, on the other hand, it lands on page 15 or 20 or even further back, there is a very high probability that it will be "stillborn". Then there is a risk that this image will never be found.

The image (concept, image structure, aesthetics, customer benefit) itself is not so important. What is important is how the selection assesses the value of the image and where the image is initially classified within the mass of other images on the same topic.

Of course, this problem automatically increases the larger an agency's database becomes. It was therefore easier to get a good starting ranking with an image when the database still contained 20 million files. Today, with half a billion, the air automatically becomes thinner.

Or, if things go really badly, the image is even rejected by one agency, while other agencies consider it to be an image with high commercial value.

You can't argue away the "lottery factor". It's part of the game. After 15 years, I can assure every contributor of that. I can also give you countless examples if you like.

I mean Steve's alltime bestsellers were just a plastic bag and a cat on a plain white background. Alan, how you then can even talk about quality and not just the random factor, which is more important.

Where did Steve write about his bestsellers?

Quote from: alan b traehern on March 13, 2025, 11:18
I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 20:16
What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Hmmm,

It's not that simple, Alan.

Sure, once an image has worked its way to the top of the search results, it should sell better and better.

But when you upload an image, it gets a starting ranking. If the image is ranked on pages 1 to 3 for certain search terms, that's great.

If, on the other hand, it lands on page 15 or 20 or even further back, there is a very high probability that it will be "stillborn". Then there is a risk that this image will never be found.

The image (concept, image structure, aesthetics, customer benefit) itself is not so important. What is important is how the selection assesses the value of the image and where the image is initially classified within the mass of other images on the same topic.

Of course, this problem automatically increases the larger an agency's database becomes. It was therefore easier to get a good starting ranking with an image when the database still contained 20 million files. Today, with half a billion, the air automatically becomes thinner.

Or, if things go really badly, the image is even rejected by one agency, while other agencies consider it to be an image with high commercial value.

You can't argue away the "lottery factor". It's part of the game. After 15 years, I can assure every contributor of that. I can also give you countless examples if you like.

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

A company that makes its profit by bleeding its "employees" - i.e. the contributors - to death must go under. Anyone who does not understand that the contributors and their creativity are the foundation for growth must and will go under. Even short-term supposed flights of fancy by shareholders will not change this!

Why am I not surprised? 

Downloads were okay - average. Income far below average because of a miserable RPD.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 10, 2025, 18:47

Quote from: stoker2014 on January 10, 2025, 18:36
Share the link.   

N O !

Exactly!