|
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 - Her Ugliness
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 25
26
« on: August 17, 2024, 01:19 »
Reached 5 months now.  I have re-submitted these stuck images after 4 months of waiting and the resubmitted images also havenj't been reviewed after a month, so that's not solving the problem. Don't think these will ever be reviewed. And there isn't even anything tricky about these images that are stuck. One of them for example is a nature shot, so there is not content that could be copyrighted or any other problem that could explain why it's - or any of the mages from thet series - not getting reviewed.
27
« on: August 15, 2024, 13:45 »
Nothing new, its something I was already doing for some time
Actually this is new. Up until this pointg iStock stated very specificially that they do not allowe any kind of editing with AI tools.
How will they know if you used content aware or AI to remove a person or a logo from a picture?
Again. This is new. How they know or don't know is not my problem.
28
« on: August 15, 2024, 00:09 »
Nothing new, its something I was already doing for some time
Actually this is new. Up until this pointg iStock stated very specificially that they do not allowe any kind of editing with AI tools.
29
« on: August 08, 2024, 01:15 »
I am glad you got your account back, but the reason why it was blocked in the first place is outrageous.
If you have a portfolio where you have many photos of the same topic, it can happen quite often that customers buy multiple images from you. I don't think the same buyer ever bought 50 images from me at once, but 20 or 30 happens from time to time. A customer might want to build a website about a certain topic, or make a brochure. It's absolutely not far-fetched that a customer might need many images of the same topic and if one contributor offers many of such images in good quality, why not buy it from one user? It might even add some consistancy to the look of your website or brochure to have your images done by the same photographed, thus giving the image the same look.
So banning a contributor because of something like this is ridiculous, even more so for multiple months. If Adobe feels like this was something that needs to be investogated - sure, investigate. But don't deprive people of their income for months when they did absolutely nothing wrong!
30
« on: August 02, 2024, 04:04 »
The way I understand this basically nothing changes? For me my earning were never reset to 0 on the 1st. It was always a few days later. I think they now just made it "official".
31
« on: July 29, 2024, 10:35 »
I have the same problem, so it's not just you.
32
« on: July 25, 2024, 00:46 »
I now do it in such a way that I simply delete the pictures that slip through AS and have been in the queue for 3 or more months and upload them again.
I also have images that aren't getting reviewed, waiting 4 months now, resubmitted them about a month ago - Again not getting reviewed, while all other images submitted around that time have been reviewed long ago, so that solution does not seem to work for everyone.
33
« on: July 13, 2024, 00:44 »
I submitted 3 Editorial yesterday and they got approved overnight. Last week 1 RF, waited 3 or 4 days only.
My theory was QA Failures push submitted images down the queue, but apparently that might not be true. Only other explanation I can think off is that AI pre-processing assigns some sort of "worthiness" token, so assets with estimated lower sale potential have to wait longer (i.e flowers).
It would actually be quite interesting to hear from Adobe about this. If someone really has to wait 8 weeks or more, that is quite brutal
I really do not know what exactly is causing it. I have resubmitted that image that has been sitting in review for 4 months and some that have been waiting to be reviewed for 3 or 2 months now (without deleting the original ones, because for previous tests like this I know it will take just as long for the re-submitted images) and they are again not getting reviewd while other images I submitted after that have been reviewed a long time ago already. What I noticed is that images from the same series of the same topic, even though submitted at different times, all end up in my "not getting reviewed for months" queue. And I am pretty sure it's not sale potential, because at least one of the series is of a environmental/climate change topic that, while regularly picked up in the media, hasn't really beeen covered on Adobe well yet, so it should have good sale potential. While I could find some possible explanations why most of the other images might take longer to review (like someone wants to make sure there is no copyright violation), about this particular series I have absolutely no clue what is causing this extreme delay.
34
« on: July 12, 2024, 05:57 »
My longest image is now wiating to be reviewed for 4 MONTHS. 
Out of curiosity: What is your acceptance rate? Did you have recent QA Failures?
My acceptance rate ist over 95%. I do not know what QA failure is.
35
« on: July 11, 2024, 03:38 »
My longest image is now wiating to be reviewed for 4 MONTHS.
36
« on: June 28, 2024, 11:28 »
none of you have the removed content in the pages of the rejected content section?
I wouldn't know which of the images haven't been in that section before.
37
« on: June 28, 2024, 00:38 »
No one else got this yesterday? Got a mail with the title "Updated content policies on Adobe Stock"
And it says "As of June 27, 2024, Adobe Stock will be updating its content policies. You are receiving this email because you have 1 assets that will be removed from the site. For additional information about the updated policies, please see our Account and Submission Guidelines."
There is a link to the Account and Submission Guidelines, but I don't see anything new and I don't see anything any of my images would not comply with, so I have no idea what that one asset that will be removed is and why.
38
« on: June 26, 2024, 22:52 »
That week I had about $200 in sales. Around 12,000 images in portfolio. Only $1/wk for 4,000 assets is pretty bad honestly. If you can post your portfolio, I can give you an advice. My portfolio is below.
https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=203855208
hi one question
You have very good images but I see a lot of people images I m not talking about the portraits but pics from random people
How are these accepted ??adobe dont take editorial
In many of them people are recognisable
They are AI generated.
39
« on: June 19, 2024, 03:40 »
Worst month since...I don't even know - past 5 years or so? Can't remmeber when was the last time that I made that little money. Hard to imagine that iStock was my best selling agency not all that long ago. Now even Dreamstime earns me more money than iStock. 
40
« on: June 08, 2024, 01:58 »
if you exceed 8 weeks of waiting for the review I recommend you use the support form found at the bottom of the portal for authors by choosing "contact us".
But if they tell you to re-submit the image, I strongly advice against it - because it will just be stuck in review for another 2+ months. There seem to be certain images reviewers just refuse to touch, even after resubmitting. They do get reviewed eventually, but long after the 8 weeks waiting time.
41
« on: June 06, 2024, 05:57 »
I think you might be a little late to the party?
42
« on: June 02, 2024, 06:11 »
However, you can log in, delete the data catalogue then opt back out.
I am very confident that even opting in for just one second will make Shutterstock take all your files to train their AI. That's all they need.
Quite likely but remember they trained it on most of our content without asking and before offering opt out so they already have most of it.
Yes, of course, like all agencies. But at least they aren't supposed to use my new content for training - unless I opt in.
43
« on: June 01, 2024, 09:39 »
However, you can log in, delete the data catalogue then opt back out.
I am very confident that even opting in for just one second will make Shutterstock take all your files to train their AI. That's all they need.
44
« on: May 25, 2024, 05:37 »
why, Adobe, would you dismiss and discount all that your most fervent and loyal customers aspire to?
There is a simple answer to that: Because they aim at replacing us with new customers. The customers who don't need any real skills and talent and just click a few buttons to have Adobe produce some AI "photo" for them. Everyone can do that, so a much bigger potential customer base to make money from.
45
« on: May 23, 2024, 02:26 »
10% of the nominated assets for me will be very good!  very probably less....
I go all in,then remove only some best-selling content.
but if they're best selling, they wouldn't be available to nominate
I had a few images selected for the free collection that have over 100 sales. Not my "best sellers", but what I consider good sellers and I am definately not nominating these. I am also not nominating any image that fails to sell well on Adobe, but is a good seller on other agencies, which are quite a lot of images. I have images that sold 1000+ times on other agencies, but only 1 or 2 times or even not at all on Adobe. Adobe has always been the one odd agency, where my regular bestsellers from other agencies never really got much attention.
46
« on: May 19, 2024, 04:52 »
How would this even help other types of artists? Sony is a huge company with famous artists that has an interest in keeping AI companies from mining their content. They know AI is a serious risk to their and their artists' income.
But who would help photographers and illustrators? We don't have a lobby and the only ones who should have had any interest in protecting our artwork - the microstock agencies - are the ones who have stabbed us in the back by using our content to train their AIs.
47
« on: May 19, 2024, 04:48 »
Ouch, horrible month.
Hard to imagine that around 2-3 years ago iStock used to be my best earnin agency. Now it's getting closer to one of the minor agencies for me.
48
« on: May 13, 2024, 04:30 »
Last year it was August.
49
« on: May 08, 2024, 08:55 »
I have not seen any rule on Adobe where it says it was forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt.
Do not get me wrong, I think what is happening to you is very clearly moraly wrong (but this was absolutely to be expected with AI), but it's not explicitly against Adobe's rules.
This is forbidden by Adobe in several ways.
There is the warning that we all get that you can't use other artists' work as a reference in your prompt when you upload an image.
I do not know the original text in English, as Adobe is in German for me, but for me it explicitle says I cannot use other artists' s names in the promts, which is something completely different and also how Mat explained it here. What they mean is you are not allowed to submit AI images generated with a promt like for example "Young woman painted in the art style of Neo Rauch".
50
« on: May 08, 2024, 08:51 »
I have not seen any rule on Adobe where it says it was forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt.
I still interpret this note from Abode as a prohibition on using another author's image (img2img in AI).
Note: Please review our requirements before submitting content created using generative artificial intelligence tools. Reminder, you cannot submit content generated with reference to other artist(s) in the prompt.
I understand 'reference to other artist' to mean both the author's name and links to their works. Could I be interpreting this rule incorrectly?
What they mean is you are not allowed to submit AI images generated with a promt like for example "Young woman painted in the art style of Neo Rauch" This is something that was explained by Mat here when the new rule was introduced.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
