|
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 - Roscoe
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18
26
« on: March 27, 2024, 06:53 »
Nobody can check the sales system.
Yeah that's the thing. How do we know, how can anybody check that without direct involvement? We don't, and we can't. Not even speaking of something intentional. But on a technical level. Consider a database with hundreds of millions of records. All the programming and scripts that involve connecting all the commission variants from different kinds of subscriptions, direct sales, credit packs, premium access, Getty library, iStock library, Thinkstock library or any other weird thing they set up in the past.... Consider all those API's from partners or customers with direct access. There's a lot of it than can go technically wrong, from database corruptions over api's not working to misprogramming that nobody ever discovers and when they do can take weeks or months to fix... Consider all the internal teams and divisions having access and manipulation rights on the database intervening to their own needs creating side-effects for others... The way Getty or any other big agencies operates their data must be very complex. I'm not very technically involved, but from my work experience from more service managing related positions I can assure you that data or transactions in likewise constructions gets lost. And very often, when discovered, the consideration is made: what costs more? Accepting the data-loss, or trying to fix the issue and also restore data loss or perform corrections, wherever possible. There are cases where data loss is accepted as a more cost-efficient way to deal with the issue. There are a lot of cases too where the issue does gets fixed, but it can takes months to do that due to the complexity of the issue, and the complexity of the company itself (often dealing with off-shore programmers who might be competent people on a technical level, but have no clue at all about the system that they are trying to fix, they just write code) I'm pretty sure that in this whole mess, a unreported sales happen. And they can percentage-wise be considered as the exception, we're still talking about quite the volume.
27
« on: March 21, 2024, 12:29 »
I don't like complaining, but good riddance, has February been a bad month.
Even without the negative earnings it would have been on the low side.
Adobe Stock aside, all agencies have performing below average for me in 2024, despite regular uploads.
28
« on: March 21, 2024, 08:44 »
No reviews here too. Slow sales here too. Shutterstock seems to be sinking into irrelevance.
29
« on: March 18, 2024, 08:44 »
A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate
https://www.shutterstock.com/license
Alright, stupid question, but nevertheless, here I go.: what is considered as reproduction of an image. Less than 500.000 prints seems plausible. But what about views on webshops like Amazon? Every time someone sees your image (web page gets loaded) it's a reproduction? Every time a webshop adds the book it's a reproduction? More or less the same question for newspapers or magazines. Everytime someone reads the online article it's a "reproduction"?
30
« on: March 08, 2024, 14:38 »
I did get a small contributor fund fee last month if I recall correctly. Might also be January, don't remember exactly.
Reply to @Stockmaan: Yes, Shutterstock took a nosedive. Up to a point where I start to wonder: do they have an issue with reporting sales? For the very first time in years, I got a day without any download. That never happened in years. At least, not on weekdays. Weekends or holidays on exception, but even on bad weekdays I got a handful of downloads.
31
« on: March 08, 2024, 14:25 »
It sucks on Dreamstime they have $100 payout minimum. I'm at $91 now, but what if they go out of business? They may just get away with not paying any contributors below $100 sales balance in a broad daylight. Sales revenue is rightfully ours. Any amount should be claimed by us. It would be a flat-out theft of our money if that happens.
Probably they will do as CanStock did!
So far, Dreamstime always has been one of the more respectable agencies. At least, that's how I experience them. Yes, the $100 payout limit is very high compared to other agencies, but on the other hand, I'm not worried too much about not getting paid. Either they pull the plug and cease operations, like canstock did. Clean closure, everyone gets paid. Or, in case of bankruptcy, there's always a fair chance that another company takes over and eventually pays the contributors. It's not a tiny nitwit agency, they do have quite a big and diverse library and still a fair customer base. Same happened with EyeEm by the way. A lot of struggles and a lot of uncertainty, but in the end, we all got our coffee money and some of us even more. Speaking of coffee money: most you can lose (or not being paid) is $ 99.99. And that's not the end of the world. I hope none of that happens, and Dreamstime stays around.
32
« on: February 23, 2024, 14:00 »
Some will say that it's the same thing as in Leonardo's time, only a brush and a canvas was needed... 
Which is kinda true? Very talented painters, with a unique style, idea and persona will still make their money with painting. But of course, that takes way more than just a brush and a canvas. Just like it takes more than only a digital camera and a memory card ;-)
33
« on: February 23, 2024, 09:45 »
Appreciate it is in grey zone but just because agencies adjust their terms of service if AI can't be copyrighted (ok debatable) why would people pay for AI images on the agencies they could just download and use for free.
They pay for the same reason they dont just steal content from the internet or download a file with a commercial cc license from flickr: quality control of the file by Adobe and legal reassurance.
The majority of content used on the planet is stolen, not paid.
Then there are agencies with tons of free content.
And then there is the cheapest option: take your own picture with your mobile phone.
And now there is ai.
The most important thing we sell is TIME, not content.
The customer can browse the edited collections of agencies and save tons of time.
High end customers can also ask for personal curations from the agency editors to save even more time. Personal service that is still cheaper than making your team search.
Content can be sourced from many places, often even for free, but a if you compare browsing Adobe to sifting through Billions? of free images on flickrit is not comparable at all.
The marketing team employees are expensive, stock agencies are a very, very cheap resource compared to other options.
So, if Unspalsh didnt destroy all the agencies and the billions of free flickr files dont stop the downloads, why would ai?
I agree with all of this, but some nuances. imho free libraries like Unsplash, Flickr, or others do take away volume from paid downloads. I see a lot of content in magazines or newspapers that is licensed via one of those channels. That would have been a paid license otherwise. We don't know how big that impact is, but I think it's fair to assume that free libraries do have an impact on our download volumes. AI is slightly different, because it's provided by the same agencies as the ones who offer non-ai content, and paid downloads, but it has an impact on the downloads for those who stick with uploading non-ai content. And I think that's OP's point. Are we doomed? Those who adapt probably not. Many who don't adapt probably yes, or at least severely impacted, and a minority probably also no because for other reasons. Anecdotal example. I recently came across a wedding photographer who still shoots weddings on film. Analog. He charges a few $1000's, way more than others who shoot digital, and his business is thriving. He didn't adapt and is doing well because he's very good, and he's selling his niche as an asset, a scarcity, or even a gimmick. Who knows. It works. Needlessly to say: he's the rare exception. Many others unwilling to adapt went out of business.
34
« on: February 23, 2024, 09:27 »
You demonstrated things perfectly. The fact remains that this technological turning point that we are experiencing is truly unprecedented, difficult to copy/paste from the past. But there are also other image industrial powers outside of AI. And they may want to fight on the legal level.
Hmm not sure? Look what the internet did to everyone's lives. Look at how social media impacted our society and politics. What companies like Uber or Airbnb did to regular taxi drivers or hotel owners. And whether it's social media, or crowd-sourced service companies... all of these developments had their times of operating in legal gray zones, and most of the successful companies in these areas blatantly crossed lines. Worst case they just came away with it because they could blame someone else, or best case they had to pay a fine, which they (years later) happily did because they already made a ton of money while operating in legal gray zones. You are right that AI is another technological development or causing a turning point, and difficult to predict how huge the impact will be, but it's not really different than other developments. It destroys previously established and seemingly robust companies, and creates new ones that might become even bigger. It takes away jobs from some people, and creates new opportunities for others. Only thing that's different is the speed, but also here: technology has always developed with increasing speed, as one tech helps out another one. We just came to a point where democratic policymaking is unable to keep up with the development, complexity and impact of new technology.
35
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:39 »
Since people who upload AI-generated images don't own any copyright, why can these people sell these images and get royalties???
Isn't it written in the terms of use for stock sites that you must own the copyright???
Come on, big clean... GOOO!!!
That also my feeling, AI is theoretically still operating in a legal gray zone? The reality however, is that a lot of tech companies are thriving on AI (looking at you NVIDIA) and it is already implemented and being used my others. Policymakers will create legal boundaries in favor of the industries, who already matured and implemented a technology which is used on a large scale by customers. They are not going to torpedo a whole industry to let them start from scratch, doing it the fair way. They are not going to shut down applications on customers side, even if it was developed in a legal gray zone. Agencies too will not just slaughter one of their cash cows by deleting AI content. They will adjust their TOS, and they will lobby policymakers in their favor if they can't adjust the TOS because of legal boundaries. The genie is out of the bottle, and it won't get back in.
36
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:29 »
The easiest tool for copying is not ai but a normal camera.
In fact it is usually a lot faster to copy a bestselling image by just taking a similar picture.
Also customers and clients, if they really want to save money, they can just take pictures with their iphones. Including things like wood backgrounds, green grass and sky etc...a lot of the content that is ultrageneric is very, very easy to take yourself.
And yet here we are.
And if it is true that Shutterstock is getting 50% less content even if they don't take any ai but on Adobe sales are increasing although or probably because they have an additional ai collection, then ai content is our friend that brings more subscribers to the agency that pays us more and treats us well.
The easiest way to deal with ai worries is to just try it yourself. Even just for fun, you don't have to sell it.
It becomes easier to understand that it is just a tool, like Photoshop is a tool.
I'm not an experienced AI prompter, but I wonder whether that's really the case. I can imagine a lot of situations where AI prompting seems to be faster and cheaper than actually producing the image. Finding (and if needed, renting) a location, finding (and if needed hiring) the right models, propping a set, hiring a photographer (or investing your own time) and do post-production seems to be way more time-consuming and costly than paying a competent AI prompter to generate the AI image. Thinking of generic business settings here for example, or generic lifestyle situations. I agree that it's just an additional tool, and that there's no other way than embrace it. It won't go away, it's here to stay and to play a dominant role in certain market segments. But it also opens up the market to to a lot more people than only photo/videographers. I'm convinced that having photography skills can also improve your AI prompting quality, but it's no hard requirement. So this definitely brings in more competition (yes, just like what smartphones did to DSLR's and what DSLR's did to SLR's...) resulting in lower individual sales volumes for those who are competing in those very saturated segments. imho it all comes down to a very simple logic. The market might still be growing, the supply, driven by technology, is even growing stronger, and some segments are becoming even more saturated than they already are. This causes lower individual sales volumes, lower value for individual content. This is what we are seeing for quite some years now, and if you ask me AI will speed up that process. Maybe even up to a point where buyer experience is disturbed, because they will get the feeling to be looking for a needle in a haystack, but that's a different discussion :-).
37
« on: February 23, 2024, 06:57 »
It strongly depends on the content in your portfolio I would say. If you used to be strong on topics that can be generated by AI, then it's only logical that your sales decline due to increased competition from AI. the amount that gets uploaded every day is massive. And customers can create their own AI content if they have the knowledge to do so, they don't even need a stock library anymore.
Abstract backgrounds or generic images with a broad field of application (thinking generic food, ingredients, generic people doing generic things, standard landscapes for a background, ...) are subject to severely increased competition I would say. All of my images in this area which did well in the past are struggling nowadays.
More specific content is, for the time being, on the safer side, as AI struggles to generate this or simply cannot do that. Thinking specific or lesser popular locations, editorials, events, certain products, newer developments or hypes... but all of that is often a niche market, and that's generally not where the big money is.
Authenticity is something else many agencies claim to take seriously, and I personally believe it holds a lot of value. On the other side: Still seeing a lot of overly perfect people on ads, fake smiles, overly dramatic landscapes and sunsets on travel location ads... so the question is how much buyes (and in the end, all of us as a customer) is willing to buy the authenticity claim.
38
« on: February 11, 2024, 16:09 »
Anyhow, I learnt that having different images from the same subject can be useful, but only if the image is... well a different take on the same subject. So to me it also makes sense then to have the differences reflected in the title and keywords.
Not sure it's really crucial, because buyers will see the related images in the section 'more from this contributor'.
39
« on: February 11, 2024, 15:54 »
It's an interesting experiment, and I understand that the contributors want to stay anonymous, because buying your own images is against the TOS. But on the other hand, this leaves very little room for verification. Anyone can claim anything. Always be careful with 3rd party information like "heard it from a friend who has been told by a friend that another friend..." Information can get thickened or altered per hop :-).
Not saying it isn't true, but always be careful with jumping into conclusions. We don't know what happened afterwards, there might be a delay in reporting, and maybe the rest of the sales were reported later, after the story started to get around. Or the system flagged some sales as fraudulent, because, well, they were buying their own images, and however not directly, it still might have triggered some red flags in the system.
That said. I wouldn't be too surprised either if it's true. There's also no way to know what has been sold to whom and how it is used. We just have to... trust the agencies. And in all fairness, that's a bit of a stretch for me. They might not hold back on reporting deliberately, but technical issues do occur, and what happens in case of database corruptions, interfacing issues, or anything else technical. I can imagine that in such case some sales went into the nirvana and never got reported.
I don't have a personal experience with this. I use google alerts to see if one of my images pops up on the internet (if I'm credited) and in such cases there was always a matching sale reported at the agency. I know this covers only the tip of the iceberg, and impossible to track for images that sell daily or very regularly, but at least, it's that. Until now I could not catch one of the agencies on not reporting a sale.
40
« on: February 03, 2024, 12:11 »
It would really help if those small fish agencies would lower their payout threshold. It's 100$ at Dreamstime, it's 50$ for 123RF and DepositPhoto's.
I totally agree but in my particular case, DP reaches payout now before the SS. They are also a great starting point when submitting to multiple agencies.
I guess it shows how different portfolio's perform at different agencies. I have have monthly payout at Shutterstock (25$) but it takes multiple months or even more than a year to reach payout at DP (50$). Roughly the same portfolio's on both sites.
41
« on: February 03, 2024, 10:25 »
It would really help if those small fish agencies would lower their payout threshold. It's 100$ at Dreamstime, it's 50$ for 123RF and DepositPhoto's.
Makes no sense. Even Shutterstock and Adobe have a rather low payout threshold of 25$. 100$ at iStock/Getty too, but with them it's easy to reach.
Decreasing royalties and sales volumes should be in line with payout thresholds.
42
« on: February 02, 2024, 08:17 »
A little bit more nuanced here: I had a rather decent month in sales volume at Shutterstock, considered January is never a good month.
But earnings are really low, RPD of 0,27. I can't recall seeing such a density of sales in the 10 - 20 cent range.
Level reset and climbing up is one thing, but there's something else too. Almost every S&O sale is the bare minimum of 10 cents.
To compensate, I had a very decent month at Adobe Stock. Ratio Shutterstock vs. Adobe is 1:2 with only half the portfolio size at Adobe.
There were times it was the other way around, and no matter what, Shutterstock came out first, leading with quite a big margin.
EU-based here.
43
« on: February 01, 2024, 02:19 »
Just wondering: anyone who stayed got any sales since the acquisition by Freepik?
They paid out remaining balances after bankruptcy, and from what I read the EyeEm portfolio's would be included in the paid section of Freepik, but I didn't get any sales reported.
I uploaded a few shots to see whether they would still be moderated, and got accepted for partner collection. Not sure what it means, because from what I understood partner collections were deleted.
So things seem to be operational there at EyeEm, but no sales, or worse, no reporting.
44
« on: January 25, 2024, 09:44 »
Almost missed it, but I saw a small fee from the contributor fund yesterday. Not even half of what we got in 2023.
45
« on: January 25, 2024, 06:57 »
Rounded numbers:
1. Adobe Stock (31%)
2. Shutterstock (29%)
3. iStock/Getty (17%)
4. Wirestock (11%)
5. EyeEm (2%)
6. Dreamstime (2%)
7. DepositPhoto's (2%)
8. P5 (1%)
9. PantherMedia (1%)
10. Zoonar (1%)
11. MotionArray (1%)
12. Alamy (0,5%)
12. Some other breadcrumbs
Regarding Wirestock: I have some images there that I distributed over all agencies, but most are not distributed to the agencies I maintain a personal account on. Adobe is my lead seller there too, despite having most images on my personal account with Adobe. Every now and then a nice surprise there from partners I don't maintain a personal account (Envato for instance) but most of the time I regret having hem distributing my content to main agencies. I don't upload there anymore, so it's all about milking a historical portfolio.
EyeEm is bankruptcy payout. Haven't sold anything since they were acquired by Freepik.
So the number would be higher if they would still be in business as they were before.
Also important to mention is that I don't maintain equal porfolio's. Smaller ports on EyeEm, MotionArray, Panther, Zoonar and Alamy.
Biggest portfolio is iStock/Getty (they take everything except illustrative editorial).
Adobe has the smallest portfolio of the big three, as they don't take a lot of my editorial content. (yet they are my best-earner)
And. Am I a fool maintaining my portfolio's on smaller earners?
Yeah. Probably. On the other hand, it's mostly automated uploads, so very little effort.
46
« on: January 25, 2024, 06:41 »
47
« on: January 24, 2024, 01:46 »
Ah, another e-mail arrived.
Pictoright Collective Licensing Payback 2023 H2
What is that?
Oh just can't wait, maybe I got 55 for AI licensing? Or a partner site? Tell me if you find out.
https://pictoright.nl/en/
From their website: Pictoright is the copyright organization for visual creators in the Netherlands: illustrators, visual artists, graphic designers, photographers, architects and other image creators (or their heirs). These visual creators can join Pictoright free of charge to claim the collective fees to which they are entitled. In addition, they can commission Pictoright to protect their copyright and collect royalties for the use of their work.
Pictoright is a non-profit foundation designated by the government to collect and distribute collective rights. Pictoright also exploits individual copyrights, offers legal assistance, acts as an inquiry point and is committed to improving the legal standing of image creators.
Pictoright represents the interests of visual authors by exercising, promoting and protecting copyrights. We do this by:
distributing collective remuneration to all visual authors who are entitled to it;
exploiting the individual copyrights of affiliated visual authors;
acting legally on behalf of affiliated visual authors;
informing creators and users by means of talks and publications;
supporting organizations or activities that strengthen the social and cultural position of visual authors.
The exercise and enforcement of copyright is essential for visual creators. Pictoright supports visual authors in this regard. It strives for maximum compensation for visual creators and for an optimal distribution of this compensation among as many copyright holders as possible.
As an authoritative copyright representative, Pictoright is transparent, flexible, involved, service-driven and focused on the market. All income and expenses are fully accounted for. Pictoright is supervised in this by the government ( College van Toezicht Auteursrechten, CvTA). The Board, management and staff feel responsible for the entire organization and for the copyright interests of all visual creators.
Pictoright is the copyright organization for visual creators; There are similar organizations for writers and writing journalists (Lira), composers (Buma Stemra) and publishers (Pro). Pictoright frequently acts in cooperation with these organizations to represent the interests of all copyright holders in the Netherlands. We also reach agreements on how to distribute the remuneration. We act in line with the requirements set by the CBO Quality Mark.
Pictoright has also made arrangements with equivalent organizations abroad so that the copyright of visual creators is maintained across borders. Anyone who joins us for for the full copyright management is assured of copyright income and protection in more than thirty countries, including England, Germany, France, Belgium and the US.
I don't know how to interpret this, but it seems that Getty managed to get a flat fee from the Dutch copyright organization for the use of their images, and distributed a commission to the contributors. If that would be the case, it would be weird, because Getty provides licenses, so no need to pay twice. On the other hand, they maybe used the argumentation that there's a lot of fraud and misuse, and therefore received a flat fee compensation. I don't know.
48
« on: January 19, 2024, 08:44 »
I don't upload directly to them but got some sales through Zoonar. Royalties after distribution fee are still rather okay'ish, ranging from 32 eurocents to a few euro's.
Also P5 is distributing images there indeed, but can't really remember getting any sale through P5. (they might not report it as a distribution sale)
Not really worth it if you ask me, but good enough add-on through distribution for those who don't mind taking that route.
49
« on: January 19, 2024, 03:57 »
Got a crappy December too. Already expected it, as I took a look on the views and interactions in the content statistics. Only half of what I used to get, and earnings are even less than half. Doesn't look much better when I look at the current situation for January.
iStock/Getty accounted for 17% of my microstock earnings in 2023, which is a small drop in comparison to the 19% in 2022.
50
« on: January 16, 2024, 13:27 »
Seems to be working fine for me. Latest uploads a few days ago and the're in my profile. Regular images, not AI.
But sales are broken, that's for sure :-)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
