|
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 - kuriouskat
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 28
26
« on: February 11, 2025, 04:26 »
To create an account, you need to upload a valid passport. Do these people have so many passports?
After all, Shutterstock not only deletes the portfolio, it also blacklists the author by passport.
Not these days, a photo ID isn't required.
27
« on: January 21, 2025, 11:58 »
Probably all Canva contributors got the email recently regarding content suitability for educational purposes, as per the following except:
In the coming months, you may receive emails from Canva notifying you if some of your content in Canva's library may not be suitable for some users in Canva for Education. Don't worryyou don't need to take any action. Your content will still be accessible outside the age-specific settings for Canva for Education.
I fully expected to get notification that some of my content was not considered suitable for younger viewers, as I have a number of wildlife images involving predation, and even one or two of the main sites have deemed them only suitable as mature content.
However, I was surprised to receive an email today as follows:
Notice of violation
To create a safe and respectful environment for everyone on Canva, we have policies that restrict certain kinds of content and behavior.
Were writing to let you know that content or behavior associated with your account violates Canvas Contributor Agreement.
There is then a long list of images involved, including the wildlife predation shots that I expected to be excluded from this age-related section.
The email closes with:
Repeated violations may result in the permanent suspension of your Canva account.
I honestly don't have an issue with what Canva are doing, but telling me that I'm violating the Canva Contributor Agreement and this may result in permanent suspension of my account, is a bit alarming.
28
« on: January 18, 2025, 09:11 »
For the month of December, Getty gave me twice as much income as Shutterstock.
This has never happened before. It means our money is being stolen. Or Shutterstock is being deliberately bankrupted.
Or customers are going elsewhere? A drop in income doesn't mean that anything underhanded is happening and, if you look at the search, there is a lot of very ordinary content at the top of the search, and a lot of AI content. Couple this with the facility to search by 'new' being removed, and perhaps customers have just got fed up with not finding what they need, so they are going elsewhere. As my RPD is so low on Shutterstock, I'd be much happier if customers went to Adobe or Istock, as the RPD there is more than double Shutterstock's rate.
29
« on: January 18, 2025, 08:27 »
I'm certainly one of the people who would report exceptionally poor earnings this month and I'm on target for the worst month there since 2009. Adobe is currently 3 times higher in earnings, and usually, Shutterstock and Adobe are neck and neck.
Part of this is due to the level reset, and January last year was also poor until I got back to level 4, but the download numbers are lower by about 30%.
I'm sure that Shutterstock report sales, and whilst I also have a good number of images in top search positions, I do see that mine are mostly being pushed down by AI coming up to the top.
The cynic in me assumes that this is advantageous to them, as they can turn a blind eye, get the income, and then close down these portfolios, allowing them to keep 100% of the profit.
Im not far off that. Oddly the first week was above average then crashed in terms of volume and RPD. Assuming it doesnt change im looking at 2012 or so levels with obviously a lot more assets.
RPD is whats crashed though for me. Example last month it was $1.36 (photo and video combined). This month is $0.56. The last January before levels "Good news" it was $1.40
Its a combination of levels reset AND them selling more assets at a lower price to buyers meaning less to us. Given levels are entirely volume dependent this looks like the first levels month i wont reach Level 3 photo OR Level 3 video by the end of it.
In past years, I've made level 4 well before the end of January, although it's been a few days longer each time. I'm still hopeful that I will get there before month end, but it's less likely this year. Obviously, the January reset knocks the RPD for the month, but it's way down this year at 28c, (images only), which puts it behind Alamy, Adobe, Dreamtime, Bigstock, Canva and Depositphoto. Congrats Shutterstock, you have moved from best on the planet to 7th place and, when Istock January stats come out next month, you'll be pushed to 8th. How the mighty have fallen.......
30
« on: January 18, 2025, 03:49 »
I'm seeing more than a few reports of contributors reporting very poor earnings this month on Shutterstock. My earnings are 4.35x more on Adobe Stock than Shutterstock so far this month / year. Shutterstock has really gone downhill over the past year and seems it has dropped off another ledge since the start of 2025.
I'm certainly one of the people who would report exceptionally poor earnings this month and I'm on target for the worst month there since 2009. Adobe is currently 3 times higher in earnings, and usually, Shutterstock and Adobe are neck and neck. Part of this is due to the level reset, and January last year was also poor until I got back to level 4, but the download numbers are lower by about 30%. I'm sure that Shutterstock report sales, and whilst I also have a good number of images in top search positions, I do see that mine are mostly being pushed down by AI coming up to the top. The cynic in me assumes that this is advantageous to them, as they can turn a blind eye, get the income, and then close down these portfolios, allowing them to keep 100% of the profit.
31
« on: January 16, 2025, 04:43 »
But the direction Adobe is going into with the mass of AI images is clearly "quantity over quality".
I think that's exactly the problem. They will be giving free software to those who have uploaded 100s of images, and they only have to average a sale a day. Many won't even claim it, because they will produce via Midjourney or similar, then upscale with any number of free/paid tools, and never go near an Adobe product. What looks generous from that end of the scale will probably not cost Adobe anything. If anyone does video or animation you can download Davinci Resolve. There is a *free* version that has plenty of functionality, the paid license for life is around $300.
Second that.
I am planning on doing a lot of video work this year, which is new for me, and I was waiting to see if I'll get the free full Creative Suite plan to decide whether to learn Premiere Pro or Davinci Resolve (I would have qualified for the full plan with my current numbers and the goals from a year ago - now not getting anything with my 30 uploads in 2024  ). So at least now it's clear - I will teach myself Davinci Resolve and not use any Adobe products for video production. 
I think I will also try Da Vinci for video, as I don't do much, and can't justify continued costs for the full Adobe suite, particularly after the recent price hikes. I'll take the free PS/LR combo, pay for Illustrator as one app, as I use it regularly, and switch to Da Vinci for footage processing.
32
« on: January 16, 2025, 03:32 »
Well I qualify for the single app again, but the constant moving goalposts for all apps are really frustrating.
Every year I've fallen just below the threshold, as it moves higher and just beyond reach each time.
I've never been able to use the Adobe free offer, because I need more than one program. I pay monthly, year after year, and feel resentful that my near 1k uploads and 6k downloads in 2024, are not enough to get me anything I can use.
I guess we are getting used to the stock sites pulling the rug from under us.
33
« on: January 06, 2025, 04:14 »
I've been using Topaz AI for noise reduction / sharpening for more than a year now and super pleased. However, I've noticed that iStockphoto have rejected whole batches of commercial and editorials. See screenshot below.
I went to find out why and from November 2024 they changed their policy. See link here:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847
In summary:
If you want to make significant changes to your content, either separately or in addition to work youve done under the Retouching Requirements, follow these rules (Modification):
Do not apply Modification to your content with generative AI tools (only use traditional, non-generative AI tools).
Do not add location keywords, titles or descriptions more specific than Region/State/County if you modify recognizable, named, or famous locations.
Do not alter a models body shape to make them look thinner or larger than they are in real life. Find out more.
NOTE: Under these Modification Requirements, without using generative AI tools, you can:
Retouch more than 10% of the images total pixels.
Add new elements you own the copyright for, including creating composites.
Retouch your models more extensively.
Had no issues at any other agency. Frustrating, might just stop uploading to iStock anyway for what they pay and now further hurdles of creating two separate batches.
As far as I am aware Topaz AI Denoise and Sharpen are supposed to be acceptable on IS, but if you are using some of Photoshop's tools, just check that AI has not been activated on them ... the latest version of CC turns them on automatically again.
I'm using Topaz for noise reduction on most images, and occasionally use their sharpening tool. I haven't experienced any problems with Istock acceptance. As far as I know, the potentially problematic Topaz tool is Gigapixel, as this uses AI to upscale.
34
« on: December 24, 2024, 04:09 »
You should be able to just change the account name by sending in a copy of your ID. Just send a screenshot of your passport or driving licence, showing the name as it needs to be on the tax form, and ask Shutterstock to change it.
35
« on: December 17, 2024, 06:53 »
Done, but also didn't get an email.
36
« on: December 13, 2024, 09:14 »
Shutterstock does what's good for Shutterstock - they don't care about the contributors, I think we can all agree on that :-)
I interpret the resubmission of already rejected content as follows:
-> I am not allowed to submit the exact same file a second time because it has already been rejected.
-> But if I improve/modify the image file, I consider it to be a new submission
So far I have achieved an acceptance rate of 99.6% by submitting the same image several times - after 5 attempts I stopped, but until then almost every image went through.
In future, I will collect the rejections and increase the brightness by 5% once a month using batch processing and submit the whole lot again.
In the end, Shutter shows us through its own behavior that we have to find other ways to get our sales ^^
You may be right, but I'm not sure this is to do with needing to improve the actual image. If Shutterstock feel that your images is underexposed/noisy/poor focus, etc.the, these images get approved only for Data Licensing, (regardless of whether the reason is valid). If images are rejected these days, it's for things like incorrect releases, not ticking the editorial or illustration box, missing and not cloning out a small logo in a cityscape, not translating visible text, etc. Anyway, I guess we will find out in time, as we all make occasional submission mistakes, so it will be interesting to see if we can find ways to buck the system and get good content reviewed a second time. Yes, you could make a change and resubmit a 'new' version, but it's a bit of a pointless exercise for both parties.
37
« on: December 13, 2024, 07:42 »
This actually feels as if they are penalizing those who want to correct errors and learn and grow.
These companies are flat out not interested in a contributor learning or growing, those days are long gone.
Whilst I agree that they only have their own interests at heart, they still want good content, so it doesn't make sense to not allow a second chance to correct minor mistakes. They should maybe have two rejection reasons - one for rubbish, that simply says 'do not resubmit', and another for good content that had some sort of submission error, which allows one resubmission to correct things.
38
« on: December 13, 2024, 06:25 »
So if you simply forget to tick the editorial box, you can get a whole series rejected it seems, with no chance of a resubmission.
I'm not sure that this indicates that they are preparing to take AI content, but certainly it's a cost cutting exercise. No second review will obviously save time and money for Shutterstock, but it's a bit harsh on those who make genuine errors. I guess they have to weigh that up against clueless contributors resubmitting hundreds of garden snaps, but the relegation to the Data Catalog was already taking care of most of that, wasn't it?
This actually feels as if they are penalizing those who want to correct errors and learn and grow.
Surely, the best plan would be to bring back the contributor test, and be confident that all contributors submit content that reaches a certain standard.
I know they opened the flood gates so that they could stuff the AI datasets, but they surely don't need more of the same tacky rubbish now.
39
« on: December 13, 2024, 03:13 »
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
40
« on: December 11, 2024, 04:25 »
I've noticed that with many of the AI contributors, they are just removing the AI, but leaving the accounts open.
I guess that means that these cheaters can still claim their earnings, which seems grossly unfair on those sticking to the rules.
Do we take from this that the message is that it's fine to cheat until you are caught, and Shutterstock will jut let you off with a warning?
41
« on: December 09, 2024, 03:46 »
42
« on: December 02, 2024, 04:55 »
43
« on: December 02, 2024, 04:49 »
How can you tell the images are Gen AI other than their unlikely perfection? Im genuinely interested.
With some, it's just a specific 'look', and others have some features that just aren't quite right. Also, with wildlife and landscape, no photographer is going to omit the location where the photo was taken, so this is often a clue to either AI or stolen content. For example if you search kangaroo, this image is number 2 in the most popular search, and at first glance, it looks fine, but check the back legs for the extra section, and look at the tail that morphs into a fallen tree trunk.. https://www.shutterstock.com/g/zahidul_hoque_karimhttps://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kangaroo-close-austalia-outback-bush-country-2513090053
44
« on: December 01, 2024, 09:36 »
The https://www.shutterstock.com/g/dreamframephotography appears to be generating Freepik AI and uploading to SS.
Add junk AI descriptions and keywords on top.
Mountains so beautiful he doesnt know where he is, a tiger keyworded as leopard, a lion keyworded as plant.
It's pretty obvious that the images are AI, and the metadata is also AI generated, by the looks of it, but that should be a bit of a giveaway to reviewers, (if they still exist at Shutterstock). Regarding the contributor you've specifically mentioned, he also posted a screenshot of a Single and Other sale, with a commission of $105. Doing a rough calculation based upon his months active and other screenshots of sale that he's posted, he's probably a level 4 contributor. I wonder how happy the customer will be if they realise that they paid $350 for a photo that isn't even real? But this guy aside, the whole site is awash with AI coming up at the top of all searches. I've checked for a few subjects with random keywords, and it's the same, whatever the topic, from 'hamburger' to 'polar bear'. You can find the culprits very quickly, and even from just those two searches I've come across: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Asifphotographer1https://www.shutterstock.com/g/SofieLion9https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Sabilicioushttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/Jee+Manghttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/Hasso-13That's another 5 portfolios found in 5 minutes, and they go on and on, with one leading to another in the similar or recommended images. Again, it does raise the question as to whether Shutterstock are happy to just let this slide through, and will just deal with any customer complaints if they get them.
46
« on: November 28, 2024, 04:05 »
I think with animals feeding on a kill, it depends on how gory the scene is and how much blood? I've had some safari images rejected with a requirement for mature designation, and it's always the ones where a lot of blood is visible.
I know it's nature, and doesn't really make sense to censor this, but many people are easily offended these days, so I guess Shutterstock are being cautious. Even on Instagram, images and clips get blurred out with an advisory warning before you click on them.
@Firn, I'm not sure what you, (or your dogs), did wrong, and I'm hoping we never reach a stage where we have to put trousers on our pets for modesty reasons.
That said, this is what Shutterstock say on the subject:
Content that requires the Mature Content tag:
'Mating animals or explicit depictions of animal genitalia or anus'
'Graphic subject matter that may be disturbing or inappropriate for a general audience (e.g., graphic medical scenes/surgeries, traumatic injuries, etc.)'
It seems to me that the reviewer in both cases was being overly zealous, as the OP's image is not particularly graphic, and the dog image isn't an explicit depictions of animal genitalia.
47
« on: November 20, 2024, 13:42 »
Doesn't work for me. Over the last week I've been able to access occasionally, but it mostly times out.
I emailed them some 3 month ago about AI reviews, as I have content in the queue that is approaching a second anniversary, and I've had no response to the email. Photos are selected and approved if it's a subject they want, but the rest languishes for months.
I'm assuming they are on life support and the site is being patched together with bandaids.
48
« on: November 20, 2024, 04:44 »
It is unclear why the authors' income has decreased. It seems that buyers are leaving Shutterstock, but why.
Maybe because they are accepting loads of rubbish images and the search is awful? I'm guessing customers that have relied on Shutterstock for years, can't find what they want and are jumping ship.
49
« on: November 18, 2024, 03:20 »
Submitting to shutterstock has become a big pain the but. Often I encounter a message saying that "an unknown error" has occurred but there is no indication of what the error is and how to fix it. An entire batch 20 images that won't submit and I don't get paid enough to dwell on it much further. Anyone else?
Since they updated the site it's become really glitchy, and I often have similar problems. Press the save button, rather than submit, then switch to the legacy site to finish the submission, as it usually shows you what the problem is.
50
« on: November 09, 2024, 17:23 »
Hmm, where are you getting your designs from? A quick reverse search of your images shows some elements in the stock portfolios of other artists.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
