Really don't like the way these companies basically say:

"Oh yah, we stole, erm, 'trained' our AI tool on your images... Here's what we figure it's worth, now don't bother us".

It's theft. Plain & simple. Doesn't matter how "they" justify it - if you did not explicitly give permission to do so, it's theft. Some "justify" it saying "well we have rights in our license agreement" - eh, no. BECAUSE of the way they've "approached" it - they KNOW it is wrong. (I.e., why would you have to 'hide' what you are doing, and after the fact say 'oh, here's some random money, now don't bother us' if you didn't feel it was wrong - because they KNOW - or rather - pretty strongly suspect - if they said to contributors 'Hey guys! We want to make a tool that will make US more money in the long term, and you less - so we basically want to rip of your images so we can do that, but we'll pay you a couple bucks so you don't feel bad, how does that sound?" MOST contributors would MOST LIKELY say, em, no.

Obviously dall-e/midjourney/etc were the first to just simply STEAL images... and one of the "pesky" little "problems" they have is getting rid of "watermarks"... hmm... how EVER could WATER marks have GOTTEN there? OH the mystery!

(While I have used the tools - and I do admit they are 'cool' - I think the approach to creating them is wrong and they should compensate artists for the hard work they did creating them - PLUS - future compensation for every single images generated based on those. Programatically - it IS VERY EASY to set up such a system. RETROACTIVELY - it is ALSO POSSIBLE. More work - but definitely doable).

Then shutterstock basically ripped things off, then said 'oh haha, yah, here's some money, SOOOOOOOreee! we already ripped it off, so you can't get it back, but here's what we randomly decided to pay you!"...

Sad to see what I would have considered better companies now following suit.

BY THE WAY...

CONTRARY to what these "AI" companies say (i.e., midjourney/dall-e/etc) - it actually IS possible to "backwards compensate"/"retroactively" pay/compensate contributors for the images they took IF they chose to do so...
(a) They "tracked" which images they fed into their training set.
(b) People who generated images used certain 'neural nodes' to create that image.
(c) They keep EXTENSIVE track of EVERY SINGLE THING created with the software.

So it IS possible to to write an algorithm "AI" to do super micropayments (like fractional cents) for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE created, THEN it IS possible to find those contributors (i.e., those images that had the 'pesky little watermarks') - and compensate them - and then it IS POSSIBLE to PAY OUT for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE going forward based on those BASE IMAGES...

It may be a little bit of work - but just an FYI - it IS possible. Contrary to what "they" might say. You'd just have to write a computer algorithm to do so.

So going forward - for EVERY single "AI" image created - you could be compensated fractional cents for 'neural node' inputs to create an image (i.e., $0.0001, because components of your image were used in making a new composite) - which - with the hundreds of thousands (more likely millions) being created every day... would quickly add up. AND - give you a nice future consistent revenue stream.

I see your point but don�t think it is technically possible to tie output to specific learning material which went into the model. So in fact you would need to broadly distribute money to creators undiscriminate of the quality and usefulness of their work. So if 100.000.000 images went into the training the compensation would need to be split between all of them - and MidJourney doesn�t even know them because they scraped the internet.

I posted it on Facebook using https://bitly.com (link shortener)
You have no preview of the article, but the link is accepted and clickable.

https://bit.ly/2zQPPKf

I did the same and it was removed some seconds later as spam. Perhaps because I just put the bitly link in the message and nothing else. Perhaps because they follow the link?

So I repeated the direct link and when I got the message from FB that I can't post this link, I clicked the embedded link to protest against the block. Perhaps more people should do this to stop the blocking of the link.

Jan to May 2020 RPD: 70,6 cents
Since switch to new earnings structure: 22,2 Cents

A reduction of 68% until now.

PS: I'm level 4

Here is a way to beat SS. Unfortunately I have not the intellect to design this . As a group setup a new site, with free images. Yes free images, might as well be free if SS and the other sites go with this new model. Hard to beat free. Not even the evil SS can beat free. You have a site that is just like every other site with the difference all images/videos are free. To get a free image you have to listen to a 30-60 second add . Just like the adds on youtube. The difference you can't rush are turn off the add. At the end of the advertisement you get a unique number/code for one free picture or video that day. You can get as many pictures per day as you listen to different adds and get different codes.The codes are only good per image per 24 hours. The the payout which I guess is small , you get an advertising fee for showing the add. No this most likely won't get you more money than the slims at SS but free is hard to beat. No sure what those  adds pay but I am guessing 20 to 40 cents each. You could also charge a yearly fee like Costco dose, maybe 29 bucks a year to make a little more revenue.

I just read, that you can earn 1,50$ to 7,00$ per 1000 views on Youtube. Doesn't sound too good of a business case.

Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.

Is that even new? More or less than before? Looks familiar to me.

So let�s have a different look at the situation:

Assumption: Shutterstock lost money on the large subscriptions for years.

What does that mean for their business acumen? Either they were just dumb for several years or the calculation is just different: customers don�t use up all subscription slots.

Hey wait a minute: if the customers didn�t use up all images, why will they set us on 15 to 40% of max usage leaving a guaranteed margin of 60 to 85% for shutter plus cashing in 100% on unused download slots? Because they are not dumb - and are now ripping off the contributors with their own guaranteed margin plus bonus for their insanely cheap subscription packages. So in consequence they would even get a higher share on higher plans - the risk of business is now completely on the backs of the contributors. Well done!

I want an opt out for the 350/750 silly subscription plans.

BTW: I didn't get the email yet, so I suppose my earnings will not be affected ;-)