For me it was better than July.

From my point of view, you can't answer the question until you can see and judge for yourself whether your newer images have more sales potential than the old ones.

The stock agencies work like search engines. If you have something to offer, you have chances to be found. I assume that the search engines assign you a certain "value". If this value is zero, I think it will be difficult to make your new - possibly better - images findable.
So if the newer images have a much higher sales potential, I would delete the old data that led to the poor ranking of your portfolio.

But: my statement can be completely wrong, because I don't know the algorithms of the stock agencies.

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 31, 2023, 02:51
Very nice!

Yeah! 

Quote from: Shuttershock on August 29, 2023, 12:52
Adobe have serious issues at the mo, ever since AI was allowed. I dont upload AI but normal photo uploads now get 100% rejection for no reason (Adobe community support agree there is an issue). The sooner Adobe stop rejecting uploads 100% the better or its pointless being their contributor. The 100% rejection doesnt happen all the time but only occured since AI was allowed so from there they must of started using AI to review onagea.

Unfortunately, this is partly true. I also had two rejections. I admit that there was minimal blurring in the corners of the images, as I noticed after the rejection when I looked closely.

However, when I see that there are obviously masses of faulty AI images being accepted here, I wonder if there are two different tolerance thresholds. Apparently one wants to prefer the AI images.
In any case, I find a lack of depth of field more tolerable than things whose statics are not suitable for gravity. Flying tables, stairs without steps, architectural fantasy constructions seem to make up the new Microstock...

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 29, 2023, 00:11

Quote from: blvdone on August 28, 2023, 22:13

No worries.  Buyers will fix them to make them make sense.  At least these are not copyright/trademark violations.  Reviewer AI clearly can't distinguish 6 fingers, 3 arms, 3 legs and other weird images.

You mentioned trademark violations? Today's approvals have those too...

The office swivel chair is also interesting. The lack of a backrest indicates an ergonomic innovation.

First images approved after 28 days.

Quote from: stoker2014 on August 28, 2023, 19:08

Quote from: Her Ugliness on August 28, 2023, 13:31

Quote from: stoker2014 on August 28, 2023, 12:40
And where is MatHayward, why doesn't he write anything here?

Page 2:

Quote from: MatHayward on August 25, 2023, 16:24
Hi All,

If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.

I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.

Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

"Never submit content that infringes the rights of third parties, including mimicking or replicating their content. "

How can an author know if someone's AI content has been copied or not?

No user of AI can ensure that AI has copied works of other contributors. This is exactly the problem!

Now when you upload an image to Adobe, it says the following:

"Do not submit generative AI content where other artists or artists have been referenced in the submission."

It doesn't say, "Don't submit generative content based on the work of other artists."

Which specifically means: it doesn't matter if the AI copies the work of other artists. But it does matter that the other artists don't readily notice just because their name was used in the copying. Personally, I find this highly questionable.

To me, this notice is dangerous for Adobe from a legal point of view. People will submit works copied by other artists with full knowledge, but delete the hints for it from the IPTC data. Yet copyright law continues to be circumvented.

And still waiting! png image- no AI!

27 days.

123rf has been dead for a few years. I have almost no downloads anymore. Either nothing is bought there anymore - then they'll go bankrupt soon and close up store, or they continue to sell and don't pass it on to us. It is no longer comprehensible for the contributors anyway.

From the website for contributors:

https://helpx.adobe.com/de/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html#design-ip

"Apple logos and product designs are protected. Vector drawings and illustrations are also prohibited."

The AS database is chock full of clearly recognizable Apple product designs. Be it the iMac, the keyboard, the MacBook, the mouse....

For example, if you type in "responsive design", it looks like this:

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=responsive+design&search_type=autosuggest

I see this crystal clear countless clearly recognizable Apple products. Even if the logo is touched up.

I guess Adobe doesn't make that its problem when there is litigation, but instead passes it off on the contributors.

For example, how is a contributor supposed to ensure that people their AI software creates don't match real-life people? That's not possible! Nobody knows that! Probably not even the producers of the AI software! And AS knows that, too!

Quote from: MatHayward on August 19, 2023, 21:15
Hi everyone,

We want to remind you that any generative AI assets submitted to Adobe Stock must adhere to the Generative AI Guidelines. Violations to these guidelines lead to content rejections or account termination.

Very important:

-Do not submit any assets created with prompts in the style of other artists or referring to famous people or brands.

-Content created by prompts that refer to artists, styles, or works that no longer have copyright protection may be acceptable so long as you verify that no other rights apply to the prompt (e.g., publicity rights, cultural heritage rights, etc.).  If you are unsure if you have the necessary rights, do not submit content made using that prompt.

-All generative AI images should be identified by checking the box "Created using generative AI tools".

-Only check the box "People and Property are fictional" if the asset includes people or property. For example, if you generated a landscape or food DO NOT check this box.

-If you used a real person or property to generate your AI image, you need to submit a model release or property release with your image.

Thank you!

Mat Hayward

I thought longer about whether I should write this or not.

But if I am to be completely honest, I would like to judge your lines as follows:

The agencies are absolutely aware that the AI software of the different manufacturers searches for "inspiration" in the pool of all photographers and microstockers on the Internet worldwide. Without the legal basis for this being even remotely clarified and defined. I have seen them en masse, the AI images in Romolo Tavani or Leonid Tit style - just to name two examples.

It is absolutely clear to the agencies that the companies producing AI generated images are faster than the legislation and jurisprudence on the subject.

And this is now resulting in the shifting of copyright concerns to the contributors uploading AI-generated images. In case of doubt, these companies and the agencies that accept the images want to hold themselves harmless from claims for damages. I find this cowardly and immoral in the highest degree!

The agencies know very well that the AI generates an infinite number of "similars" and now they stand up and say: finding out and filtering this is not our problem, but the problem of those who generate and upload these images.

This is for me an absolute absurdity!!! The manufacturers of AI software and the agencies that accept these images have a single goal: maximum profit skimming.

Content Submissions

Please note: Intentionally submitting content to which you do not own copyright or submitting content that infringes on the copyright of another artist will lead to immediate account termination.

Submitting content that infringes on the rights of any person. Including directly copying or excessive inspiration from work to which you do not own the copyright.

This exactly is what AI does!

I compared at shutterstock.

10 years ago, I had 11 SODs in the whole month of July. These brought an average of $23.96 per SOD.

So far this July, after just over half a month, I have 27 SODs. The average take per SOD is $1.18, which is down to one-twentieth.

What that will look like in 10 years is anyone's guess....

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 16:13

Quote from: Wilm on July 04, 2023, 11:58At least, that's how I see it with calculating the hourly rate. And stand by my statement that a calculation of 5 minutes per file is unrealistic from my point of view.

Yes, it might be unrealistic from your point of view because you do things differently than me. Obviously, you are welcome to do things anyway you want to, but that doesn't mean I can't do what I say I can do.  I can't free-climb Half Dome in three hours or run a 100 meter dash under 10 seconds, but that doesn't mean other people can't do it.

Yes, I really can process 12 clip per hour (edit, grade, export, generate metadata, and upload) without batting an eye.   Actually it is closer to three minutes, but I like to be conservative and say 5 minutes.   How can I do it? Because I have a workflow and system in place that allows me to do it.  And through my online master class and in-person workshops, I have taught hundreds of other people to use the exact same  methods to speed up their workflow too.     Here's a secret:   The less time I spend creating my content, the more money I earn per hour of my time.  It is that simple.  If someone can cut their time to create content in half, they have instantly doubled their hourly income.  It is as simple as that.

Some contributors are like a cobbler working in their little home workshop to create a perfect pair of shoes by hand.  While other people, like myself have more of an assembly line approach where speed and efficiency are king.  You might be building a house with a pocket full of nails and a hammer, while I'm using a high-powered nail gun to get the same job done faster.  You might be an author banging away on a manual typewriter, while I'm cruising along with a word processor to get the same work done in a fraction of the time. 

Why is it that people can't understand that workflow, and the tools we use, actually matter to the bottom line? And that someone else may have a better way of getting the job done.

May I ask what software you use to edit, grade, export, and upload?

May I ask how you generate and manage your vast library metadata, and how you use are able to use older metadate to automate the creation of metadata for new clips?

May I ask how you shoot your footage and what tools you use onboard your camera, and during ingest, that will make you more efficient in post?

Doug,
we've been through this too. At the time, you insisted that there was no money to be made with pictures, only with videos. From that discussion, you must remember that I don't offer videos. So I can't answer the last part of your question.

My average earnings per image are about $125, but that can't be compared to you because I've been around a lot longer than you.

As for the hourly rate, I come up with different numbers because I calculate it differently than you do. We've been through this too, but the amount of time per image varies a lot for me. My lucky shot made me an hourly wage of about $8,000. But I also have many images that have had tens of hours go into them that have not made me a dollar.

However I calculate it, I've never managed 5 minutes per picture.

The least amount of time, on average, is in the photos. Depending on the subject, just pressing the shutter where I was. Or setting up a tripod, making sure the lighting is right, shooting for maybe 30 minutes, post-processing, tagging, uploading, saving data...that was a bit more time.

The vectors took more time on average because I often made sketches beforehand.

And most of the time went into 3D renderings.

My calculated hourly wage is in any case significantly lower than yours. Considerably lower! Because the images didn't fall from the sky - I had to create them. This time of creating them was fun. But this time still is part of my calculation. And that is the main difference to your calculation.

I upload jpg files including IPTC data. When uploading to AS it still takes some extra time to take care of the most important keywords (which usually costs some more minutes).

We have discussed this at length in the past.

From my point of view, this is misleading. There are millions of creatives who love their job and have fun doing it. And there are millions of creatives who are still barely able to make a living because they miscalculate. They sit too long on projects that pay poorly because they want to deliver an excellent result, even if the pay is only enough for an average design.

I too love my job as a designer, enjoy it every day and couldn't imagine doing anything else. Nevertheless, I have to calculate correctly in order not to cheat myself and to be able to feed my family. And even if I enjoy driving a car, for example, I have to calculate the travel time to the customer. Likewise my travel times to Geneva, Amsterdam or Barcelona, even if I enjoy traveling.

I even have fun editing my images for stock. Still, I calculate that time in.

At least, that's how I see it with calculating the hourly rate. And stand by my statement that a calculation of 5 minutes per file is unrealistic from my point of view.

Quote from: blvdone on July 02, 2023, 22:28

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 02, 2023, 19:05

Quote from: blvdone on July 02, 2023, 13:36

That dude used to attack me when I criticized Shutterstock on Shutterstock's contributor forum.  Now he's suffering the same fate as everybody else huh.

Yes. The dude is an arrogant know-it-all type, who was caught with his pants down on multiple occasions.
He was there to sell his "course" to those gulible enough to pay for something that is widely available for free.

He was making ridiculous claim of making $300/hr or something on stock videos, but he didn't calculate his expenses for equipments, travel and his labor hours shooting footages because "he enjoys shooting".  Total BS.  Many end up making less than minimum wage these days in reality.

I remember this "calculation" too.

From my point of view, you should wait.

We have customers who pay within 24 hours and we have customers who need 3 months. Most clients pay within 2 to 4 weeks.

So there would be no reason for me to worry yet.

Quote from: alijaber on June 13, 2023, 10:22
My highest video sale so far...

Wow! Nice! Congrats to you! 

I think it is very difficult to separate the microstock business from political issues. Politics engages microstock contributors in the same way as landscape, architecture, wildlife or whatever topics.
The agencies' databases are full of politically influenced images.

Contributors present their opinion or their concepts in images. Or they photograph the reality shaped by politics. Or politicians themselves. Or their opinions on banners. Politics shapes our lives and their contents. If we produce images about it, why shouldn't we also verbalise our opinions about it?

Wouldn't the logical consequence of "stop about politics" in a microstock forum then also be "stop shooting politics" for a microstock agency?

Last night I was shown $9.81 in unpaid revenue for May - in my dashboard it was $69.40.

Currently, the unpaid revenue shows $79.03, and the dashboard shows $71.10.

No idea what's going on there.

Quote from: Contemporary Dave on April 26, 2023, 09:01
Bosh!

Nice start to the day.

Wow!!! More than impressing! May many more of those follow, Dave! 

Downloads below average. RPD = $0,99 = above average.

Quote from: KuriousKat on April 18, 2023, 20:52

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 18, 2023, 19:53

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 18, 2023, 19:35
Watch your videos on SS. SS has completely changed the sorting of videos by popularity (top). Now in the top one nonsense.

Notice the top images right now? Also nonsense.

Pink letters come from this portfolio:

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/SanMirza

They are the same pink letters that were being discussed in this thread:

https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/portfolios-of-100-almost-identical-vectors-from-bangladesh/msg585928/?topicseen#new

And they are also in in a different portfolio:

https://www.shutterstock.com/de/g/ZainKhalid09

I see a lot of the portfolio that were listed have now been closed down, but how are these identical images getting through review and, once approved, how on earth are they reaching the top of the popular search, beating nearly 185million into lower places? How are they getting Superstar status??

This is currently in the images 3rd spot:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/extra-22-off-all-sale-styles-2055398933

22% off is rather random to generate lots of sales, but how does this guy have 999 images that are simple colour changes, which should be rejected under Shutterstock's policy regarding similar content. If I submit 2 images of the same subject in the same batch, one gets rejected.

This is all very fishy, and totally disheartening.

Shutterstock is but a shadow of its former self.

This has been discussed here before. There was a contributor who had obviously managed to crack the shutterstock algorithm, because his images were on the 1st to 3rd place in all search results.

This also seems to be the case with these pink ones. Otherwise it can not be explained why someone with such a tiny portfolio and content that there are also two other tiny portfolios almost identical, can be found so far in front in the search.

I offer 181.156.122 right now. Might be a bug - I don't know.