Curious - do you guys actually make any reasonable $$$ from 123rf? I think I have 1000+ videos there (haven't checked), and only made like $20 3-4 years ago...

Here it is easily explained.

a) Elements = "subscription model" = unlimited downloads (so you probably get like $0.25/clip download)
b) VideoHive = "pay per use download" = whatever you set the clip (i.e., $25/clip)

It's good for envato - long term, bad for you.

Why? Basically - it's "moving" customers from the pay per item model to the super-cheap subscription model. So in the future - your work will be competing with people who are all too happy to get $0.25/clip - and you'll most likely be competing with craploads of spam. It's good for envato - because they retain the customers for themselves - and don't care whether it is pay-per-use, or pay-subscription - because either way - they still get paid, and they can easily screw around with the payment model ("oh we've decided we need 75% of revenue, but its GOOD NEWS for you!") - or they might not even tell you - because they use a magical formula. They actually prefer the subscription model because it tends to be more revenue (for them) long term. They really don't care how you do - because they can "afford" to "lose" a few people if things don't work out. They really don't care about you - they care about themselves.

That being said - in the short term - it's possible you will see an initial bump in sales.

So the question is - do you want extra money *now* - and potentially hurt your long term sales on that platform? Or... do you prefer having relatively longer term consistent sales at a higher price point?

I�m opted out of �data deals� yet still got $58. Perhaps those are data deals that happened before the opt out date, which was a month ago.

No, I think shutterstock is a deceptive company, and the "opt-out button" doesn't really mean anything. They have proven to be dishonest time & time again, so...
They are probably selling your data regardless, because they really don't give a flying f____k about anyone except the executives being greedy...

Lol, you are lucky. I had an "agent" meet up with me, ask me all sorts of questions, etc - only to find out it was a woman who wanted to sell her own drone photos and was lying in order to figure out how to do it successfully. Totally dishonest piece of s___t.

It is competitive. Drones are inexpensive and many people consider themselves a "photographer" simply because they have a drone, the same way people that take cellphone pictures consider themselves "photographers". Of course, the quality is different - but I'd say it takes a while to build up that reputation.

I admit, that is a pretty cool drone shot. Did they ask for a property release for that?

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 27, 2023, 05:20

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 26, 2023, 11:52

- Book cover: $1000

What is a book cover? How did you know it was a Book cover? This photo or video from a drone was bought from you, and where?

Was for this cover taken from my drone, licensed via Arcangel.

Shutterstock announced their "good news" about finalizing the Pond5 takeover I think around Jan 2023.

And yes - so far - jan/feb were about 60% lower than both previous months & previous years, march about 40%... perhaps the "good news" from shutterstock is they somehow found another way to steal revenue... not sure... but, the timing is interesting.

Also SS sales seemed to do a bit of a noisedive - like they decided all the assets are now only $0.25. So gotten a lot of vid clip 'sales' for $0.25 from SS...

Could of course be other factors, manufactured "world events" the moneylaundering going on for 'savingukraine' campaigns... (Of course, different topic - and any innocent bystander its very sad what is happening on both sides)... Or other things like that. Not sure.

Just saw this article now. (Apparently OP was in June 2022).

Thanks, well written article, I agree with the points made.

a) Never used blackboxguild/wirestock/etc - because a legit concern was what if something happened to them.
b) Didn't realize they were a "ycombinator" featured biz, and had gotten 2+ million in funding. Would have been a couple red flags to me.
c) Another concern was yes - what if in the future you wanted to do certain things with your own assets. Could potentially have 'issues'.

Good article, thanks. I don't normally say that (beacuse I find many 'internet' articles nowadays are simply regurgitated spam designed to get SEO traffic so people click on ads). But I actually learned something from yours, thanks. Is that someone who works for your company, or a 3rd party? (I noticed the name is different from yours/the creator of the software).

Also - can vouch for your software. I have used it for video keyworded, and found it very useful.

Thanks!

Quote from: ottoc on February 11, 2023, 03:44

Depositphotos refused my earnings request. It�s said that my w8 expired. After I updated it, they still ask me to submit my passport, which violated the EU personal general Data Protection Regulations. (Loi n� 78-17)

I really do not see where asking for your passport is violating the EU general Data Protection Regulations. You want to enter a legal bussines relation with someone, you got to identify yourself. The  EU general Data Protection Regulations  is about data processing, it's no law against identifying yourself.

No, you do not have to 'identify' yourself with private personal information like that. Many do "demand" it - but it doesn't make it 'right'.

BTW - you guys (who voluntarily give up 'all' your information just because someone demands it), and I agree with the OP that it is wrong - should really look into id2020.org, and see what the real purpose behind this is - the reasoning actually is quite more sinister. Especially how you have so many 'data breaches' all the time (in some ways deliberate, i.e., 'cyberpolygon' exercises by the WEF) - to try and 'push' people into a 'digital id' - so if they don't comply, they are 'cancelled'.

hi Matt!

Thanks, sounds great - please let the team say thanks.

BTW - an interface suggestion if you don't mind? Sometimes I find when uploading assets, and then submitting them, I realize I've made a mistake. There doesn't seem to be any way to modify 'pending' assets, so I find I have to delete, then re-upload them.

However, if I have a bunch of assets that become pending (sometimes perhaps a few dozen), I find I have to 'manually' delete them one by one in a very cumbersome fashion. Could you please perhaps suggest a 'mass-delete' tool for pending assets (the same way you could select a number that were simply uploaded then delete them all at once), or - some way of modifying them (in case a mistake is made)?

Thanks very much!

While there are ethical questions about the generators themselves (because they did not get consent from the creators to create their 'trained' models) - from the tos of midjourney - if you pay for their service, you have general commercial terms. from that other site you mentioned - they basically said yes, you have permission as well. dall-e - haven't seen their tos so don't know.

So the AI thing is interesting - if done ethically... (And, also - its not true "AI" of course, but rather doing mashups with computer algorithms from actual contributor creators)... But anyways...

Yes, "everyone" knows shutterstock is "bad" - but I didn't realize just HOW bad...! So... shutterstock has no problem stealing from contributors - and saying 'oh no! they can't use/submit AI'... BUT... if it is THEM doing it, then apparently 100% okay? And - "they" (shutterstock) wants to make sure that SHUTTERSTOCK gets paid, for using people's "trained" (stolen) content? See below...

And, if contributors have the option of opting in/or out of the 'training data', are told up front what they would be compensated for their work - and then have the CHOICE... that is one thing... But... the way SS is doing things, very bad. (And - it CAN be done retroactively too - despite what they may "claim" - programatically it is very easy to 'remove' contributors who don't wish to be included in the "training data" - and retrain based on the remaining data set...)

So here: http://shutterstock.com/generate

In the "All your AI-generated image questions answered." near the bottom, it says:

Does the main Shutterstock library of images contain AI-generated content?

We do not have AI-generated images in our core library today. AI-generated content may not be uploaded to Shutterstock because, per our Contributor Terms of Service (Section 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual and must instead compensate all artists who were involved in the creation of each new piece of content. (cough cough bullsh_t, first of all not an effective way of checking that without a little bit of work, secondly, probably a lot of contributors that used it weren't aware of this clause, no really even read it/etc)... But let's assume that is the case..

Anyways...

I then find it super amusing (and evil too, of course) that shutterstock then expects someone using their "free ai" tool - to signup/subscribe to their service?
https://www.shutterstock.com/signup?site=image&landing_page=%2Fgenerate

Shutterstock:
(a) Misleads. Says "oh get a free image!"...
(b) You try and get so called free image - then they prompt you to sign up for a subscription if you click on download (apparently you need to click 'try' to access it - but psychologically most people with be expecting the highlighted red 'download' button to be the one they use)... AND - it seems they only give you one "watermark free" image (it seems every image after that has a BIG 'ol shutterstock watermark, and you need to "pay" to get rid of it)...
(and if you generate one - they want you to pay for it - big watermarks with any "free" versions - so no "free trial" there)...
to pay for "free images" from "ai content", and/or "enhanced" images that go $1000's of dollars... which - I'm pretty sure contributors see "0" from...

And charges anywhere from $2 all the way up to $1000's of dollars, depending on your license... Pretty sure the way SS has structured it, the contributors don't see any of that...

Also - it turns out their "free tool" - they only let you use once or twice before being prompted to pay $50/month to continue using - and they proudly say "you can use OUR AI"... - no... it's based off of contributors work that they are trying to not pay at all...

Then, as I was reading their terms, I found this peculiar/interesting - never noticed this on their website before:
https://www.shutterstock.com/modern-slavery-statement

"Modern Slavery Statement"? Basically - that shutterstock is "committed" to not supporting slavery? haha <erm> with the "prices" they pay contributors and the amount the "investors" keep to themselves... not sure how on track they are to this "goal"... just pretty funny an "image" website has that on their main page... Bottom right hand corner, small print. I also find this very funny in that statement too: "Our internal Code of Conduct and Business Ethics reflects our commitment to acting ethically and with integrity in all our business relationships and to implementing" Mmm hmm... "good news! we take more of your money, and give you less, but try and repackage a good thing and hope you are desperate enough to accept the crumbs will throw your way!"

Anyways. Interesting. Your thoughts?

I think there is a very strong case for contributors to go after SS, because they are not being fairly compensated (and in some cases, not compensated at all)...

I don't believe I was aware of it, so as far as I know, nothing. What exactly is it?

my question is:
a) how are they downloading all your assets? (do you have it on some unlimited plan?)
b) curious also - how are you finding your assets/finding out the ones they've taken?

thanks!