I think if you happen to have DeepMeta2 you'll have old stats. I wish I'd saved mine (or found a was of saving the old data out) before having my computer upgraded last year.

Nope, I had that and mine stopped connecting. Unless you mean old stats were stored? Once I downloaded everything that Getty offered, I stopped watching DM2 fail to connect to anything.  Just removed it from another old desktop last month, or I'd look to make sure.

But I'm fairly certain that once we got disconnected the data also became unavailable.

$9.50 from six or seven years ago? Are you really that interested? None of the data would equate to what would sell today.

Dive in and see what your new stats are!

Cheers!

Yes, now that you mention it. Like me just now, looking at the App and seeing all the photo has been removed, not my doing, and 2 download material, which probably made me minimal money, like under a dollar for 2 downloads, I think looking forward is a better idea. I'm sure not going to make more of the stuff that was a fail, and a proven loser.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2019, 17:47

A serious buyer with serious money, isn't going to come to even the top agencies as a regular source for images.

Who is a serious buyer for you?

For years I find my images used by global brands and publishers, like Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Nivea, ELLE, Danone, found images in Hollywood tv shows, etc.

They don't use stock for their commercials obviously, but for other purposes they are the main clients in the industry (in my experience). This is for whom "Premium Access" and other special deals were invented, agencies fight for them offering the best deals, because they have a huge continuous daily volume of demand.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2019, 17:47

"Why is the passive capture of digital image files important? Because the commercial class of pro photographers categorically refuses to contribute their valuable assets to the stock photo pipeline, let alone to do so proactively."

They were paid for their work already and they rarely have rights to upload it to stock, since it was exclusive for the client. And even if they can, there is no garantee that their "valuable assets" would sell. Making work for a specific client isn't the same as making stock for a broad range of different customers.

I create images just for stock and wouldn't exchange it for client's work. I want to shoot and sell what I want, not what some brief told me to do.

These are two different styles of work and philosophies behind it and absolutely different markets.
And that's why they don't intersect. (And I hope never will.) Which is a great thing

I find my work used in all kinds of places, some major publications. Yes a Shutterstock image, at least once, has been a magazine cover, such as on Time. But that's not what he's writing about. Not the one off or the uncommon sales, because Microstock is full of trash and realistically disorganized, under priced and unattractive to established pros.

His point that the new agencies didn't disrupt, but they just bought the competition, is pretty much true. Yes, there's the other side, where the majors couldn't compete with the Micro prices. That's for general consumers and the broader market, especially the web.

Enterprise-level photo publishing, is a much higher value, more demanding and pays better. That's the point. Microstock has ignored that market. The top professionals have ignored Microstock. And there we are? Anyone with a camera can make any photos they want and put them up for sale. Sometimes we make a sale. I'm part of the we, as I'm not an elite media or art photographer. 

We are missing out on the higher value contracts, and being underpaid to do that. Somewhere, in the future, there will be other sites that vet the images, have higher standards and demands and pay us more. Microstock will survive just fine in the low pay area. But don't expect the enterprise-level photo publishing business to come to Microstock for their images. They will keep sourcing from known professionals.

Yeah, the briefs are bogus. Who's going to go out, invest and shoot, so a client can pick the winner. Or as many saw with Image Brief, pick through the submissions for ideas, then pay a pro to shoot.

I'd have to watch those magazines you list or TV shows to know if my images have been used. I don't. I have had friends tell me I was in a magazine. This is microstock, I agree with you. I'm not fine art or exceptional and I don't have much that's not reproducible in some form, by someone else.

But... if we are all missing a major part of the market, there's opportunity and income that's being missed. That only applies to people who want to get paid. Otherwise we can post on Instagram and FB for exposure and admiration.

Show Me The Money

Well, here�s a new one...Mercedes has sued four mural artists after photographing their cars with the murals in the background. They�re asking the court to decide that the artists have no copyright claims. In other words, they�re suing the artists to keep the artists from suing them. Which means the artists have to pay an attorney to represent them after their work was used without compensation. https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-mercedes-benz-sued-four-artists-murals-appeared-instagram-posts

Wow that's a good one and interesting.

Deleted because I don't want to participate in the discussion anyway

Actually after finding the early messages interesting, I thought, why am I reading this? 

I went to change my Sig. line logo of the month and they don't work anymore. Instead the forum substitutes a 1x0 pixel standard, which effectivly blocks any image. If you have one, don't change it, because the image won't show.

On the other hand I created a nice text smile, so I'm happy.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2019, 10:32

Quote from: Dennis Radeke on April 03, 2019, 07:47

Quote from: jjneff on April 02, 2019, 16:01

I can almost guarantee this is a reaction to Pond5. This is actually a positive step if they are noticing Pond5! Now everyone needs to pay 60%!

Sorry Jeff, but definitely not a reaction to Pond5 as you're thinking.  Adobe Stock is very focused on delivering value to customer and contributor, we have a game plan and will continue to execute against it.  Pond5 is a part of that as they are a partner.  I'll try to see if I can get the background and report back if possible.

Dennis

Yes I noticed that when I was reading my Pond5 terms, that my video would be distributed on AdobeStock.    Works for me or maybe I should say, less work for me.

Will this apply to editorial videos available on P5? Or only commercial ones?

Hey, super question, I don't know. I just got the notice that P5 had partners and AS was one of them. Wow, what if... I hate to be optimistic based on my lack of knowledge or information, and I'd guess that since AS doesn't take Editorial the answer is no. But I don't know, so back to "good question".

Does anyone know?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2019, 10:21

But if someone is outside the US, they are dealing with a Canadian company? Wow, some kind of shell game.

we are not. Otherwise I'd be receiving a T5 form which I don't. And I wouldn't need to fill out the stupid W8BEN form which I do. Obviously, regardless of what is written in a matchbox-sized online "agreement", their accounting isn't aware that they are in Canada now. As it usually happens, whatever is written somewhere on internet doesn't matter, we just have to go by a de facto status.

Not sure I understand, you are not what? You mean, you aren't dealing with the Canadian company, you are dealing with the US version, even thought the terms say you are dealing with the Canadian extension. Even more confusing.

I'm wondering what the special agreement with the IRS actually is. Tangled tale, which I can understand why you are looking for answers.

Where do your Paypal payments come from? USA or Canada?

Quote from: Dumc on April 02, 2019, 11:50

I had a sale reported on 28th of December, Washington Post, 40$net, it hasn't been cleared yet. Should I contact Alamy about it or should I wait some more? After what time you contact Alamy, if sale hasn't been cleared?

Most news outlets and TV stations appear to operate on a quarterly payment basis with Alamy so if you don't see it clear by the end of this week I'd give them a knock and keep reminding them.

Good to know. Seems like the larger accounts take longer, as their standard, and make one large payment, instead of lots of tiny ones.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2019, 10:21

I'm totally confused. How is Adobe a San Jose CA company, Canadian? CA stands for California.

But if someone is outside the US, they are dealing with a Canadian company? Wow, some kind of shell game.

yes, please read new adobe terms, there is topic about that here.

Just did, thanks for pointing though. Seems to be two issues going on at the same time and some side contentions. I still can't understand how they can make outside the US deal with Canadian Adobe and inside the US, the US Adobe. There's some legal reason and maybe more than the IRS forms.

Interesting reading.

I'm totally confused. How is Adobe a San Jose CA company, Canadian? CA stands for California.

But if someone is outside the US, they are dealing with a Canadian company? Wow, some kind of shell game.

As everyone here probably knows there's a thriving industry on Etsy of people selling our vectors (as well as violating copyright of big studios and the like).

Just a search for "vector" or "SVG" on the site and some keyword of your best sellers and they are probably there.

What I didn't know until recently was Etsy's policy Re. DMCA notices, which explains how some shops have been getting away with it for years and on hundreds of listings.

They will accept any DMCA counter notice as long as it is filled in with an existing address and phone number and allow the seller to relist. Even if the seller has just used an address of an unrelated business, and you point that out to Etsy.  As far as I can work out that even takes the strike off the account so they are "clean" and do this as many times as they like (this seems to be the case as there are sellers that have done this many times over).

So as far as I can work out the only sellers getting shut down, or even having items removed, are honest sellers who made an actual mistake. The big time crooks making many thousands of dollars know how to play the system and keep on going. I finally understood how there are two or three shops on there with thousands of stolen vectors and no repercussions.

Class Action Lawsuit?

Eventually some lawyer will see this and some of the others that use the "we didn't know" defense or don't actually try, and then find a bunch of vector artists who have been running into the same cycle as you. Then maybe places like Etsy or FAA or Redbubble and Zazzle will start to care and close down the thieves?

Hi:

Do you know if brands can be used as keywords in creative content? f.i. "les paul" and "gibson" in a les paul type guitar without logos?

Thank you.

Mostly NO unless it's Editorial, as in

You can submit them as "illustrative editorial" and only if the guitar is a Gibson Les Paul and Shutterstock should accept them (barring any technical issues of quality).

Include the phrase illustrative editorial in your keywords and use the standard editorial description place - date: etc.

The same would apply to any Trademarked or protected names or products such as Nike, Ford, Mattel, Disney... you get the idea?

Video look differs between browsers, stock sites, media players etc. Different video levels (0-255, 16-235), different gammas (2.2, 2.35, 2.4), different decoding algorythms. Each and every one generates previews in an unique way. A particular browser may be ICC enabled, others may not. Stock sites may convert lets say the rec709 @2.4 gamma video you've just uploaded to srgb @ 2.2. Sadly we can't do anything about it. Just be sure to grade the footage on a calibrated system which should be a good middleground between all of that nastyness buyers have to deal with on stock sites.

Right, and someone pointed this out before, when a similar discussion came up. The buyer will see everything the same, on their system as they see everyone else's video or images. If we upload something good, it's going to look just as good on a buyers computer, relative to anyone else's uploads.

Or another way of looking at it. This is beyond our control. See Above: