Quote from: Brasilnut on June 07, 2021, 15:03

Quote from: Firn on June 07, 2021, 14:12

No one is going to pay for an image on one site that he can get for free on other sites

This seems true until you factor in laziness / apathy or pure ignorance that an image is available for free on the part of many buyers.

In addition the opportunity costs of scouring the internet for a free version outweighs the costs of getting the most convenient option and many buyers are constrained by coroprate rules around where they can obtain images. The fact that the same images can be available for zero to 10s or even 100s of dollars illustrates its an oversimplification.

That may be true, but I have experienced first hand what offering an image "for free" can do to an image: 2 years ago a big mobile company bought a licence for one of my photos from iStock, pasted "Happy Easter" in a corner and offered it as "free download greeting card" (Even though IStock's licence doesn't allow this. Contacted iStock multiple times about it, but they keep ignoring me). The image is by now all over the internet. It doesnt't just pop up everywhere on my facebook or Instagram feed around easter, it goes so far that I have seen it - with the "happy easter" text - used commercially for things like onlineshops way more than once. (And yes, I actually tried to sue through Pixsy, but it's always some "We don't support cases in this country", or "We only go after big fish, there isn't enough money to be gained here" or "It's not worth it as the image is available on microstock for a couple of cents, so there isn't much to gain" stuff, so I gave up and consider this image a lost case.) And this was a really good image with lots of commercial value. Now someone who has for an example a SS account might not browse the internet to see whether he can get an image for free somewhere, but I am pretty sure the fact that the image is so widely used all over the internet might make it less attractive for some customers to buy. Would you pay an Enhanced licence to print an image as a physical postcard, when you have seen it online a thousand times already?
I have never seen any of my images used that often online, not even the ones with hundreds of downloads, so, nope, I am not risking my bestsellers to be floating all around the internet for free. And even if Adobe just offers them for free for a year - you can bet that after that these images will stay available for free on the internet forever: You will find them on free stock site galleries, free wallpaper sites, heck, you'll probably find them on paid stock sites as well.

The only images I am willing to offer for free in exchange for 5$ are images where I don't expect to earn $5 with on any microstock site.

In the end everyone has to decide this for themselves. I am not judging anyone who says he wants safe $5 instead of potentiall earnings that might or might not happen. I have selected a few images myself, just not images that sell regulary anywhere, because for me offering decent sellers for free for $5 is a no go. Adobe selected some of my images where even if they offered me $500 for just one image I would still have said no. They just sell too well on other agencies to take the risk.

A lot of the images Adobe picked from my port are regular sellers on other sites that earn me more in 12 months than the 5$ Adobe is offering. No one is going to pay for an image on one site that he can get for free on other sites. Another problem I see is similar-topic images. If I select one image of a certain topic that isn't doing too well for me, but have another in my port that sells regularly, people might go for the free alternative and I will miss out on sales.

I'll take a closer look once the filter for nominated images is up, because right now it's really a hassle to go through pages and pages of images to find the nominated ones. Not sue what to do with this yet. Once I filter out all my regular sellers from other sites and also images of a similar topic as my regular sellers, there probably won't be many images left.

Thanks for the info! Then I'll wait patient to see whether the sale shows up in the next 3 months.

Quote from: Firn on May 24, 2021, 05:54

I looked at all my sales from this year on Adobe to get some numbers to make sure I am not actually imagining things when I say that, in opposite to other agencies, new content does not sell on Adobe for me:
I  had 1084 sales in 2021 so far. Only 8 (!) downloads were of images I submitted in 2021, so 0,74%.
My port has around 5700 images. Around 1200 were added in 2021, so 21% new images this year.


Yeah, I am pretty sure I am not imagining things. And since this is an Adobe-only phenomenon I am quite sure it's not because I suddenly started submitting crappier or less useful images.

You just trigged me to check sales of new files in my port, because I also felt that new files don't sell.

The result is, to my surprise, that 6% of my sales in 2021 are from files uploaded in 2021.
And only 5% of my files are uploaded in 2021.

That's interesting, so a total different experience from mine. May I ask how many total downloads you had in 2020? Because if the number is very different, these two cases might not be so easily comparable.

Quote from: Firn on May 24, 2021, 05:54

in opposite to other agencies, new content does not sell on Adobe for me:

 And since this is an Adobe-only phenomenon I am quite sure it's not because I suddenly started submitting crappier or less useful images.

You must be very lucky if you sell new uploads on all other agencies. Usually, people are complaining about not selling new stuff on any agency.

I've only been doing microstock for like 2,5 years, if "new" stuff didn't sell for me, I would not be selling much at all.  I think the contributors who complain about new stuff not selling at all agencies are the ones that have been with microstock much longer, so they are probably noticing a much greater difference between established content and new content than someone who in comparison is fairly new to microstock like me.


I am not saying new stuff was selling like hot cake on other agencies, but apart from some established regular sellers that made it on the first page of search results for some relevant keywords, it's not not selling noticable more or less than older content. So for me Adobe is really an exception.

Quote from: falantus on May 19, 2021, 15:52

No it's not.

Here it is.

https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/eyupzengin

Looks like all the photos are gone.

I see a port of 4598 photos.

My sales and earnings on Adobe have been going down for weeks in opposite to all other agencies. Not sure it has anything to do with any recent change as it's been going on for quite a while already. Even though this time of year doesn't seem to be too great for me on all agencies, Adobe is the only one where my earnings are significant smaller compared to the same period of last year. On all other agencies the effort of submitting new work is paying off. On Adobe I have a lot of trouble getting new images sold and I am even considering to not upload new images there. They are not getting noticed anway, so it seems like a waste of time.  I think more than any change in region-based image display the lack of promotion of new work to customer is my biggest problem on Adobe.

They (and their distributors) can use our images free for marketing, etc. (11.5 and 15.1)

I am quite sure that's pretty much standard with every agency.

Not a good month for me, but April wasn't too great for me on all agencies, so I guess that should not surprise me. 

Quote from: Roscoe on April 23, 2021, 02:27

Brought up on the Shutterstock forum, but some of you might have missed it.

Can anyone link the thread on the SS forum? I can't seem to find it.

There isn't really any other info available there. People are as much in the dark about what's going on there than they are here.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/101933-one-account-phenomenon/

We don't know any more than you do, but I don't see anything that would indicate that these would end up as refunds?
It doesn't seem unusual that the same customer would download multiple photos of the same location. Very likely someone who wants to write about that location and needs photos.

Yes you can Firn.   Please read article 23 and 24 of the link you shared.

23. Without the consent required according to �22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:
1. Portraits from the realm of contemporary history;
2. Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location;
3. Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar events in which the persons depicted took part;
4. Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the dissemination or exhibition serves a greater interest in art.

24) For purposes of the administration of justice and public safety, portraits may be reproduced, distributed and publicly displayed by the authorities without the consent of the person entitled or the person depicted or their relatives.

Furthermore you still have some more exceptions for photojournalism and medical/science /education. For example I was in R&D project co-finance by EU where we had to take pictures of woman's cervix cancer to improve Colposcopy for medics (not the pap smear). These all exceptions is what you call something as editorial instead of commercial since the purpose of the photo does not relies in the identity of the person. but i am no expert here. For Germany my suggestion is that maybe you should consult this law firm  https://zellerseyfert.com/en/image-law-photo-law.html

No, you can't. Please read what I wrote above, or what you just wrote yourself.

Your original statement was

In EU you can shoot people in city as long as is for editorial purposes.

And  that's simply not true. You yourself quoted the few and very specific exceptions that allow you to take photos of people and they are clearly not "shoot people in city as long as it is for editorial purposes". At least one of the photos that even started this conversation, where the street painter is not just someone who happens to be in a shot that Alex wanted to take of a building or street, but where he is clearly the main focus of the photo, would, for example, not be allowed here in Germany.
There are only a few conditions that allow you to take photos of people in a  city and "as long as it is for editorial purpose" is not the condition.

Quote from: everest on May 08, 2021, 06:58

You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way.

Nope. You cannot generalize this as a rule, because each country has its own laws. I don't know about every country in the world, so I can't make generalized statements for them, but I live and photograph in Germany, so I made sure I read up all paragraphs regarding photography here and I can assure you that, even for editorial usage photos, you are not allowed to photograph and publish (even for editorial usage) people in public space when they are the main subject of the photo.

 You are allowed take and sell photos of people taking part in events of public interest like a demonstration and you are also allowed to take photos of streets, buildings, nature, etc. even when there are people in these photos. But taking a close-up portrait shot of some stranger walking in the street and sell it as editorial on Shuttesrtock is not allowed in Germany. Sadly almost no one cares about these rules, neither the contributors nor the stock agencies. I have seen countless editorial close up shots taken in Germany on Shutterstock, just as I have seen countlesd photos of for example castles where the photos were taken inside the property while taking photos there was not allowed. The problem is that hardly anyone takes the effort to go to a castle's webpage and read the fineprints there, like I always make sure to do.

 I am sure in 99,9% of all cases contributors get away with it, because the chance of the person or the property owner even seeing that photo and then taking the effort to hunt the photographer down and actually sue him is very small. But contributors need to be aware that they are taking a legal risk when they just walk around like madmen taking photos of everyone and everything around them, uploading everything to Shutterstock, without ever actually informing themselves about the legal aspect of the country the photos were taken in.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)

Quote

Without the consent required under �22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:

    Portraits from contemporary history
    Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location
    Pictures of meetings and similar events in which the persons depicted have taken part
(...)
There are exceptions for events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Participants must expect to be photographed here.

You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way.

Nope. You cannot generalize this as a rule, because each country has its own laws. I don't know about every country in the world, so I can't make generalized statements for them, but I live and photograph in Germany, so I made sure I read up all paragraphs regarding photography here and I can assure you that, even for editorial usage photos, you are not allowed to photograph and publish (even for editorial usage) people in public space when they are the main subject of the photo.

 You are allowed take and sell photos of people taking part in events of public interest like a demonstration and you are also allowed to take photos of streets, buildings, nature, etc. even when there are people in these photos. But taking a close-up portrait shot of some stranger walking in the street and sell it as editorial on Shuttesrtock is not allowed in Germany. Sadly almost no one cares about these rules, neither the contributors nor the stock agencies. I have seen countless editorial close up shots taken in Germany on Shutterstock, just as I have seen countlesd photos of for example castles where the photos were taken inside the property while taking photos there was not allowed. The problem is that hardly anyone takes the effort to go to a castle's webpage and read the fineprints there, like I always make sure to do.

 I am sure in 99,9% of all cases contributors get away with it, because the chance of the person or the property owner even seeing that photo and then taking the effort to hunt the photographer down and actually sue him is very small. But contributors need to be aware that they are taking a legal risk when they just walk around like madmen taking photos of everyone and everything around them, uploading everything to Shutterstock, without ever actually informing themselves about the legal aspect of the country the photos were taken in.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)

Without the consent required under �22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:

    Portraits from contemporary history
    Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location
    Pictures of meetings and similar events in which the persons depicted have taken part
(...)
There are exceptions for events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Participants must expect to be photographed here.