|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - f8
51
« on: August 27, 2023, 18:57 »
I agree. I don't do AI nor do I have any interest in doing so. What I have observed is that ever since the AI content came about my work has been rejected at levels that baffle me. My photos and illustrative editorial rejections are so random it's senseless based on my track record of having thousands of previous images accepted. My videos still go through with the normal/acceptable amount of rejections. And the wait time for inspections is a joke.
That scary disclaimer is also just that. I am so hesitant to upload anything, especially 'illustrative editorial' which does have logos and trademarks but the disclaimer does not address this.
My suggestion to Adobe is to get your shyte together. Before you get into full gear with AI, perhaps start using some I.
I am very concerned as a contributor.
52
« on: August 27, 2023, 13:43 »
What is even more fun is our content ferments for a month or so only to find out your content suddenly does not meet Adobe qaulity standards, evenwith years of a proven track record.
Adobe is dropping the ball in every way lately.
It's really sad to see the demise of a once respected platform. It's almost as if the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
53
« on: August 27, 2023, 11:24 »
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
So sorry to hear this.
Adobe is wrong in the way they are handling established contributors who made a mistake with AI - and doubly wrong because their review process for AI images is so useless it doesn't catch any of the errors.
This isn't an intractable problem. It requires a bit of attention, possibly some extra staff assigned to the task and possibly some code. When a problem AI image is identified in an account more than one year old:
-Disable AI images temporarily while you investigate
-Email the contributor with the image numbers identified as problems and mark them in the contributor interface. Have a few categories of errors and specify what the errors are with each image number
-Block uploading but leave the account open for the contributor to delete items if that's their choice. Payouts should be available if the balance is sufficient.
-Respond to contributors with disabled images within a week - if their accounts are open, the urgency will be less.
-If the investigation takes longer than a week, allow uploading of non-AI images until issues are resolved.
Established contributors have proved themselves with Adobe Stock. Treating them with respect, even if a mistake has been made (not only by them, but also by the reviewers), is the absolute least they deserve.
Jo Ann, thank you for the well thought and meaningful post. Quite brave of you :-)
Yes, thank you Jo Ann. Adobe has dropped the ball in so many ways lately. I am borderline terrified to upload there as one never knows what Adobe will do next.
54
« on: August 23, 2023, 15:56 »
... If I told you in 2007 that we'd all be getting pennies on the dollar for stock photos and illustration I'd be booed out of the tribe as an outcast. If I told you in 2012 we'd be getting a few dollars for video I'd be the social outcast. Were you prepared?
wow! you're an oracle - your predictions only took 10-15 years to come true! (among other happenings, 2 major recession & a global pandemic)
An oracle? Hardly. But the predictions did come true. FWIW I did not factor in the "among other happenings, 2 major recession & a global pandemic" because the writing was on the wall and fairly obvoius. It's also not agency bashing as you suggest because all the agencies out there today are similar. It's accepting the industry for what it has become and for what it is.
55
« on: August 23, 2023, 08:27 »
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.
Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself.
copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors - if your submitted work is accepted AS agrees to pay you
copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors and so it starts. If an image is not copyrighted then there is no protection from any agency. There is already very little respect for any contributor with copyright and submitting content that is not protected will be contentious in the future. I said same about microstock circa 2007 and could see the result of where we are today. As mentioned, be prepared. And it won't be AS specific, it will be industry wide. We are at entry level.
In the current situation where most people upload to multiple platforms there is no way to monitor copyright infringement. This will increase tenfold with AI and the abuse will also increase tenfold.
I don't produce AI content, and for that matter nobody does. As mentioned, prepare yourself. There is not one platform/agency out there that has your best interests or finacial gain as their priority.
Microstock agencies and market are for sure not the greatest and most important company in which the AI will have impact
There are several great company that has BIG interest in regulate copyright and AI: let's say Disney, Pixar, Warner, any big company that produce visual content using AI, all of them will need a clear copyright on their own creations; and they will discuss and obtain it.
Microsotck is not the center of the world 
Microsotck is not the center of the world This is true, but at one point in time it was for many photographers and the 'I told you so' photographers were shunned upon for saying as much. Now we do backflips to sell an image for 10 cents for unlimited usage and it is no longer a sustainable business model for the contributor. If you can name one stock site that has petitioned for the benefit contributor I'd love to hear about it. Not one agency since the microstock model has ensured our best interests in mind. Their profits keep going up and they keep lowering our royalties. Disney, Pixar, Warner will clear copyright for sure, but they have the financial ability to ensure this for themselbes, not the small "center of the world" contributors, we will be exempt from this. Lest we forget AS, SS, Getty etc are corporate and will ensure their best corporate interests, just like they have to date. Every microstock agency has abused their contributors, we have our little hissy fit, and it's business as usual. Prepare yourself. If I told you in 2007 that we'd all be getting pennies on the dollar for stock photos and illustration I'd be booed out of the tribe as an outcast. If I told you in 2012 we'd be getting a few dollars for video I'd be the social outcast. Were you prepared?
56
« on: August 22, 2023, 20:51 »
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.
Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself.
copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors - if your submitted work is accepted AS agrees to pay you
copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors and so it starts. If an image is not copyrighted then there is no protection from any agency. There is already very little respect for any contributor with copyright and submitting content that is not protected will be contentious in the future. I said same about microstock circa 2007 and could see the result of where we are today. As mentioned, be prepared. And it won't be AS specific, it will be industry wide. We are at entry level. In the current situation where most people upload to multiple platforms there is no way to monitor copyright infringement. This will increase tenfold with AI and the abuse will also increase tenfold. I don't produce AI content, and for that matter nobody does. As mentioned, prepare yourself. There is not one platform/agency out there that has your best interests or finacial gain as their priority.
57
« on: August 21, 2023, 22:38 »
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.
Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself.
58
« on: August 14, 2023, 17:54 »
And only 1/5 of Adobe Stock photo sales. So, I decided to opt out of photo sales to see if my Adobe Stock photo sales will go up as much as I make on Shutterstock. If Adobe Stock photo sales doesn't change, I'll turn Shutterstock photo sales back on.
I am not sure how long you have been shooting stock but here is the grim truth. Apart from the original gold rush of buying cheap discounted images (the early days of microstock) with absolutely no quality control (real editing) of images and accepting almost every image uploaded (all sites guilty), sales and royalties have dropped and will continue to do so. If you were paying attention the writing has been on the wall for more than 10 years, if not longer.
59
« on: July 31, 2023, 13:39 »
10-11 pages on this thread and "we are just spinning wheels here"
It is pretty self evident that Adobe has lost its way regarding the whole inspection process.
Far too many people with the same result of "serial batch reject" to be a coincidence.
It's really a shame as Adobe was truly one fine agency and now I am starting to have my doubts as the review times are seriously broken and the rejection rate far too random with no consistency at all.
60
« on: July 27, 2023, 16:37 »
I have over 20 submissions which have been waiting for two weeks now. In my opinion, they are a step up in quality to the work I did in the past because my new camera/lens combo is that much better. All have been accepted on other sites too.
Anyway, I made a copy of the title and key words for all of them so I can resubmit real fast and with a minimum of effort. If Adobe want to play 'silly buggers', so can I.
Good call, why do something once when you can do it two or three times. At this point it is fairly evident Adobe is not interested in fixing the problem.
61
« on: July 27, 2023, 15:16 »
Ok, got hit with a serial batch reject.
This totally sums it up, and so does this quote "we are just spinning wheels here."The sad thing is that this random and senseless "serial batch reject" issue is messing with my livelihood and has absolutely no logic attached to it. Smaller batches also don't seem to make a difference, it appears to be all accepted as per what was normal in the past and is normal still on other platforms or it is "serial batch reject" brought to you only by Adobe. Also it is gut wrenching knowing it takes weeks or a month to complete the cycle of randomness when the content is already actively selling on other platforms.
62
« on: July 24, 2023, 10:58 »
Illustrative editorial or actual?
(Has the policy changed?)
I am not sure the inspectors even know the answer. Just sent in a submission and half got accepted and half rejected because it was not editorial??? Everything seems hit and miss lately with Adobe.
Editorial content on Adobe was always hit and miss for me and I am pretty sure it's not me, but the reviewers. I rarely submit images from the same batch at once, because I think they would compete with each other. If I send an image of some subject to Adobe as editorial one might get ccepted and later a different one from the same batch - so for example an image of the same subject, but maybe from a different angle - will be rejected, because suddenly it wasn't "editorial". And I have read their editorial rules carefully and never submitted anything that was not meeting the requirement. But the reviewers don't seem to be clear on what the reqquirements are.
Same same. I don't take it personally and just move on. I have been an editorial photographer for 25+ years and have been assigned by many noted magazines so I think I have a handle of what editorial photography is. I too have read and re-read their guidelines and it's hit and miss. Same goes for submitting to regular content, hit and miss, I just move on. I actually think Adobe is putting their priority into AI these days and randomly accepts photo content for AI training purposes only.
63
« on: July 23, 2023, 13:44 »
Sent you a PM.
64
« on: July 23, 2023, 12:42 »
Illustrative editorial or actual?
(Has the policy changed?)
I am not sure the inspectors even know the answer. Just sent in a submission and half got accepted and half rejected because it was not editorial??? Everything seems hit and miss lately with Adobe.
65
« on: July 18, 2023, 15:33 »
in quebec we have to pay TPS/TVH if incoming is over 30 000$
Spend a few bucks and get a professional answer from a CFA not from a forum full of well intentioned ill informed people. Not sure of the exact provincial tax laws in QC but at the federal level you don't have to pay any GST which I am presuming is called TPS in QC. Royalties are not considered sales so therefore no GST. You will however have to claim the income and pay the federal and provincial tax for income purposes. Best to reach out to a CFA to confirm I am giving you the right info.
66
« on: July 14, 2023, 21:02 »
Getty used to do this - it was called Photographer's Choice.
Back then you could make so much from a good, useful image that it may well have been worth it.
I'd pay to go back to those days. I remember taking a chance on my rejected content and paying $125 to have my images duped in all the offices around the world. I would love to go back to actually have an editor accepting or refusing an image which is a bit different from the gong show of today.
67
« on: July 10, 2023, 15:41 »
From a platforms (microstock site) perspective in 10-20 years most likely a growth business.
From a contributors persective it has been an industry in decline for years and will continue to do so.
It is very difficult to be profitable when you only get pennies for your work. Take into account there have only been cuts in royalties from all platforms and never an increase and also factor in increased costs and inflation.
That amazing 0.10c to 0.33c we make has actually lost value. The the top 3 platforms are owned by corporations who only serve the shareholders.
Don't spend it all in one spot kids.
68
« on: July 04, 2023, 16:56 »
This thread is an embarassment and so pre-pubescent.
69
« on: June 25, 2023, 11:54 »
What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run?
Thank you for my morning laugh, coffee almost came out my nose. Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc. care about only one thing, their profits and keeping shareholders happy. We are only a necessary financial liability toward their profit. Name one platform that has even increased the value of our work just to keep up with inflation. Things will get interesting going forward, AI generated images are not eligible for copyright and rest assured this will be exploited in the long run. I trust corporate structure as much as I trust any government.
70
« on: June 23, 2023, 08:52 »
I've been in contact with AS and Mat recently about rejections. The ones I took issue with do appear to have been approved now (now in the accepted list, image portfolio)... I'm waiting on a follow up confirming what actually happened.
I have to say I found Mat to be very understanding and balanced with his assessment. I have no issues there at all. Hopefully the rejection problem is a growing pain issue due to the high volume of images rather than a change in policy.
If I had any issue, AS should have seen this coming... we've seen how fraudsters have worked tirelessly in the Stock Industry, especially at Shutterstock, so there was bound to be a massive influx of chancers submitting dodgy work etc by the 1000's.
Personally, I'd like to see AI have its own queue away from photographs, illustrations and human pngs etc and for any delay to affect them only rather than impacting everyone. At the moment photographs seem to go through ok but png's take an age.
Thank you for your update, you are more communicative than Adobe in this fiasco. I am glad they looked into your image/s but what the real going concern is the mass rejections that totally break the pattern of years previously. I have completely halted uploading as the rejections are beyond reasonable and quite frankly a complete waste of my time. We have been assured by Mat that nothing has changed, and I think is safe to say after 9 pages of a thread proclaiming the opposite that this simply is not true. Honestly I expect more from Adobe as they are usually top shelf but lately they have dropped the ball on this issue, and for that I among others are very concerned. I am not at all concerned about a longer inspection time, this is totally understandable, volume creates delays. What concerns me is the SUDDEN extremely high amount of rejections or total rejections of quality content not meeting their quality standards. It is the polar opposite of the experience I have had since Adobe took over from Fotolia, black and white different. I just with they would a) address this issue or b) fix it.
71
« on: June 22, 2023, 08:45 »
@svh
"But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself."
What you are saying is, you are an amateur photographer with no interest to understand the actual needs of the customers.
That is why it is unlikely you will make reliable money from stock.
Stock is a service oriented business, not a self discovery journey. We don't make the content for ourselves, we make it for the customers and their projects.
You come into a professional business forum then proceed to judge and lecture the people that do this for a living.
You might as well enter a forum that supports the techs who sell and repair washing machines. Then proceed to criticize and belittle people while they are actually working.
And you don't even notice how out of place you are.
But we get your kind all the time, usually male, retired, bored and in love with their overpriced camera gear.
Have fun, while you are here, but you will get bored and move on sooner or later.
While we will still be here in 20 years.
eta:
Just as an example
my eyeem port
https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock
my eyeem lifetime earnings - How did I do that?
Why post your lifetime earnings? It's a bit juvenile. That said it's decent income for basic and random snack photos. Imagine how much more it would be if you submitted real quality. I took a look at your port and my only comment is before microstock started and dropped the bar in quality, you would have never made it into the "closed shop" of macro stock.
72
« on: June 21, 2023, 14:30 »
Well... so far this week it has been 100% rejection. Not a single file accepted (photographic). Bear in mind my lifetime rank is around 520 and I've been submitting to them for about 10 years so it's not like I'm a new contributor with no experience.
I've deleted the files that were waiting to go to them and for now, I'm going to pause submitting photographic content as I don't want to damage my acceptance rate. I'm waiting on a reply from AS when I contacted support about the problem.
I really like AS and I'm sure they'll sort it out but the radio silence, I have to admit, is rather concerning.
Edit. I've also asked for feedback as to what, "Quality Issues" because if there is problem, I want to resolve it. It's just that they pass everywhere else so it's a bit confusing as to why just AS. Hopefully someone will reply.
I have done the same thing and won't submit any new work until I see this nonsense is remedied.
73
« on: June 21, 2023, 10:31 »
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
I'm guessing Mat hasn't seen this thread because I don't think he checks the general forum. If this thread was moved over to the Adobe Forum, he'd probably jump in....which would be nice
I am going to presume that Mat has not chimed in because his employer has directed him to not chime in. Lest we forget that Mat is not on this forum of his own free volition, he is a salaried employee of a corporation and has a set of parameters of what he can and will say.
74
« on: June 20, 2023, 17:41 »
From the Bigstock site...
"The landscape of creative opportunity is continuing to evolve, and technology is playing an even more instrumental role. We recognize that Bigstock has not enjoyed many of the platform advances we have introduced in recent years on Shutterstock and were making changes to address that. While we explore future improvements, starting on June 30, 2023 Bigstock will no longer accept new content submissions.
If you are an established contributor with Bigstock, despite no longer having the option to upload new content to Bigstock, your portfolio will remain active on the site. You can continue accruing earnings from downloads and requesting payouts once your earnings reach the minimum threshold of $30.
For those interested in accessing greater opportunities as a content creator and reaching our global customer base, we invite you to join our growing community of Shutterstock contributors. You can learn more about Shutterstock Account and Submission Guidelines here.
We will communicate further changes to our Bigstock contributors as soon as those updates become available."
Looks like they are slowly shutting the site down.
75
« on: June 19, 2023, 14:32 »
Mine havent been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, theyre been declined as similar because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, dont worry, Everest summit will do they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected 
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
And I do understand the mountain problem. "The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video" (quote Mat).
So obviously within those two seconds of watching your photo or video and reading your title, those mountains must look the same
It's like ultra fast scanning with collateral damage.
Thanks Adobe for taking your time on our curated submissions!
Edit:
Maybe Adobe can get some classes from Getty's which (unlikable as they might be to some) do a thorough review, give you the abillity to revise stuff, if possible, and otherwise explain very clearly why your submission is rejected. And they do it within a week.
The best review process I experienced was Corbis. They were thorough but you knew a pass was a pass and a decline was a decline. Get this, you actually dealt with them over the phone as well and could chat about any problems! I'm probably showing my age now 🤣
The Image Bank, Tony Stone, First Light, Masterfile, and even early Getty all used to do that and get this... take 40% commission for representing your work. That's right the contributors received 60%. Yes, you are definitely showing your age. I went through the very same rigorous editing process and took my lumps as they were usually designed toward improving my craft. The Adobe rejections of today are laughable from my perspective and experience. When multiple respected platforms take 90%-95% of submitted work and only one respected platform suddenly, and I do mean suddenly rejects 90%-100% of my submitted content with no explanation other than "quality" issues you can safely assume there are internal issues that need resolving.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
