|
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 - Reimar
51
« on: December 23, 2022, 19:01 »
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?
Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.
Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?
No images were "purchased". Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content. So yes, more than one "asset".
52
« on: December 22, 2022, 18:03 »
Yeah, another $4 dropped in today. That makes four payments, every two days for a week. Strange.
53
« on: December 21, 2022, 09:34 »
The latest e-mail from SS has: "The Contributor Fund will release earnings every 6 months"
If that's all we get for 6 months of usage, it is very underwhelming.
Really? It's a 6 months thing? Very underwhelming indeed.
Feels like iStock/Getty connect.
I'm not sure what they meant. SS talks about "data deals" and "ongoing revenue" of which earnings will be released every 6 months. But over the last week, I've had 3 payments totaling $18.
54
« on: December 20, 2022, 11:41 »
The latest e-mail from SS has: "The Contributor Fund will release earnings every 6 months"
If that's all we get for 6 months of usage, it is very underwhelming.
55
« on: December 17, 2022, 08:43 »
Everybody should check - $58.37 just got added to my account.
Nice! I just got $12. If this is consistent on a biweekly basis, it will make a difference. I hope it's not a one-time thing.
56
« on: December 14, 2022, 13:27 »
Three cents for me too, so far. Missed it because you have to scroll to the right to get the full spreadsheet. Lame.
57
« on: December 07, 2022, 18:17 »
OK, that's something different.
They say: "If an agent or image library already licenses your artistic copyright, then this would conflict with our Copyright Licensing service. Only one organisation can license and negotiate the reproduction of your work." so I don't think it applies to us.
58
« on: December 07, 2022, 09:26 »
Yes, I've been using it for years. I've given up on the American one - I'm in Canada.
I just got my DACS payout of $587 last week. My Access payback was only $294.
59
« on: November 20, 2022, 09:25 »
I see no way to change my vote. I pushed $4-500 when it should be $6-700.
60
« on: October 26, 2022, 17:30 »
Will they allow us as creators to now use the SS/AI engine to create AI content that then gets added to ports?
No - we're not there yet.
61
« on: October 25, 2022, 08:29 »
This will work only for exclusive contributors.
Why? DALL E may be able to use any dataset fed into it. If it's the SS dataset, then exclusivity is not relevant.
62
« on: October 25, 2022, 08:01 »
I'd strongly advise any contributors not to participate in providing content for datasets.
How will that help? Looks like they already fed current images into the dataset, so I'm not sure how much smarter the AI can get. Opting out of payment will only be a good idea for everyone else, assuming it narrows the payment pool.
63
« on: October 25, 2022, 07:40 »
It is SS. so I expect: your photo of the happy young man on a mountain + my sky background combined to a new image= 33% of shared 0.01 USD commission for each. 
More like: the AI looked at 300 million images to learn how images and keywords work and you had 5 images in there that were relevant. You do the math.
64
« on: October 25, 2022, 07:37 »
Yahoo! Let the millionths of a penny start rolling in....
65
« on: October 18, 2022, 09:49 »
Not really. I don't do video, but over this year from January, after 2000 uploads, I have 2 over $30: $37.50 and $73.40
For me SS is well behind Alamy and Adobe for income.
66
« on: August 22, 2022, 12:13 »
A good month for me at AS. Now 211 sales at just under a buck a pop, and there's still plenty of month left.
67
« on: August 19, 2022, 15:40 »
For photographers, I don't see how the Art Board comes into it. The Canvas Size will be your Image Size, so reviewers should be looking at 100% of your image.
68
« on: June 13, 2022, 14:48 »
What's not to like?
How about:
- Sales aren't registered automatically, but customers have to report their own sales, meaning unless you happen to stumble across your own image being used somewhere online and credited back to Alamy by chance, you won't even ever know one of your images has been sold and won't get paid for it if the buyer has not reported it.
- Customers can claim refunds for bought and used images even after a year
- Sometimes customers do report sails, but never pay for the image. Then you have to fight for your money for months.
- Even if customers pay the images on their own accord, it usually takes months to get the money
- They have sales with comissions as low as 0.04$, which is even less that Shutterstock.
- They let customers scam you by letting them buy images with a cheap "personal use" licence that clearly aren't suitable for any kind of personal use.
All correct Firn.
Although I'm not sure what you mean by "sales aren't registered automatically". But fraud (stolen images) is an issue across this industry. Alamy is not immune. Alamy gives more immediate info on sales than other places, so adjustments happen occasionally. No site is perfect. Although it has been slipping in the last while, I still find Alamy the least less perfect.
I am not talking about stolen images. I am talking about Alamy letting customers download images without paying for them. They can then do with the image whatever they want. And if they actually use the image - in a newspaper, or online - they are supposed to kindly let Alamy know that the downloaded images have been used and only then the image will be reported as sale in your account. Unlike with other agencies on Alamy customers don't have to pay for downloading the image, they only have to pay for using them and Alamy trusts them to tell them when an image has been used. And that - obviously - results in many customers never telling Alamy they have used an image so they don't have to pay for it. It happens all the time, it happens to me as well. From time to time I do an image search with my name and Alamy and then I send links to all images that I never saw sales for in my account to Alamy and then they start hunting down the buyers demanding to pay for the images. I found images of mine credited to Alamy in articles that were over a year old and the images were never reported as used, thus I never saw a sale for them and never got my money and even after reporting this to Alamy it took months and several mails inquiring about it to finally have the sales registered and get my money.
I think this "pay on a trust basis"-method is unacceptable. What other bussiness does that? "Hey, you can take this apple with you and if you get home and decide to eat it, you can come back and pay me."
I hear you Firn. I think Alamy does have special arrangements with some large users like newspapers that is based on an honor system (that doesn't always work). Using images you didn't pay for is fraud (or stealing).
69
« on: June 13, 2022, 12:00 »
What's not to like?
How about:
- Sales aren't registered automatically, but customers have to report their own sales, meaning unless you happen to stumble across your own image being used somewhere online and credited back to Alamy by chance, you won't even ever know one of your images has been sold and won't get paid for it if the buyer has not reported it.
- Customers can claim refunds for bought and used images even after a year
- Sometimes customers do report sails, but never pay for the image. Then you have to fight for your money for months.
- Even if customers pay the images on their own accord, it usually takes months to get the money
- They have sales with comissions as low as 0.04$, which is even less that Shutterstock.
- They let customers scam you by letting them buy images with a cheap "personal use" licence that clearly aren't suitable for any kind of personal use.
All correct Firn. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "sales aren't registered automatically". But fraud (stolen images) is an issue across this industry. Alamy is not immune. Alamy gives more immediate info on sales than other places, so adjustments happen occasionally. No site is perfect. Although it has been slipping in the last while, I still find Alamy the least less perfect.
70
« on: June 13, 2022, 08:06 »
Out of traditional stock agencies, Alamy, have always been very cordial to me.
I still have a love/hate relationship with them though! This month is more hate as I'm "owning the blank page" with 0 earnings.
I agree with Alex. While Alamy contributor share is down to 40% or lower for distributors, I still make more money there than SS or AS. They accept everything. Uploads are easy and accepted instantly. They have a forum of helpful people. e-mails to contributor relations are answered. What's not to like?
71
« on: June 02, 2022, 07:29 »
Heavy photoshoped photo
Wait - are you saying a photograph of art is an illustration, but a vector of an image is a photograph? I'm not following. I know what a heavily processed image is, but I would say that does not include a vector.
72
« on: June 01, 2022, 11:06 »
Yes Pete: everything I shoot with my camera is a photograph  I was thinking of Adobe Stock that accepts these kinds of photos as photos under the "graphic resources" category. For Shutterstock I use the category "Abstract".
73
« on: June 01, 2022, 09:07 »
Well, the consensus is indeed on your side. But I have my doubts.
At other sites and even at SS these images have sold as photographs. If I use my camera and take a picture, I'm inclined to call it a photographic image. I've taken other totally abstract images with my camera. If I use colored water and glass, for example, or acrylic paint and canvas, makes little difference to me. Both are photographs labelled as a graphic resource.
74
« on: May 18, 2022, 15:24 »
To be honest, if I did an illustration and photographed it - just the whole painting, not with canvas, frame, room surrounding, etc. - I would actully mark it as illustration and not as photograph, because it is a digitalized painting.
Also, consider this: Imagine a customer is looking for what you have created - Would he search under photography or illustration for it? I know if I wanted an image of an acryl painting, I would not search under the photography category. I don't think you are doing yourself a favor by even trying to submit this as photography.
I never thought of it that way. It's a first for me as I say. I see other stock photographs of famous (and not so famous) paintings and have never thought this would be classified as an illustration.
75
« on: May 18, 2022, 13:51 »
I painted an abstract canvas in acrylic with a pallet knife and took a picture of it. I have a dozen of these. After finally getting the property release right for SS, the image was rejected again with a note to make it an illustration, not a photograph. What? Is this the new normal for photographs of art?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
