|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 291
551
« on: January 09, 2023, 11:45 »
You will need to contact Shutterstock's compliance department to get this portfolio taken down [email protected]They aren't always speedy at doing this and filing DMCA takedown notices is another option where it's your own work that's been used. They aren't as quick as they should be at addressing these issues (which should never occur if they were properly assessing submissions, especially from new contributors) so you may need to chase them up. Not sure if iStock can help (in the past they would probably have) but that's another avenue to try
552
« on: December 28, 2022, 11:15 »
...Please contact the tax team directly for assistance via [email protected]...
My experience with this email is unlike other Adobe support - I think because it's outsourced to a third party. It was a black hole. It was last year, admittedly, but I never got a reply to my support request beyond the auto-responder. I sent a followup after a couple of weeks and got nothing from that either.
553
« on: December 28, 2022, 10:14 »
I'm in the US, so my tax form is a W-9, but the link appears to be working when I ask to view my current form: https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/tax/documentThat link is generic, although unless you're logged in nothing will happen. Perhaps you could try that link - possibly with your language code in place of .../en/... - and see if it works for you?
554
« on: October 18, 2022, 23:58 »
A long time ago iStock did, but no one else that I know of. For the time I was exclusive there (2008-11) I submitted in aRGB and then had to make sRGB versions of those files when I returned to being an independent.
The area where you notice the difference in color gamuts was Caribbean turquoise waters, but it's small. I think that for most purposes and most buyers sRGB works well enough and avoids dealing with color management hassles for users who don't care (because of products or browsers that just assume sRGB which displays an aRGB image looking really awful)
555
« on: October 18, 2022, 18:11 »
557
« on: October 05, 2022, 15:40 »
I agree that it would be great for contributors to see how many PNG vs JPEG downloads there were for relevant items.
There is a new way to search - a filter called Background where you can pick All, Transparent or Isolated Assets. If you click the helpful information icon you see an explanation of isolated vs. transparent (bonus points to Adobe for choosing two adorable dogs to illustrate)
If I give someone a portfolio link, they can't filter by transparency (just images, video, 3D, etc.) but the PNG uploads show with a checkerboard background which is great.
558
« on: October 03, 2022, 13:25 »
Thanks for posting about this, and it's sad to see another example of agencies being very casual about image theft. Freepik is unfortunately not the only one that doesn't bother to check closely on new contributors (and it isn't hard to do) and also not the only one to slow-walk removal of demonstrably stolen content.
Keep after them to take the work down. In the past, I've taken to Twitter to shame Shutterstock into speeding up the takedown of stolen work when they were ignoring email reports to their "compliance" group. You could try the same thing with Freepik although be careful in how you word things (to keep it factual). It doesn't change things long term, but it does motivate companies to fix the one problem you shame them about.
Good luck
559
« on: September 30, 2022, 14:51 »
How is the training issue (not seeking permission or giving compensation to the copyright holder) different from using samples in music? There've been lots of lawsuits over this and I don't think the notion that the sample is short gets you off the hook. The fact that you can't create these images without a large database to "train" with is not at issue, as far as I know. The fact that there are lots of people's copyrighted work that you're only stealing a very little bit from doesn't really change the basics of the transaction. Even images lifted from social media have copyright - the person who snapped the image holds it. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that a big tech entity can rely on the lousy economics from individual copyright holders perspective when crowd- stealingsourcing: paying a lawyer to go after the misuse is too expensive for most people to afford. StealingSourcing internationally makes it even less likely people will come after you. IMO it's likely individual creators of the works used to train AI systems probably can't do anything about this wholesale misuse of their work, but that doesn't alter the fact that there is wholesale misuse. https://www.vondranlegal.com/five-music-infringement-cases-mixingsamplinghttps://www.highsnobiety.com/p/unauthorized-rap-samples/Music Sampling Lawsuits: Does Looping Music Samples Defeat the De Minimis Defense?
560
« on: September 27, 2022, 11:14 »
561
« on: September 23, 2022, 14:21 »
...
562
« on: September 21, 2022, 21:48 »
The contributor specific agreement was last updated in March 2022, effective April 15, 2022, so we've been living with these terms for 5 months already.
The kitchen sink general terms contain a mind-numbing array of details about whether you're a business user or individual and thus whether "you" means the company or a person. It's possible some of those changes might have an impact on contributors, but I think it's much more general for Adobe's customers, not us as suppliers.
563
« on: September 21, 2022, 11:40 »
564
« on: September 21, 2022, 11:33 »
565
« on: September 15, 2022, 10:42 »
567
« on: September 01, 2022, 14:10 »
Not sure that you can draw many conclusions from my experience - small portfolio (2,251 right now), no video, but year to date Adobe Stock is up almost 12% over 2021 (in revenue) and 2021 was up 20% over 2020.
There's some possibility that no longer being at Shutterstock (after June 2020) caused some increase (it certainly wasn't heading for Dreamstime!).
August was up 10.5% over August 2021 (at Adobe Stock)
568
« on: August 30, 2022, 13:33 »
Thanks for putting together a post about your experiences.
Leaving aside the usability of the resulting images, it seems that the issue of copyright in the end result will have many of the same tangles as in the music business where samples, even brief ones, have resulted in litigation. Agencies do not want to spend money on lawyers, so avoiding legal risk will, IMO, be a key factor in any rules they set for contributors.
569
« on: August 29, 2022, 17:04 »
The only one I know of that has that requirement is iStock. From their help page for those considering going exclusive:
"Being Exclusive means that, for the file type(s) that you are Exclusive for, you agree that you cannot license any of that type of content on a royalty-free basis elsewhere. For example, if you are Exclusive for Photos, you cant license any Photos with a competitor on a royalty-free basis, even for images that youve never submitted to iStock."
570
« on: August 28, 2022, 16:20 »
I did a quick look-around and here are a few things I noticed. Good luck with the site.
I can't see the image dimensions in pixels (or if it's there, I couldn't find it). To know if an image is large enough for certain projects, that information is important (and provided by all the agencies)
It's nice that you can zoom in to see details, but it's a rather hidden feature. I just clicked to see what would happen and then I did get a zoomed in view with a minus-magnifying-glass cursor showing I could zoom out. (Mac OS 12.5.1, Chrome). It would be nice to have a visual cue that zoom is possible.
The license is quite different from a typical agency license in a number of ways. The requirement for credit was noted above, but it also says you can't use more than 20 of your images in one project. Not sure how important that is, but the overall tone of the license is such that I'd be worried I'd inadvertently mess up and violate it. Most people will be honest, and those that aren't probably won't read the license or worry about violating the rules anyway. I'd simplify/streamline it.
Images aren't marked as editorial or commercial use - as a buyer, I'd like to know which is which.
The advertising in the license was very distracting. I assume it's because the license is in another part of your blog/history site which carries ads, but I think it'd be better for the license to be on the pixfy part of the site and ad-free. Shutterstock ads showed up multiple times, so clicking on that takes me away to license someone else's images.
I tried clicking on keywords underneath an image to see if they'd do a new search on that keyword - they don't, but that'd be a nice thing to have IMO.
If you have zoomed in on an image and then click on one of the drop-down menus at the top, the menu goes behind the zoomed-in image. You can select the half-seen menu item (if it's on the side, and it works), but most menus are completely obscured.
571
« on: August 26, 2022, 12:19 »
They didn't say "illustrations only" in the email sent out Thursday, but looking at what was eligible in my account, that's what it appears they're including in this round.
572
« on: August 13, 2022, 23:08 »
I turned my portfolio off June 1 2020 and honestly don't know whether I'd have turned it back on - Shutterstock closed my account at the end of July 2020 because of my public comments about their royalty reductions.
I've heard all the arguments pro and con. If you need the money and are fully aware that Shutterstock may reduce royalties further as they try to please investors (last two quarters have not gone well), you should upload if you need to. If you're not already uploading to Adobe Stock, I'd build a portfolio there too (the big drawback there is for people with lots of editorial images as Adobe Stock won't accept most types from "regular" contributors)
573
« on: August 11, 2022, 21:57 »
If you save the PNG from Photoshop (and your metadata is entered there), it is preserved. You need to use the Save a Copy feature, not Export As (which only preserves some metadata when you tell it to include metadata).
574
« on: August 11, 2022, 16:28 »
Jo Ann, did you see Mat's response to my post just above yours? Apparently they will have a Photoshop style checkerboard for the transparent background.
Oops - missed that. But it's great news it will show transparency
575
« on: August 11, 2022, 13:59 »
Hello. How will PNG files with white objects be displayed? For example snowflakes.
Content will not be differentiated based on color. The background will be white.
If you look at how Adobe Stock displays 3D content - with a gray background with a perspective grid to show the surface on which the object sits - that approach allows display of everything clearly, both the objects and the transparency. Couldn't something similar to that work for PNGs? On the Mac, if you view (in the Finder) a PNG file, it has a nice semi-transparent gray background. In Photoshop, you see the checkerboard background to indicate transparency. There are probably other examples already out there. Seems a shame to obliterate white transparent objects by putting everything in a PNG on a white background...
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
