|
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 25, 2023, 13:45 »
It's not just water - that portfolio has over 200 pictures of the same teddy bears on a patch of scrubby grass. https://www.shutterstock.com/g/murengstockphoto?q=teddy%20bear%20grassSome look identical at first glance, but are slightly wider/more closeup. There has to be some sort of alternate set of reviewing criteria for these mass-duplication portfolios to get approved.
553
« on: January 22, 2023, 14:18 »
...Anyways. Interesting. Your thoughts?...
I hadn't seen that page full of PR bollocks about how SS complies with the UK's 2015 modern slavery act. But supposing everything they said there was fantasy - what sort of enforcement mechanisms are there to call them out? I assume nothing of consequence. So they write the honeyed words, feel accomplished and move on to trying to keep the stock price going up. Having laws with no active enforcement mechanisms is just a PR exercise
554
« on: January 20, 2023, 10:11 »
555
« on: January 17, 2023, 09:31 »
Vecpho consulting agency is true, and help to thousands of authors to increase their incomes and grow in the Microstock market.
Visit one of our partners!
https://snip.ly/c1cqmz
I took a look at your web site and you aren't up front about what you charge the contributors you represent. The closest I could come to what I was looking for - what percentage of the royalties do you keep - was this mushy statement "...we never charge anything until the author starts to see the results of our relationship." In other words there's no up front fee, but you do charge for your services. Every contributor would love to get a better deal from the big agencies that drive the bulk of microstock sales, but very (very) few contributors have the kind of portfolio where any site will negotiate on royalties to get that content - there's just too much content out there already. Beware of vague promises of improvements - the linked blog post is just a marketing piece by the CEO of Vecpho, largely content free.
556
« on: January 17, 2023, 09:15 »
Alex can obviously try whatever experiments he feels will be valuable with his content - as pointed out above.
I would note that I wasn't at all impressed by the earnings chart of the person whose experience persuaded Alex to try this route. I earn more in a month from Adobe Stock than James Wheeler did (from Adobe Stock) in 12 months. I currently earn nothing from Shutterstock as they closed my account when I protested their 2020 royalty cuts, but the same was true for them before I became an outcast.
I don't have a large portfolio (just over 2,000 images) and as it earns reasonable returns, I wouldn't consider putting that at risk with an experiment similar to Alex's. If I earned what James Wheeler does, I'd have a lot less to lose and thus would probably be more willing to try out various things to boost my earnings.
The impact of free sites is already clear in that royalty per download is lower than it was, even when earnings are up because download volume is up.
557
« on: January 11, 2023, 09:56 »
I would say you absolutely do. Just think for a moment about all those important features that are visible and eminently recognizable - eyes, hairline, eyebrows, ears, not to mention other parts of the body.
Jo Ann, just because my hairline *is* recognizable doesnt mean I want it to be.
So something like this, you mean??  
558
« on: January 10, 2023, 20:14 »
I would say you absolutely do. Just think for a moment about all those important features that are visible and eminently recognizable - eyes, hairline, eyebrows, ears, not to mention other parts of the body. Debates about this sort of thing happened many times - someone whose image was taken from behind but with lots of detail, for example - and the answer was almost always that if the person was the primary subject of the image, you need a model release. If the person is in the distance, out of focus, not the main subject of the image and masked, then you're probably fine. But I doubt that's what you were asking about
559
« 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
560
« 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.
561
« 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?
562
« 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)
563
« on: October 18, 2022, 18:11 »
565
« 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.
566
« 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
567
« 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?
568
« on: September 27, 2022, 11:14 »
569
« on: September 23, 2022, 14:21 »
...
570
« 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.
571
« on: September 21, 2022, 11:40 »
572
« on: September 21, 2022, 11:33 »
573
« on: September 15, 2022, 10:42 »
575
« 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)
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
