Some reasonable suggestions, but I really do not think any microstock agency has any real interest in cretaing a really "honest" or "fair" or "ethical" compensation system for AI training. They are just throwing these words around because they hope it will be a selling point for their AI product to customers, that's all. 

I think they would in the future. While the "short-term" gains may be high - if contributors "exit" the system (i.e., too costly to create new works) - then the "ai images" become "stagnant" - i.e., have an "ai" look/feel to them, and don't incorporate new elements.

The current way of doing it is very short sighted.

And just a suspicion that agencies want AI images marked, so they won't be used to train AI.

lol - that is "exactly" one of the reasons why they are marked as such... not the only reason, but one of them

This is how you create an ethical/responsible "ai" system that COMPENSATES contributors as long as their images are used...

------------

Basically -
(a) Opt-in/opt-out system. Contributors CHOOSE whether they want to participate. Works are added/removed from the training set, depending on the setting.
(b) For a 'fair' system (where you'd most likely get contributors WANTING to participate) - contributors benefit for EVERY SINGLE "AI" IMAGE generated.

How do you do that? It's quite simple, really.
- When the neural networks are set up - the ID # of the images is recorded for the data inputted - i.e., a "data point".
- When a customer "generates" an "AI" image - it "pulls" from sometimes tens, or hundreds or thousands of "data points" to create that image. All the ID#'s of images used in composing that "AI image" is recorded.
- Each contributor - image ID - is given a fractional portion of that generated sale. Which, obviously adds up the more images created.

Doing it this way is certainly much more ethical, AND equitable/fair - and most likely you'd have people WANTING to make images when they know they will be compensated for, not with a tool that is designed to "replace" them.

It also CAN (and SHOULD be) done retroactively - and is very easy to do so.

Going forward it is also very easy to do so.

So for example, let's say:

a) A customer pays $50 for an "AI" tool, and makes 500 images. So each "image" is worth $0.10.
b) Let's say one of those random images "used" 100 contributor files to do so in their neural network.
c) Using the current arrangement (33%), payment would work out as follows. (As an aside, the % should be upped significantly for contributors, because once the tool is in place, adobe doesn't really have to do much 'maintenance'. The 'work' is image creation. I'd suggest a 90% contributor/10% split, or at least 80% contributor-20% adobe. But a different topic).

But for now - using the 33% idea... $0.067 to adobe, $0.033 to the "contributor pool" for the image created.
100 'images' used to create the "ai" image, so $0.033/100 = $0.0033/contributor.

Obviously, for a single image that is not much - BUT - it also obviously quickly adds up, as 1000's of images are created with the "AI" tools.

Certainly much fairer, and equitable.

And OPT-IN/OPT-OUT respected. if a contributor chose to "opt-out" - then their data points would ALSO BE REMOVED from the dataset for future "AI" image generation. "OPTING IN" is likewise very easy - it simply 're-adds' the datapoints to the training set for "ai" image generation.

Programatically VERY EASY to do - although it requires a bit of work to set up. And doing it this way more likely to have contributors WANTING to participate, as opposed to getting very upset/annoyed because it was simply "taken" from them.

THAT is much more along the lines of "responsible AI", with creators in mind at the "center". Not the "pay once to you, we benefit forever on your works" model which creates resentment, and actually discourages future image creation (which long term, will make a useless "AI" tool, as it quickly becomes outdated).

It also makes Adobe a HUGE amount of money going forward, with nice consistent revenue for very little effort or work, and happy contributors that benefit too.

Really don't like the way these companies basically say:

"Oh yah, we stole, erm, 'trained' our AI tool on your images... Here's what we figure it's worth, now don't bother us".

It's theft. Plain & simple. Doesn't matter how "they" justify it - if you did not explicitly give permission to do so, it's theft. Some "justify" it saying "well we have rights in our license agreement" - eh, no. BECAUSE of the way they've "approached" it - they KNOW it is wrong. (I.e., why would you have to 'hide' what you are doing, and after the fact say 'oh, here's some random money, now don't bother us' if you didn't feel it was wrong - because they KNOW - or rather - pretty strongly suspect - if they said to contributors 'Hey guys! We want to make a tool that will make US more money in the long term, and you less - so we basically want to rip of your images so we can do that, but we'll pay you a couple bucks so you don't feel bad, how does that sound?" MOST contributors would MOST LIKELY say, em, no.

Obviously dall-e/midjourney/etc were the first to just simply STEAL images... and one of the "pesky" little "problems" they have is getting rid of "watermarks"... hmm... how EVER could WATER marks have GOTTEN there? OH the mystery!

(While I have used the tools - and I do admit they are 'cool' - I think the approach to creating them is wrong and they should compensate artists for the hard work they did creating them - PLUS - future compensation for every single images generated based on those. Programatically - it IS VERY EASY to set up such a system. RETROACTIVELY - it is ALSO POSSIBLE. More work - but definitely doable).

Then shutterstock basically ripped things off, then said 'oh haha, yah, here's some money, SOOOOOOOreee! we already ripped it off, so you can't get it back, but here's what we randomly decided to pay you!"...

Sad to see what I would have considered better companies now following suit.

BY THE WAY...

CONTRARY to what these "AI" companies say (i.e., midjourney/dall-e/etc) - it actually IS possible to "backwards compensate"/"retroactively" pay/compensate contributors for the images they took IF they chose to do so...
(a) They "tracked" which images they fed into their training set.
(b) People who generated images used certain 'neural nodes' to create that image.
(c) They keep EXTENSIVE track of EVERY SINGLE THING created with the software.

So it IS possible to to write an algorithm "AI" to do super micropayments (like fractional cents) for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE created, THEN it IS possible to find those contributors (i.e., those images that had the 'pesky little watermarks') - and compensate them - and then it IS POSSIBLE to PAY OUT for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE going forward based on those BASE IMAGES...

It may be a little bit of work - but just an FYI - it IS possible. Contrary to what "they" might say. You'd just have to write a computer algorithm to do so.

So going forward - for EVERY single "AI" image created - you could be compensated fractional cents for 'neural node' inputs to create an image (i.e., $0.0001, because components of your image were used in making a new composite) - which - with the hundreds of thousands (more likely millions) being created every day... would quickly add up. AND - give you a nice future consistent revenue stream.

Where does it say they are shutting down? Or are they just being 'sold off'?

Just a commentary, I find it quite amusing how shutterstock "announced" this:
https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Content-Policy-Updates-AI-generated-Content?language=en_US
and is pretending to be taking the "high road" to "AI" generated images, when:

a) The basically STOLE the datasets from EVERY contributor on their platform, QUICKLY "licensed" it (to I am assuming it to either a sister, or subsiduary company)
b) Then, to "compensate" contributors - picked a number out of their a__ (most likely SEVERELY undervalued) to "pay" contributors...

And now is pretending to have the "moral highground" with "AI" (which is not true AI, its simply pattern re-arrangement) generated images...

It's really funny what their "announcement" says, lol "responsible AI" <cough cough bullsh_t>:
"Our mission at Shutterstock is to be every storyteller�s superpower by providing world-class content, tools, and services to effortlessly turn any idea into something amazing. With over 20 years of experience in the creative industry, we�re uniquely positioned to bring AI-generated content to the commercial market responsibly and are excited to lead this space by partnering with other industry leaders such as OpenAI.

As AI-powered tools open up opportunities in this exciting space, this partnership enables the generation of content in an ethically responsible way that properly compensates artists for their contributions to this service while assuring customers with protections and coverage issued under Shutterstock licenses. Our AI-generator tool was trained on datasets licensed from Shutterstock, ensuring copyright protection and proper compensation for artists whose IP was used to develop this technology.  Learn more about responsible AI and how we compensate contributors here."

Stopped uploading to them a LONG time ago, just because:
a) they don't value contributors (for existing sales, i.e., literally pennies for both images & videos)
b) nonsense like the above gobblygook
c) how the previous CEO basically trashed the company so he could cash out a billionaire...

Hi,

I do appreciate your post - looks like you post a lot of hard work into it.

However:
a) While it is good for Steve specifically, I think the sample size is too small to necessarily be applicable to other people. You did show a few 'concept' shots - and (without having looked through his entire portfolio) - what Steve defines as a "nature" shot could be completely different from what most people upload as "nature" shots. I.e., looking at the concept shots - he took time to do "good" concept shots (i.e., top of surfboards which have lots of blue sky, conveying a 'summer concept') - which has a lot of utility - as opposed to say surfboards on sand with a beach background (too 'generic', etc).

Maybe he has a really good eye, maybe he does super macro shots (i.e., closeup of a chipmunks face with a blue sky) - which has elements much more useful, than say a 'generic shot' of a chipmunk in a tree.
b) It doesn't necessarily show trends. That's 16 years. For example, if he took a picture of BarackObama (hypothetically) 15 years ago - that would have probably sold like bonkers when he first got elected (i.e., 'first black president'), whereas nowadays no one really cares/would really be seeking out that kind of photo...

What I would say however the data is good for is, if someone takes a look @ steve's portfolio and emulates his style - they know which elements of his style to focus on.

Anyways, thank-you for putting together the article, still interesting regardless!

Cheers!

It was a technique to steal more $$ from contributors, while making them think "ooh they could get more". Very few ever hit that, and if you "average" your earnings over the year (i.e., time it takes to reach that level), you are actually lower.

I.e., say for 6 months you are at 10%. Then remainder of the year you are at 20%. The "average" rate is actually 15% (not 20%, which some ppl 'forget' about).

Thanks for the reply. Addressing just a few quick comments:

a) Re: the headline, it is very sensationalistic with a lot of presuppositions built into it - and yes, click-baity.. While "yes" - it may get people to "click" on it now - if you continued to have headlines like that - it would hurt your credibility long run. There is a small group of people here (versus the 'masses' that read mainstream), and people here I would say are a little smarter than say people who read "mainstream news" (which uses clickbait headlines almost ALL the time), and they'd quickly figure things out. Yes - I did click on it this time - but I guess why I felt I had to comment, is the article didn't seem as good as some of your previous ones. So wanted to help you out/i.e., constructive criticism.

b) Gmail/hotmail only really introduced that when they literally had tens of millions of users. It is/was a "free" service (not really free, because they had a very 'viral' (at that time) way of promoting hotmail by adding a tagline to each e-mail that was sent out (somethnig like 'Sent with hotmail.com - Get your free account).
Their business model is different from stock.

With most of the stock sites - you get paid for your submissions. With (general) e-mail - you don't get paid for sending/composing it. The agencies have a business model that is working (quite profitability) for them. Essentially - people work for free creating content (no guarantee anyone will purchase anything through an agency), agency (& contributor) only benefits when a sale is made, and its very low cost to host that content. Yes - the agencies (initially) had to do massive marketing to get customers, and do some degree still need to (set aside a portion for paying for continued marketing, curators, storage, etc) - but once you have the paying customers - after that it pretty much starts to become a relatively fixed cost, it's all pretty much pure profit afterwards.

I don't believe they would want to upset that highly lucrative business model. Their business model works - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They do benefit (i.e., SS) from the massive uploads. A sale is better than no sale (part of the reason shutterstock doesn't care if their are "stolen" accounts, they are very unethical in a number of different areas - but that's one reason they don't really care - money). Some agencies are more honest than others. Charging a fee - while yes - probably would get rid of the massive influx of 'get rich quick' accounts (many of which are eastindian) - would also get rid of a lot of the 'low hanging fruit' sales (that can be quite lucrative in themselves). Doesn't make sense business-wise to do that.

Took a look at picfair - wasn't really all that familiar with it. They are not really a "microstock" agency - rather - kind of like a 'gallery' site. They also sell physical items (i.e., prints), take a 20% commission (on top of the seller's selling price). Kind of a mishmash of a few different types of sites. (Looks like they were part of the y-combinator program too). So it is a different business model - "borrowing" from existing successful models and trying something a little different. If their revenue figures are accurate (i.e., googlewise) - they aren't really yet all that successful.

c) Inflation is a different topic. Inflation is when the govt prints massive amounts of money, diluting (aka stealing) people's purchasing power.  (More specifically, the people that own the banks printing money out of thin air (fiat currency/monopoly money) and then do usury by "lending" at high interest rates that for the govt to print, and then convincing people to use their monetary 'notes'). Taxation, inflation, etc is essentially theft, two sides of the same coin. If you made $1000 in 2000, it is very different from $1000 in 2020 in terms of what it can purchase. (Aka 'purchasing power'). That is because of manufactured inflation.

Because of this (intentional) inflationary theft - many people's focus has shifted to purchasing other things (i.e., food, water, electricity, gas, etc). Part of why the subscription model started to take off - because 20 years ago it actually was more "affordable" to say pay $100 for a single image. But with the "inflation" - it became less affordable - so the subscription model became much more so. Of course, the subscription model also made it more 'affordable' to lower-income individuals/businesses - so more customers too.

The idea of "correcting" income (via govt edicts, which again - are actually made by the bankers, dictating policy via monetary influence) is also kind of bogus/manufactured - and in some ways designed also to try and keep people as 'taxslaves'. "Correcting income" (i.e., minimum wage, or 'guaranteed income') is not natural, they are control mechanisms. You don't "correct income" in a free market - you produce better content, provide better value, supply/demand/etc.

d) Re: "AI". It's not true "AI" in what the word was originally intended. Essentially it is very sophisticated theft/scraping/etc. And a lot of "it" has existed for the last 20-30 years - just not as easily accessible to the masses. (Just like GPS has been around from the 70's, but people didn't really become aware of GPS until about 2010 when iPhone included it with the brand new 'iphone').

Anyways... I do like a lot your articles, please just remember you are writing for other photographers who have brains, not some dumb dumb that likes clickbait and believes everything they see in either CNN/FOX.

Cheers!

Hi SuperPhoto,

I give brutally honest so it's only normal that I should take some

I'll reply with each of the points with my thoughts:

A) Clients can purchase licenses directly from both WS and PF, although sure they make more money from distributing. Anyway, most agencies distribute as it reaches more potential buyers.
B) Agreed
C) Agreed, but it doesn't stop companies from charging, for instance Outlook and Gmail now charge for "premium" storage even if they're still earning from the free account by other means. The basic package is quite basic and an average user should quickly find their storage capacity limited.
D) True, not everybody is experiencing diminishing returns, although I'd say that on average it's the case. You're right that I shouldn't generalise. As for inflation, I would say that it's directly related to microstock since our earnings have less spending power once it reaches into our bank account/paypal. In other words, our microstock earnings have not been corrected for inflation (it's actually dropped, on average). This is a global business so inflation vastly depends on where you live, but the latest data is easy to find on any legitimate source.

From the second part:
A) Agreed. Much more can and should be done. They're professionally negligent imo. 
B) My argument and I think it's a sound one, is that if an agency "forced" contributors to pay a $10 fee (I thought the logical use of words would be for storage but can be framed as any sort of administration fee), most amateur accounts wouldn't bother...plus most don't even earn $10 a month anyway so in theory they would be working for free. The free-give away experiment is unrelated imo...small update: so far 78,000 downloads and $0 earned from a combined 182 images and 4 videos on Pixabay and Pexels. The experiment is set to expire in January and I'm looking forward to deleting my accounts on there unless something magical happens.
C) Agreed. Don't know for sure whether the junk makes it more difficult for buyers to find what they want. It certainly diminishes the overall quality of a collection.
D) I'm by no means an Ai expert on the matter. Some of the tools available now seem like real game-changers. Not just the text-prompt from Dalle2 and Midjourney but the the generative fill in Adobe Firefly...and we're still in the early days.
E) That would be great to eliminate those thieving accounts or at least make them pay.

As for it being a click-baity article, fair enough it's your opinion. It's a question that is posed instead of a statement enticing readers to find out more...and the fact that you clicked on it and read it thoroughly means it achieved its aims, even if you don't agree with most of what was written I don't have ads up on the blog so I don't earn for more views...sure, I promote some courses and products but that's normal in return for the content.

I'll keep writing interesting ones, no doubt! This industry fascinates/frustrates me more and more each day!

All the best - Alex

Shutter stock actually has said (for at least a couple years), format is something like: city, state/province, country yyyy mm dd (don't recall if that is the exact format, but it is in their docs). You may have just gotten lucky all this time, and now they are being more 'stringent'...

Just got all my editorial photos and videos rejected for editorial caption.

I've written them the exact same way as i had been for many many years.

Example:
Valmeinier, France - Circa 2023:

 Does anyone know about any rule change?

Thanks for the FYI.

I still find it funny when "they" talk about "AI" as "artificial intelligence". It's not - it's basically a very sophisticated theft tool that "blends" pre-existing images together. It does not create - it steals, then 'blends'. You can dress it up however you like - but the tool itself is based off of stolen content.

One thing that is SUPER funny - is how "people" (aka "owners" of the "ai" tech) complain of this "pesky" little watermarks that appear... hmmm... whereEVER could this RANDOM artificacts be appearing from? Hmmm. thinking cap time!

And yes - shutterstock is not very "ethical" in how they do things, from reducing contributor $$, to "giving away" the meta data - THEN saying "oh! if you guys want, haha you can opt out - but don't worry - we already got all your stuff that we can share with whomever we please now", etc, etc... lots of bs.

Dishonesty perhaps?

Try refreshing your cookies. Maybe you have some old login info that is confusing the site.