I'm surprised no one has thought of corrupting the data sets. Well they are already badly corrupted but I don't know if they have a solution to deal with it.

For example when looking for insects you will find that many are corrupted by things that are not that insect at all. They aren't even an insect let alone that insect. In fact some are not even close to an insect.

Wrongly identified places, clouds, cars, buildings, objects, colours, foods and animals are inevitably corrupting the data sets. I have a photo of a rock carving and similar images has consistently for the entire time I've been doing this shown an elephants eye as a similar. Not a few. All of them. Similarly when submitting images of a subject recently the suggested keywords were implying a completely different object. And mine was blatantly what it was with no ambiguity.

So it shows it uses visually similar references of shape colour and texture to I'd a photo and perhaps title language. But the amount of images just labelled plant, tree, butterfly, bird without any attempt to correctly label means these images if used must corrupt the system.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 04, 2023, 19:03

Quote from: Lowls on February 04, 2023, 10:10

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 03, 2023, 19:02

Quote from: Lowls on February 01, 2023, 13:21
There is never enough pool water or goldfish

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0

Too wet, how about some nice dry sand

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0

70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? 

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0

You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.

If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

That's why it's called micro stock right? Move the camera or zoom or flip in some micro way of changing the image and upload it again? 

Apparently you don't need to move it very far lol

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/majo1122331

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 04, 2023, 19:03

Quote from: Lowls on February 04, 2023, 10:10

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 03, 2023, 19:02

Quote from: Lowls on February 01, 2023, 13:21
There is never enough pool water or goldfish

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0

Too wet, how about some nice dry sand

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0

70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? 

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0

You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.

If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

I don't think that 70 pages of sand is a good idea, any more than 70 pages of water ripples, clouds, or marijuana. Is there something in your translator that takes out any icons or smileys?

Sure thing, Romix has the tangyuan yuanxiao market covered. That and pink shopping cart with flowers. 

It's just a matter of how much someone wants to do, to fool the duplicate detector bot. (now everyone calls it AI, no difference) I remember back before the bots would review before images were passed on to humans, people would do a setting, move the sale and pepper, then move a knife, or move a fork or, change on item, and that was a "new" variation. As if some buyer would need to have the plate with salt and pepper, silverware, a napkin, and maybe a tea cup, placed in every possible configuration, then moved by an inch to make another new image.

Then the next step was upload the same 100 images, to 50 agencies. While my "master plan" is just the opposite? Everyone can make their own and agree or disagree, but less agencies and only upload best images. A big series for me might be three, but usually one is enough. That doesn't mean I never shoot the same subject again, just not 100 variations in one day.

That's why it's called micro stock right? Move the camera or zoom or flip in some micro way of changing the image and upload it again? 

I know right  lol. I mean you buy cheap props but adobe is getting silly. A packet of wooden scrabble pieces can create huge amounts. Lit adventurously and you can add and change even more context. But no sadly not lol. I had some cool plans but I can't be arsed with Adobe now. I'll wait till they stop being silly.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 03, 2023, 19:02

Quote from: Lowls on February 01, 2023, 13:21
There is never enough pool water or goldfish

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0

Too wet, how about some nice dry sand

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0

70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? 

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0

You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.

If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

There is never enough pool water or goldfish

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0

Too wet, how about some nice dry sand

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0

Pool water anyone. What magical properties allowed this port to slip through the net?
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204550982&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool&get_facets=0

Yeah. I have a photo of a red leaf on the floor during autumn. I have some yellow leaves floating on water. 2 different images both accepted. Then I uploaded a photo of the red leaves on a tree against a bright blue sky. Nothing special so I wasn't bothered but it was rejected for similars lol. Oh noooo say it ain't so. A tree ... similar to ... a leaf on the floor. And you can find portfolios full of just water in a pool for pages and pages. It is mind numbing.

Quote from: wds on January 31, 2023, 19:52

Quote from: Lowls on January 31, 2023, 15:40

Quote from: Jaggy on January 31, 2023, 13:19
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.

Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.

Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.

Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.

I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.

But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos  I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same  price as entry to a public toilet.

The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.

If you feel it was a "machine" rejection, you may want to contact support and explain the situation if you feel it is worth the effort.

I'll just leave it. They don't take kindly to being pestered.

Quote from: Jaggy on January 31, 2023, 13:19
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.

Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.

Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.

Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.

I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.

But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos  I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same  price as entry to a public toilet.

The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.

Another week. 9 submitted to various agencies. 9 rejected by Adobe, 8 accepted by other agencies lol. Its a shame because I like Adobe but ... whateva 🙄

Every failing company in the world does this.
1. Does great
2. Decides to do better
3. Looks at ways to save money
4. Always looks at the highest outlay
5. Realises this is wages
6. Starts reducing workers and wages.
7. Loses more workers than intended.
8. Goes downhill fast.

But SS are removing the wages entirely and replacing the work force with HAL ... and HAL will blow their arse out the airlock because they've hitched their planet to it and legally they are sooooo future f'ked. Even if Getty don't win who'd risk getting sued because you had composit work from god knows where containing elements of copywritten material.

Someone only has to ID part of something that's theirs and social media about it and SS .... poof gone.

This is how you spam

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/murengstockphoto?q=water

You can find similar ports through SS I think the biggest I found  was just pool water and 100 pages of images. There are similar if you search for sand or dirt or clouds

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 23, 2023, 15:40
Slaves were abducted, bought and sold, and forced into that position.

They didn't willingly sign up to be slaves?

Anyone who thought they could make money at stock photos and is unhappy with the agencies or the pay, can quit or leave and do something else. Slaves didn't have a choice and escaping was difficult and dangerous.

Comparing Microstock to being a slave is an insult to the people who lived as or are now slaves, and who have suffered that inhumanity.

Modern Slavery act of the UK and the forced statement for businesses, is just how dumb our world has become. Or is the word woke? Corporations have to issue statements that they don't support slavery?

It's not dumb Pete
1. That's why its called modern slavery
2. Old type slavery is rife and is rising particularly thanks to gangs of Eastern Europeans. Worryingly more and more missing people are being found having been trapped in houses for over a decade and forced to clean peoples houses at their masters behest and get given dog food to survive. In fact only today teenagers have been abducted from uk hotels where ... After escaping to the UK these ilegal immigrants... teenagers have been taken in large numbers to run what is called County lines operations.
A teenager will be abducted and given a debt for helping them. The debt will never be paid. Their families are threatened. The teenager will be given clothes matching the area where they will be placed. Once there they find a drug user and force the drug user to house them. From there the drug user is given discounted drugs to.lure all the drug user fiends they know. They in turn lure their friends in. The money all goes back to the teenager. The teenager then transports the money back along county lines to the supplier who then gives them more dugs and so the cycle continues. If they run they go missing. Teenagers are on a different judicial system and expendable.

There are many forms of modern slavery and therefore laws had to be created to provide a legal avenue to prosecute these people when found.

Compare that to Americas laws 🙄.  It isnt 'woke' it doesn't even fit in that words context. Woke is virtue signalling against an issue that is misunderstood or doesn't exist. Your statement wad actually woke. How funny lol.

And to anyone who claims that a user accepts the terms and conditions of a company when using them and therefore only has themselves to blame and can leave at any time is not correct. The use of our images has been happening since 2019 where no mention of it was stated for A.I. use. The fact that Getty are bringing a legal case against an A.I. company proves that a legal challenge has been explored by those with more intelligence than ... well others.

Shutterstock announces it will be expanding its relationship with facebook/meta to expand its A.I. and its been going on anyway since 2021??? And my money is where.

"On the other hand, just a few days ago, Shutterstock announced it was expanding its relationship with Meta to "use its datasets to develop, train and evaluate its machine learning capabilities." This followed the company's announcement in October that it was partnering with OpenAI to integrate DALL-E 2 into its offerings, with plans to offer compensation to artists — and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman revealed that the firm licensed imagery from Shutterstock to train DALL-E beginning in 2021."

Source- https://www.google.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/ai/why-are-getty-and-shutterstock-on-opposite-sides-of-the-ai-legal-debate/amp/

Quote from: cascoly on January 20, 2023, 19:55

Quote from: Reimar on January 20, 2023, 19:20
Interesting.  But SS is now paying contributors (in my case a whopping $40 per year) for inclusion in such datasets.  Is that enough?  I'd be surprised if the courts give an opinion on this.  No one asked me, but I'd like a bit more please.

given that hundreds of millions of images were used, that amount's not unreasonable - and it confirms what many of us having been saying in response to those who think they'll get a windfall for being in a training set - t's a minuscule amount. there are better battles to fight

With that argument downloading millions of images that don't belong to you and making a portfolio for yourself would be OK.

That's not how copywrite works. SS used the images and still are without permission. You can't opt out unless you delete your portfolio. So as long as I throw a few pennies in an artists hat I can use their work to make money for myself?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64285227.amp

Quote from: f8 on January 16, 2023, 23:33

Quote from: fotoroad on January 16, 2023, 18:27

Quote from: f8 on December 29, 2022, 00:26
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is  Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it

Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job.

Why do something once when you can do it twice?

Going back a few years I remember Rinder stating how much he would get paid. Then it was i think 15 cents per review he said. I'm sure it's less now. But if they know its fine they knownutll come back through so Adobe in this case will pay twice for the review.

Of course although Matt says they don't, they do use A.I. and you know that because for years SS claimed they didn't then they admitted they did. Like the SS A.I. it rejects artistic lighting such as underexposed for texture or selective focus. Smooth surfaces and reflections and translucent objects get rejected for poor quality and poor focus because it can't handle it. I remember SS's "chromatic luminance" or something wierd everyone had to look up. It wasn't aberration or something normal. We had weeks of that then it shifted onto something else.

A.I. May be cheaper than humans but it is extremely stupid. And as a result you'll be getting homogenised output. Andntradirionally homogenised products do not sell.

They did interesting experiments with clothes. All the same colour T shirt stacked together meant people could zoom in on their favourite colours. Then go through them to find a design they liked. Then they may pick one. The problem was that they then bypassed all the other colours where they may have chosen design. But they couldn't be bothered to go through all the colours. Sales dropped.

If all the trees have a generic form and colour and artificial lighting level that looks like a still from a PS5 game you'll be losing customers. The same with any subject.

SS have learnt. Or their A.I. has been given glasses. Or their reviewers have better eyesight lol.

Special Branch. Tree photo police.

Urghhhh
Rejected by adobe for ... generic quality issues.

Boring 😴 😴

Translucent objects on textured paper with an L macro lens. Back-lit so they light up. Focus was brutally sharp. So sharp I had to search through the 40 I did because I didn't see the dog hair on most until zoomed in 150%.

Poor quality or poor lighting issues. Yeah that's how they were Back-lit. Poorly lit from the front.

Do adobe even want photos any more lol. Oh well accepted at SS blah blah.

Guess I'll try the resubmit runaround game. It's like the bad old days at SS.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on January 08, 2023, 14:55

Quote from: Lowls on January 08, 2023, 13:52

Quote from: Her Ugliness on January 07, 2023, 10:54
The answer is obviously "yes". 
Otherwise they would not sell videos or photos for the price they are selling them for.

You have conflated the words 'get away with' and fair. No it isn't right, fair or morally correct. Can they get away with it. Apparently yes.

The question was not whether it was right, fair or morally correct, but whether the "owner" of Shutterstock thought it was a fair price.

I have come to learn that most rich and privileged people seem to think that they are in the position they are in soley because of their hard work and everyone who is not successfull/making money the way they are just has not worked hard enough. To them this all seems fair.

You misunderstood the OP and therefore posted incorrectly. And then you have attempted to correct me because I used words not stated but implied by the OPs tweet.

admin edit; removed insults

Quote from: Her Ugliness on January 07, 2023, 10:54
The answer is obviously "yes". 
Otherwise they would not sell videos or photos for the price they are selling them for.

You have conflated the words 'get away with' and fair. No it isn't right, fair or morally correct. Can they get away with it. Apparently yes.

Quote from: Camillo on January 03, 2023, 21:43
Hi guys, I was able to see the available earnings before but now they're gone and I have no way of knowing how much I've got available for payouts... On another note I have no way of knowing what has sold recently as I used to so I can't tell what is selling and what is not...

If you are using your phone to view the dashboard scroll to the bottom half. There you will find top earners. Click o the blue link that says view all top performers.

When that loads your earnings will be displayed at the top right.

To view recently sold from the main dashboard page,  click on 'View earnings summery' that months list of sold pops up day by day. If you click on each day it will show you what has sold. If you have no photo there it is because an asset of yours has been used to train the AI and to confirm this scroll to the right to view the column named contributor fund. You won't know what they used it is just a non transparent usage amount that you have no way of checking. Another thing that will eventually rip SS a new one legally later. I wouldn't risk investing in this company if it were free. They are literally running fast and lose and when the music stops whoever is left with no chair is going to jail.

To get back to the main dashboard from any of the ridiculous sub menus cluck on the SS logo top left. Hope that helps.

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 03, 2023, 03:54

Quote from: cascoly on January 02, 2023, 22:22

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 02, 2023, 04:49

I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".

I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.

The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.

When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.

you obviously don't know what a strawman argument is...
you made a silly, irrelevant claim, so it IS your responsibility to at least give an example of a phrase that would only find one artist's images out of 300,000,000

i actually did do a search for 'shaman puri india' - on SS 26 of only 27 are mine; google images show mine as 22 of first 25. then i used that phrase in DALL-E and it gave 4 completely different images, none of which remotely resembled mine in sadhu or temple bkgd

and when i required Puri in the google search, it showed only 30 images total, 17 of mine. one of the images was a map of korea,  one retail ad for a box of sp.ices and 2 others w no shaman at all

your turn!!!!!!!!!!!

"Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps".

This is very much applicable in science when you want to validate a hypothesis.
The fact that you found 1, 2, 10, or 1,000 examples matching it, is not sufficient to make it a theory.
One single counter-example is enough to disprove it.

You have no idea if your images were even used by the algorithm when you did your isolated "experiments" (which is rather likely to be true, since its output was garbage)

My advice for those who have niche images (maybe even for you with your rather unique temple) is to opt out of the AI training deal, as soon as it will become possible, so the customers have no other option but to buy from you and delay as long as possible the competition from AI on your unique topics.

There is an image of a flower and it is the only image of that flower on SS. Don't know why but it is. II'll happily send a link to the image to help support an argument ... when I get $20.00.

Quote from: f8 on January 02, 2023, 07:43

Quote from: MatHayward on December 29, 2022, 06:19

Quote from: f8 on December 29, 2022, 00:26
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.

-Mat Hayward

Thanks for your reply and Happy New Year to you and yours.

I have decided that Hildegarde is the most accurate in response. This crazy rejection situation happened several months ago as well on Adobe and after re-submitting I had gone from 80%-100% rejection rate to the polar opposite of 90%-100% acceptance rate on the exact same images.

Did you tic the box stating submitted previously?

Quote from: Wilm on December 20, 2022, 20:42
Got another $ 0.36. So alltogether I have made an impressing $ 0.43. Yeah!

I must be doing g something right if I've beat Wilm. 58 and 25 cents.