'Allegedly' what we see when looking at our own ports doesn't affect what a buyer will see, and they have other weightings anyway like location (and previous purchases, IIRC).

anyone get the Payment ?

See the forum. There's a 'hitch'.

Ive looked at keywords from more of my images in my iStock port and I'm starting to notice a pretty serious issue. There are some important keywords (added by me in Deepmeta) that are not present. For example - names of buildings, street names etc. These really need to be included so that buyers can find the images. There is a tutorial video on Deepmeta that states that some keywords will not be recognised by iStock but will still be included if you manually select them. But that is not true at all. I did manually select these words in Deepmeta and they are not visible among the keywords under the photos when viewing them in my port.

If they're not in the CV, they don't show up on the file page.
However, they are 'usually' searchable.

Tell you what's even worse. Their 'enhanced' search function, which more or less shows you what you wanted to see first, then a whole load of semi-random stuff underneath. At least you can turn it off, but it took me a wee while to notice that: it seems to have been made 'on' by default. 

After two 'better' months, low rpd and no 'lottery wins' made it my worst July since 2007 despite an average number of sales. Interesting that most people on this thread are doing well (well done), that's not what I'm seeing on other sites I'm on (exclusives).

Quote from: ShadySue on August 04, 2023, 12:39

Quote from: cobalt on August 04, 2023, 12:07

midjourney doesn't have a collection of ready made images to download. you have to create your own by prompting. which takes time to learn.

and midjourney cannot give you legal protection, because as their own ceo explained himself how they scraped the entire internet without licensing anything.

Are the agencies offering legal protection?

Adobe Stock is, but  to its enterprise customers creating Firefly output only. Adobe Stock's current getAI content comes from all the current generative AI tools, none of which is on a secure legal footing. Theoretically Firefly will be - if and when it exits beta - because Adobe trained on its contributors' content + public domain stuff. Adobe's CYA for the content it is accepting is telling contributors they need to ensure they have the rights for commercial use of the content they upload. But Adobe knows as well as anyone that no contributor can know that with Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, etc.

Shutterstock is but only for enterprise customers and things created with their (DALL-E 2 based) tools, not for all the genAI stuff uploaded to their site in spite of the rules saying its not allowed. Their earning call this week said that very few customers are using any of the output from their own AI tool as the quality isn't there: "... lack of true photo realistic outputs are holding back widespread adoption for actual marketing campaigns"

No idea what DepositPhotos, CanStock or 123rf are offering.

Thanks, interesting!

No doubt I'm missing something, but why wouldn't someone buy e.g. Midjourney or whatever and generate their own AI images, rather than purchasing from an agency?

Well done, JoAnne!

Sorry, your search returned zero results for ��
Thanks for finding this, Stvagna

The photos took so much to edit as really i take them 1 by one and make them magazine style, turn a dark and ugly apartment into something bright and clear. Its my passion and want to do something different.

Depending on the country, you might have to be careful that you don't make the apartment more beautiful than it really is. Here in the UK for example, that could get you into legal trouble (e.g. when working for an estate agent). If you're just doing in post what you could have done in capture if you had the appropriate (expensive!) lighting gear, that's probably different (IANAL).

The other is that some buyers may not realize the content is erroneous and just assume the agency has their back and it's good to use. An example: a buyer has not been lucky enough to eat lobster or even know what it looks like, but has been told to download a picture of a lobster meal. GenAI content is included in search results by default - you have to turn it off if you don't want it, so the unlucky buyer downloads a mutant genAI image with extra claws without realizing it's pretty but wrong. Doesn't an agency have some responsibility to weed out this type of "mistaken" content?

Maybe no more than they have the responsibility to make sure captions and keywords are correct, for a similar reason (e.g. the junior has been tasked with finding images, and doesn't know any better)

This is no place for political discussions of any kind.

Well, true, not so much in the 'Top Sites' forum. There's an 'Off Topic' forum which would be a better place to start one. Or a counter-argument against one.

...
Not only that, it looks like someone pretty much downloaded every image in my collection on IS. I can't explain why, but, makes me wonder if someone listed as California is using them for AI training?

That's happened  for the last couple ofyears at least, and I strongly suspect AI training.
e.g.
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/getty-images-launches-first-model-release-that-covers-ai-and-biometrics
and
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2023/03/21/generative-ai-getty-images] [url]https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2023/03/21/generative-ai-getty-images[/url]
and even:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/api

Better than the two previous Febs, making it only my third worst Feb since 2007 (my third month on the site).