To me, Adobe's touting their AI as "ethical" while using our work without our permission and without payment, while thousands of people take advantage of that data in Adobe firefly beta, and now in Photoshop beta too, is simply wrong.

I've been so impressed by Adobe's attempts to engage the Stock photography community from the Discord channel to the plethora of free classes, AdobeMAX online free, and Mat's engagement here. I love their products and use LR and PS pretty much every day - and lately I've been blown away by PS Express on my iPad too. I'm also up 47% from this time last year in my earnings on Adobe Stock.

So, I'd happily be an Adobe fan, but their claim that their AI is "ethical" just rings hollow when we are left with nothing after they used our hard work, not just the photos, but all the time, effort and research that goes into the keywords too, to train their awesome AI.

They could not have done it without us. It's time to give us our share.

Usually under 24 hours - sometimes within a couple of hours even - but as @UnclePete says, that's not the case if you upload on Friday Remember they're on GMT, so by Friday noon on the US east coast, their workweek in the UK is already over.

I had a sale on dreamstime for for exclusive rights for one year for an image and they licensed it for $750, I got $350 - it was probably at least 6-7 years ago and I don't recall how the price was set - I might have just chosen an amount at random when I uploaded the file not really expecting to get an exclusive sale, but buyers still expect to pay a lot more for exclusive use so think about what it is worth to you and give them a number & see if they get back to you. If it's a permanent buyout, it should be a substantial amount. I haven't uploaded much to dreamstime in years, and nothing exclusively anymore, but I thought when you uploaded exclusively you set the price at the time?

Anyway, good luck. It could be worthwhile. 

I believe @Steve Heap has had a lot of success with them. Maybe DM him if he doesn't see this thread.

Thanks to Joanne's instructions (I pasted my Adobe Stock Activity into a Numbers instead of a Google Spreadsheet and got the photos too) I was able to review all my download activity from Jan 1-April 14.

Of 152 so far, only 4 have been 33 cents, all custom. All my subscription DLs are at least the minimum 36 cents (I lost my standing when I left fotolia, so I haven't hit 10,000 DLs yet). Hope to add another ~250 images this year to reach 1,000 images so I can get there faster (if AI hasn't killed the industry by then).

Average custom license to date is 83 cents, average subscription is $1.00. Average sub is 63 cents if I remove extended licenses.

Loved seeing the images that were accepted to Arcangel and look forward to your upcoming interview. Lots of great drone shots and many others too - it must be very satisfying to have such a creative outlet.

Nice job on the blog as always. Thanks for sharing.

I believe that the tax download page has a link you can write to in order to get prior years. If you can't find one, perhaps try calling their accounting office.

Quote from: wordplanet on March 18, 2023, 20:41

...Jo Anne, how do you figure out custom vs subscription sales? When I look at a week of sales, I see total earnings, but not downloads....

From this link (which is the one I bookmark when I want to go and see what has sold lately)

https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/sales-earnings

To make things manageable...

Does that help?

Yes - very helpful! Thanks! I hadn't thought to use the Activity tab instead of Statistics.

I haven't uploaded there in years and years, but I remember "Newport" wasn't allowed - so my photos of Newport Rhode Island couldn't be uploaded. I wrote to them, but never heard back.

Getty has some of my images from 500px and I'm amazed when they sell since Getty did their own keywording and most have none of the obvious/important keywords. Many of them sell frequently on Alamy.

I have photos of some small towns that do very well elsewhere - especially on Alamy. Maybe you want to try there. They are known for out of the way places. Give it a try - good luck!

Quote from: PhotoBomb on March 17, 2023, 16:37

...
The non-compliant photo below may need to be editorial so should have been marked as intellectual property which I don't qualify for on adobe. It's an entrance to a public space in the city.
https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116

Statues are potentially an issue even when uploaded as editorial. Alamy had me take down some images taken inside a large building - maybe it was a theater lobby - not sure - but the statues were similar in feel to what you're showing (not that I think it's the same building - ironically, one statue in mine was a white elephant). Anyway, despite having uploaded them as editorial only, the building owner and/or artist complained to Alamy & I took the 2 photos down. Neither had sold.

Art, especially in a private setting, is tricky. Arguably, since the statues are photographed in the context of a larger building, they should be fine as editorial, but if someone complains, it's not worth a lawsuit.

When I went to the Columbus Zoo Christmas light show in 2019, I read their rules, and enjoyed taking photos of my grandson and family. I was trying out a programed night setting that I'd never used on my camera, so learning something new for future shoots, with no pressure to find salable images. It's such a joy to shoot without thinking about how will this sell? And even if you can't sell the photos, you are improving your craft, learning something new.

So, just move on. Lesson learned. There's a whole big world out there.

Sorry the DT links not working Heres another
https://www.alamy.com/concrete-sea-defence-along-the-beach-leading-to-the-pier-and-people-in-the-distance-image479837224.html?imageid=9D3B512B-A9AF-40F8-919C-22D612455A26&p=1142504&pn=1&searchId=4d85d4fd5a99f68cb2d5c5afa3610992&searchtype=0

I'd guess that cloning out people in that one would be really tough with so many overlapping the intricate pier, if that's what you did. Also, when people are in the photo, they are often an essential part of the scene and the reason you shot it that way. When you clone them out, it may change the entire feeling of the shot.

How are you doing with images where you don't have to clone people out?

Are you working on a large monitor or are you on a laptop with a Retina screen? On a retina screen, you need to look at images at 200% to be sure of sharpness and to check for noise.

Although I haven't had a "quality issues" rejection there in over a year,  I went through a stretch where every other file felt like it was being rejected. It was very inconsistent. I'd upload a batch taken at the same time, and they'd accept most, but always reject a few. No discernible difference among them.

This year, nearly everything is sailing through, although I did have two rejections out of a batch of 12 "illustrative editorial" images at the beginning of the year: "Unfortunately, during our review we found that this file does not meet the Adobe Stock�s Illustrative Editorial Guidelines.") They were all of brownstone houses and storefronts in a small US city, so why those two? They weren't as interesting as the others. In retrospect, the reviewer did me a favor, keeping boring images out.

I just move on when it happens and work on finding a different batch, even when I disagree with the decision. Though, as suggested, for quality issues, downsizing the files could also solve your problem. Give it a try.

Honestly, though, with the file you referred to, I wouldn't take the time to clone out all those people. If you're shooting for Adobe, work on finding angles where there are no people in the shot. And remember that the reviewers are not highly trained, they're going to make mistakes. But sometimes they're right.

Adobe has been doing great for me this year. With about 700 files, I've had over 100 downloads already, averaging over a dozen a week. I doubt the few rejected files would make a difference.

Stock is different that other types of photography - pixel peeping, leaving copy space, and having a strong concept are what's important. Beautiful travel images sell, but so do strong concepts even if they have very little artistic merit. Think about why a buyer would want to use the image, preferably before you hit the shutter. And if you want more to be accepted on Adobe, shoot with Adobe in mind - find a way to show the scene to advantage without people.

Good luck.

Just for giggles, I tried another one from Newport, Rhode Island. This time, an iconic lighthouse, to test its location knowledge. There is no other lighthouse in the world that looks like it and the surrounding cliffs are unique.

"Famous place"  was the only marginally spammy phrase but it still couldn't ID the location.

And, again, it missed the most important keyword and the most important phrase - the word "lighthouse" and the name of the lighthouse. It's a close enough view to make out every stone in the building.  RI is the smallest state - far fewer pix than of Paris - but Google can identify it in seconds.

But no spam - a real plus. And it liked this photo even better. 74.7%.