|
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 - Roscoe
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17
76
« on: May 03, 2023, 04:25 »
Yes, I have this too, and apparently most contributors have. Guess it's coming from the contributor fund, but they didn't update the earnings details (yet).
77
« on: April 25, 2023, 13:37 »
I've noticed a pattern with Adobe over the years. I make the effort to upload new images... They get rejected for random reasons... I get frustrated and dont upload for weeks or months... I then get multiple sales a day, so I upload more images... Immediately after uploading, the sales completely stop... ....
it's difficult to respond to your experience when you dont link to your portfolio, or even tell us your port size & # of DL/mo - do you normally get hundreds of DL? or dozens?
somehow it's always a conspiracy when normal, random sales occur - no one seems to coplain when sales are suddenly greater than normal!
I've asked a similar question for years. Is it "Normal" when we are getting regular downloads or when we aren't. I mean, when things are going right, that's the way it's supposed to be, because we make money. When things slow down... is that the actual normal, and making good sales is the unusual? What is normal and average actually?
Right I'll never complain when I make more than usual.
I've read all different kinds of weird assumptions. - I stopped uploading and suddenly I started selling more. - I stopped selling and suddenly after some uploads sales returned - I got some images rejected and suddenly my sales went down - I complained about slow sales on the Shutterstock forum and suddenly I got a sale - I complained about Shutterstock and suddenly my sales also stopped - Images from certain camera brands or models sell better than others (so I tamper with the EXIF data) - Contributors from low-wage countries get a ranking bonus - ... People tend to link occasional sales to certain habits or own behavior on the platform, but I've never seen anything that proves any of those claims. Yes, sales can be volatile, but I highly doubt a contributor has any impact on those fluctuations.
78
« on: April 24, 2023, 09:21 »
Overall, super disappointing if they're not shutting down whole accounts. One theft/infringement should be enough to constitute a material breach of the contributor agreement. I'll try to reach out to AS on Twitter about this...can't on SS as they blocked me on there.
Yeah, probably all images are stolen. I was too lazy to search for all images, just found bicycle on Pixabay: https://pixabay.com/vectors/bike-bicycle-motorcycle-cycling-7342379/
and butterfly: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/moth-butterfly-insect-wings-7725211/
Indeed, all stolen.
So, small update is that both AS and SS have removed the stolen images from four different accounts, but have unfortunately/frustratingly left the accounts intact with the remaining images (all stolen presumably). Some of these accounts have 200+ images.
I've requested for the fraudulent accounts to be shut down on the DCMA email thread but have not received a reply. Also radio-silence on my tweet to AS. Dead end it seems and wasting my time.
@Mat Hayward: If you're reading this, could you please clarify what is AS's official policy on finding an account with stolen images, in particular whether a full account can be closed upon discovery of at least one stolen image via a DCMA complaint of a copyright holder.
Sad indeed that they just remove the image and don't do further investigation on the account, and shut it down when it turns out that one DCMA request was only the tip of the iceberg. Uploading a stolen image is not an accident nor a coincidence. I guess it's a matter of time and money. Stolen images sell as well as others (which is income), and removing images or shutting down accounts is resourceful (which is a cost) So it's not "their problem" and it's up to the owner of the image to complain.
79
« on: April 24, 2023, 08:49 »
Really strange, because I don't see that at all.
Uploaded this weekend, reviewed today (Monday).
It depends on what type of content.
For me editorial content is reviewed within an hour.
Commercial photos within a few days up to a week.
Illustrations and png photos take 21 days right now.
Yes, I also see a difference between editorial and commercial, where editorial gets faster processing (a day or two days) than commercial (several days). I don't do illustrations or png's so can't comment on that. But in general, I don't see any review delays for what I'm uploading.
80
« on: April 24, 2023, 01:59 »
Really strange, because I don't see that at all.
Uploaded this weekend, reviewed today (Monday).
81
« on: April 19, 2023, 13:06 »
And the yearly connect "bonus" (or whatever we should call it) is included.
82
« on: April 19, 2023, 09:04 »
That's a good question. If nobody will even donate $1 after 22,000+ downloads what hope is there? Images that don't get featured get few downloads. So this sort of proves the first hypothesis that people who download free stuff are some of the most selfish types out there (that's why they're downloading for free, duh  ) No excuse that they're students or academic or not-for-profit entities...what's $1 these days?
Secondly, the thieves taking images and re-selling is predictable. This could be an interesting avenue to reel in thieves but not really worth my time. If SS paid me for this would be cool but that will never happen and I won't work for free especially for them.
I'll continue the experiment since I want to have at least 100 images spread and wait at least one year before jumping to conclusions. I've begun very very reluctantly uploading more quality images (downsizing the resolutions) so let's see if this will make a difference.
To be continued...
@stoker
People who upload to these sites aren't looking to make money from donations but get their work exposed which may lead to opportunities down the line. The PR of these agencies have sold them a false dream.
I admire your determination to make it work :-) Don't forget the temporary conclusions: you've put in time and effort to build a small portfolio there that generated 22.000 downloads (I would call that a success) and no money. Instead, you've got image thieves creating competition on sites where you offer the image for sale, and costing you time and effort to get the stolen content removed. (and you know for sure that keeping an eye out for thieves is a recurring task which will only consume more time as your portfolio grows). Also: 22.000 downloads in a few days of a generic red lighthouse. I mean, it's a nice shot and all, but seems a bit odd that there is such a high demand for red lighthouses. So I wonder what the story behind the download volume really is. How many of those downloads are real and how many are bots that just scrape content for whatever reason (ai training anyone?). Maybe different types of images attract different types of freeloaders with higher percentages of willingness to donate. Could be, but I'm very skeptical. But, as I said, the experiment and sharing your experiences is a noble thing to do. Thanks for the update.
83
« on: April 19, 2023, 07:41 »
So far no donations and will keep uploading a few more images here and there and also hopefully catching these thieves. Will report any further news as usual in the monthly earnings report.
Alex
Are you sure you want to continue Alex? Because it looks like you are creating a honey pot for image thieves instead of something that actually makes you money (via donations). 22.000 downloads an no donations -> enough said I would say. Unless your goal is to fish for image thieves, which is a noble thing to to, but still doesn't make you any money
84
« on: April 19, 2023, 03:50 »
This has been discussed here before. There was a contributor who had obviously managed to crack the shutterstock algorithm, because his images were on the 1st to 3rd place in all search results.
This also seems to be the case with these pink ones. Otherwise it can not be explained why someone with such a tiny portfolio and content that there are also two other tiny portfolios almost identical, can be found so far in front in the search.
Previous topic: https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/someone-tricked-the-shutterstock-algorithm/The portfolio is still active, but at first sight, I don't see his images showing up on page one for very ordinary keywords like woman puppy or car. So somehow Shutterstock fixed it, or the algorithm did it's work and gradually moved the images downwards.
85
« on: April 17, 2023, 14:58 »
Shutterstock takes gen ai content?
I see both the invested money and time as a way to learn a new technology. Gradually I will learn what buyers like to buy from me.
Also went a little wild with spaceships, robot and fantasy art..don't think there is a big market for that
Oh, sorry for the confusion, I mean just stills. I don't upload AI generated content so far. I just notice that Shutterstock's rejection policy seems to be way less strict than it was a few months ago. Spaceships and space exploration is a very actual topic nowadays, so I think it's very much worth it to experiment with it. It's also a topic that suits AI very much, as not many stock photographers travel the universe
86
« on: April 17, 2023, 14:01 »
Just my experience on Adobe, so far 278 accepted gen ai files, 31 downloads.
But I also spent 1000 euros on credits for various ais for commercial use.
I started uploading in early December, so maybe for such a short time it is not that bad. Also I don't have extremely generic files that would sell in high volume.
I am trying to do something different. Not using Midjourney, so hopefully I will have a collection that looks a little different to what others offer.
But for the money, perhaps doing it all Midjourney style is best, I don't know. It is probably the look the buyers want until they get tired of it. But that might take several years, it is like the instagram filter craze.
That "look" will probably also evolve, broaden, and change, if not with Midjourney or DALL-E then with competitors, and maybe even much faster as we think, considered the speed of the development of AI we have seen so far. People will also develop more sophisticated prompting skills (as many already do now) and on the other hand regulations and legal restrictions or boundaries will be set by governments regarding the operating and use of AI. I think it's fair to say that nobody exactly knows which direction AI will go, how big the impact exactly will be, and in which position it will find a mature state of existence. We can only make educated guesses. I also think traditional stock agencies will find themselves in an existential crisis at some point: will they remain marketplaces for content, or will they evolve in brokers for AI-training datasets, or will they become companies that offer AI engines to generate content. Currently some of the agencies are all of that, and I wonder whether such a broad business model will remain manageable. Regarding dataset training: I see Shutterstock accepting nearly everything I feed them recently, almost no rejections at all anymore, and this is definitely a different strategy then a few months ago. Seems they are very hungry for content at the moment. At the same time, I've seen Adobe becoming more restrictive, with more rejections. But maybe that's just my anecdotal experience.
87
« on: April 14, 2023, 11:31 »
Thanks for enquiring Rob - I wonder how long it would have taken them to remove the collection if you hadn't asked?
It's really disheartening that Getty will hand over royalties to the bankrupt EyeEm - I understand their contractual obligations, but I have to wonder if they could have removed the EyeEm collection from sale immediately and started talks with TalentHouse/EyeEm to try and get the payments to contributors directly.
There were posts here about contacting Getty to remove EyeEm files as they weren't getting paid - months ago - and Getty refusing to. Really shoddy treatment of contributors.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-takedown-request/
I understand the point, and would love to see it differently too, but I'm afraid there's not too much Getty can do about it. We all agreed to the EyeEm TOS when we uploaded there. Meaning: EyeEm has the right to distribute our content to their partners, like Getty for instance. And to Getty, EyeEm is their contributor/partner, so they deal with them, or what's left of it. They don't have any business with EyeEym contributors. Nobody of us knows the details of the deal between Getty and EyeEm, but I guess they just had to wait before things were legally official, and they acted rather quick on that. I hope Adobe and other partners will follow. What happened to EyeEm, and what companies like Wirestock are pulling off recently, should be a warning to all of us. -> Don't upload to distributors. Keep control of your content for as much as you can. And also: every now and then there's someone here who really does or shares something meaningful. Robert did both, so thanks for that!
88
« on: April 05, 2023, 11:12 »
Maybe they just want to know how many "inactive" accounts they have, so they can estimate how much money never will be requested for payout.
I also get these kind of mails from PayPal for instance.
The difference is: they probably want me to spend the money so they can cash on transaction costs.
89
« on: April 04, 2023, 15:23 »
Thanks for the info, and taking the effort to actually go there and see what's going on. Now we know for sure. I'm still puzzled about what really happened. EyeEm was sold last year to Talenthouse, which is also financially struggling and also not paying their contributors. EyeEm was on the verge of going bankrupt already a year ago and Talenthouse was their last resort? Or, Talenthouse bought a pretty decent company and sucked it out only to make their own balance look less worse. Not that it matters that much, but it all sounds a bit fishy and crooked. I also wonder what will happen with the partner collection. Getty's EyeEm collection is still online, and still generating sales I assume: https://www.gettyimages.be/fotos/eyeem-collectionEDIT: just read the same question on Robert's blog. Full EyeEm collection on Getty: https://www.gettyimages.be/fotos/eyeem
90
« on: March 08, 2023, 16:35 »
I enjoy differences of opinion. Some people not, I guess, and then they get all weird.
Well, it gets weird when the opinion is contractionary to the fact, and this is what happened. To be honest, I wouldn't take the comments of Ralf or Wilm as an insult. But that's my personal opinion which can't be stated by facts, because what people perceive as an insult is a very personal thing.
91
« on: March 08, 2023, 15:49 »
You are getting a bit to emotional here and political as well. Totally unnecessary. The only point I'm making here is that if anyone with such a great audience place your art work it's worth thousands of dollars of promotion. Sure he doesn't pay for using your art but lot's of people will because he promoted your work and you will get a lot of attention of paying customers. And yes you can nag about things not being right but I personally would welcome something like this. And I will bet the artist in question will not be so unhappy as well. Even though she complains about not getting paid by Musk himself or being credited. C'mon think twice
But then still you can have another opinion. It's a free world still where we live, isn't it?
Can you tell me how in the world a microstock artist profits, when their work is stolen and published without mentioning the artist and linking to their portfolio?
Let me try one last time
If you want to be succesful, with any product you sell, you have to reach a large audience. In that audience there are potential buyers. That is why we have advertisement on almost all media you use. You can make Coca Cola but if you don't tell people you have made this product nobody will buy your product.
So, if some lame ass with millions of followers tweets your photo then you get an enormous exposure.
In this audience you will have people that like this photo and will want to use it.
Among these people you have small players that might rip the photo of the tweet and use it and you get nothing. Not correct and a pity.
There will also be people that work for companies that have responsible policies and that obey the law of copyright. They will go and purchase the photo from the artist itself, or, in our case, from one of the agencies that sell our photo. Your photo will not be difficult to find and sales will be coming in.
Sales that never would have happened unless you would have spent a lot of money promoting your own work.
So that's why, even if it's fraudelent, wrong or whatever you want to call it, I (and again this is my personal opinion and you keep yours) would welcome any person that has millions of followers to expose my photo to his/her/it's audience, without them having bought the photo or credited me in the tweet.
Ask the artists in question if their revenues have gone up or down because of this. I am pretty sure that they will respond, if there are truthful, that it has gone up big time, even though they are whining about the wrongdoing.
edit:
So if this happens. You may want to sue the person, ask for a DMCA and get your photo as soon as possible of Twitter. I, on the other hand would let it stay there as long as possible. I might cause some trouble, to get even more exposure, but I would see it as a God given present.
It is your personal view on things, and that's fine, but it is irrelevant in this little controversy Musk created amongst photographers or creatives. What you are saying is that some people can use your work for free and uncredited under certain conditions. I can only hope for you that you still think that it's up to you to define the people or companies that may use your work for free and uncredited, and that you still would like to have something to say about the conditions in which they use it. It's the old work-for-free-in-return-for-exposure-to-get-more-future-deals trick. And it surely can make sense. Careers were built on that. But it's up to you to decide what you do or give away for free, and what you don't. Not the other way around. So back to the initial discussion: you might not mind Musk using your content for free and uncredited. But others do, and their opinion is worth as much as yours, with the only difference being that they have the law on their side. That's why people here are telling you that your opinion on the matter from a factual point of view doesn't make any sense. You can still have it though, and as far as I'm concerned you can voice it as much as you want, but don't act surprised that they try to tell you in a convincing way that your point of view is factually wrong.
92
« on: March 08, 2023, 11:07 »
I am. Pun intended.
Fun fact: we don't even know how much they owe us, as they are not reporting sales anymore.
A lost cause I guess, Talenthouse is in a very rough financial situation for quite some time now, and it seems that they struggle with finding new investors.
How they were able/allowed to acquire Eyeem is a mystery for me. It very much looks like a company awaiting official bankruptcy.
The first thing they did after the acquisition of Eyeem was withholding outstanding payments to contributors.
They eventually did pay during summer, but nothing more after that.
93
« on: March 02, 2023, 14:41 »
Maybe some stock agencies offer the possibility to exclude the use of your content in certain context... options here are very limited I guess.
I know that SS has an option (or at least used to) to exclude sexual and political content, but that's it. I don't know of any agency that would allow you to exclude usage for news or medical content.
I remember that too, not sure it's still an available option. But if it is, it's useless as Shutterstock doesn't accept AI Generated content from their contributors. Shutterstock will not allow AI-generated content to be submitted for sale on our platform. We want to ensure contributors can prove IP ownership of all submitted content and also want to be confident that artists are properly compensated if and when their work is used in AI training models. Given the availability of various AI content generation models in the marketplace, we are unable to verify the model source for most AI-generated content and therefore are unable to ensure all artists who were involved in the generation of each piece of content are compensated. https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Shutterstock-ai-and-Computer-Vision-Contributor-FAQ?language=en_US
94
« on: March 02, 2023, 13:39 »
then we can't upload anything AI because someone might use it for a political, medical or other disallowed use.
To be precise, you can't upload AI made with engine that have these rules. There are several that do not apply any restrictions!
We have no control over the license or use restrictions?
If I remember well, SS gives the ability to exclude sensitive use for images, for the full portfolio. I don't know if the option is still alive, and I don't remember if others give same choice
That's indeed the point I was trying to make, or better, the thing I would like to see clarified, as I'm anything but an expert in the matter. In this case: We can 't upload AI generated content to Adobe Stock if the terms of use of the AI engine (DALL-E) don't match the licensing conditions of Adobe Stock. Question mark. Maybe some AI engines like stable diffusion or midjourney have lesser strict terms... I don't know. Maybe some stock agencies offer the possibility to exclude the use of your content in certain context... options here are very limited I guess. Anyhow, it seems like a slippery slope, and when I read the conditions and conditions of Adobe Stock regarding AI Generated content, they seem to put all the responsibility on the contributor. You have to own the copyright (as far as I understood still a legally unclear situation in many parts of the world) and make sure the content is suited for 'broader commercial' use (which includes some parts that are excluded by the terms and conditions of OpenAI/DALL-E).
95
« on: March 01, 2023, 16:17 »
Interesting points. I wonder how this is different than submitting an editorial image as commercial, or an image without model release, which the agency lets slip through? Who's responsible for the error? The contributor for having made an incorrect submission, or the agency for letting it slip through and offering it with wrong license terms?
I always thought that the contributor was still responsible in such cases.
Good question!
In this case I would say the author is resposable, because he does not own the copyright.
But you're still not considering the other side, the use of image:
Following your example, if I should put for commercial use something like, let's say, a well known and famous car...
The legal problem would eventually rise only and when the image would be used for commercial.
In other words, it's not the image that break the rules, it's the use of it that could do
Still trying to wrap my head around this. I understand that there's a difference in having copyrights and terms of conditions. Thanks for clarifying that. I guess the latter, violating terms and conditions, would generally mean less trouble than violating copyright? In the case of selling an AI Generated image that ends up in a political campaign... copyright is not the issue here, but terms and conditions might be? I mean: the contributor generated the image and made it possible to be used in a context that violates the terms and conditions of the AI Generative Tool?
96
« on: March 01, 2023, 15:51 »
You're talking about something that has nothing to do with AI
It's called "sensitive use", and it's a well know issue, it's absolutely managed on agency side and has nothing to do with the content.
The "not allowed" list of DALL-E (and other engines) is made to prevent the creation of the content; at the contrary, the sensitive use of ANY content (AI generated or not) is an agency side problem
We are not responsible for the license terms
That's a strange view of things. You think because you are not the one who made the license terms you bear no responsibility?
Absolutely yes. The creator is resposible of content copyright, absolutely not of the terms of license given to the buyer.
Telling the person who wants to license images, that there are restrictions, is the duty of the agency.
This is absolutely correct, this is the truth, no way to say that's not the case!
My opinion, of course 
Interesting points. I wonder how this is different than submitting an editorial image as commercial, or an image without model release, which the agency lets slip through? Who's responsible for the error? The contributor for having made an incorrect submission, or the agency for letting it slip through and offering it with wrong license terms? I always thought that the contributor was still responsible in such cases.
97
« on: March 01, 2023, 15:41 »
Open AI would have to object and go to the user and then the agency and then back to the innocent artist. I wonder if the terms of use on Adobe and SSTK, for example, also say you can't use them for the above proposes that Open-AI doesn't allow? What if the images aren't marked created by AI or created by Open AI / DALL-E? Very complicated.
True, it's quite a chain a complaint would have to follow, but in the end, if it's a serious complaint, it will land on the contributor's desk. In most cases, chances are small anyone would really take the effort to sit it through I guess, but the problem with political campaigns for instance is that they have a high visibility and a potential debatable and polarizing exposure. We already had cases of political parties using editorial stock images pulled out of context for political campaigning. Media and independent journalists were very fast in identifying where the image came from and clarifying correct usage conditions.
Personally I'd like to steer away from any use of my content for certain use-cases like political campaigning for instance, but that option is not available when submitting content.
We cannot exclude certain context.
Again, not my field of expertise here, but to me, it sounds like the usage conditions for AI generated content by DALL-E or OpenAI are not in line with the usage conditions that stock agencies apply. Or they must have different usage conditions for AI generated content to their customers.
BINGO! 🔔 🔔 🔔
We are not responsible for the license terms, nor are we allowed to add conditions like the restrictions that Open-AI and others have placed on use for images we have created using their system.
Telling the person who wants to license images, that there are restrictions, is the duty of the agency.
No the complaint will not come back to the contributor. First off the person using the image, and then the agency, and then a slim possibility that someone from the AI company would try to chase down an artist. They would go for deep pockets first, not after the little that we have.
I don't know Pete. This is what's written in Adobe Stock's Generative AI requirements: You must have all the necessary rights to submit generative AI illustrations to Adobe Stock for licensing and use as described in our contributor terms (e.g., broad commercial use). You must review the terms of any generative AI tools that you use to confirm that this is the case before you submit any AI-generated content.
Do: Read the terms and conditions for generative AI tools that you use to ensure that you have the right to license all generative AI content that you submit to Adobe Stock under the contributor terms. For example, you cannot submit any content if you are not permitted to license it for commercial purposes.
Dont: Use generative AI tools that are known or recognized as having serious flaws in their design or outputs (for example, tools which generate identifiable people or property from generic prompts).
Dont: Submit works depicting real places, identifiable property (e.g., famous characters or logos), or notable people (whether photorealistic or - even caricatures)So you must have the full rights to submit it for "broad commercial use". I assume (again, not my fleld of expertise) that this also means: political campaigning or other contexts which are excluded from DALL-E or OpenAI's terms of conditions. So I see that as a responsibility of the contributor: make sure you have the full rights before submitting. Admittedly, agencies are on the lazy side here as they can easily identify AI generated content, and they can apply different customer terms on them if they would want to. And they can whitelist certain AI Generative Tools which terms are in line with the agencies terms. It all sounds like a theoretical discussion and complaints in this area feel like a rather unlikely event to happen, but it's not impossible either. Remember Alex and his news stand images receiving a complaint via Alamy.
98
« on: March 01, 2023, 03:40 »
Open AI would have to object and go to the user and then the agency and then back to the innocent artist. I wonder if the terms of use on Adobe and SSTK, for example, also say you can't use them for the above proposes that Open-AI doesn't allow? What if the images aren't marked created by AI or created by Open AI / DALL-E? Very complicated.
True, it's quite a chain a complaint would have to follow, but in the end, if it's a serious complaint, it will land on the contributor's desk. In most cases, chances are small anyone would really take the effort to sit it through I guess, but the problem with political campaigns for instance is that they have a high visibility and a potential debatable and polarizing exposure. We already had cases of political parties using editorial stock images pulled out of context for political campaigning. Media and independent journalists were very fast in identifying where the image came from and clarifying correct usage conditions. Personally I'd like to steer away from any use of my content for certain use-cases like political campaigning for instance, but that option is not available when submitting content. We cannot exclude certain context. Again, not my field of expertise here, but to me, it sounds like the usage conditions for AI generated content by DALL-E or OpenAI are not in line with the usage conditions that stock agencies apply. Or they must have different usage conditions for AI generated content to their customers.
99
« on: February 27, 2023, 07:05 »
DALL-E could be use for Adobe Stock or another agency?
i only see this about.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/usage-policies/disallowed-usage
Not my field of expertise, but I guess it can get you, theoretically, in trouble. You generate an AI image, submit it to Adobe Stock, where it finds it's way to a customer who uses it for political campaigning. Sure, how the image is used is beyond your control as you cannot specify the usage conditions or context, but it's still an image that you generated via OpenAI and your responsibility to make sure it's usage is not in violation with the openAI policies?
100
« on: February 23, 2023, 15:09 »
They lost you. did you delete all images and your account or you just stopped uploading and kept what was uploaded in the past?
The submitting to GettyIstock without your permission: If I did not read regulalry on Slack, i would not know it early enough and might were to late to tell them NOT to submit my images to Getty. The time range to decide and tell them per EMAIL (requested!), was very short! Luckily I go the email early enough to them.
For some reasons I got less than 85% accepted last time I uploaded. NOW I cannot upload any images. I have to buy 100 or so to get on board again.
Not with me! Wirestock is dead for me!
I am thinking about taking all my images back and upload again on my private accounts of each agency. But I am not sure, if it is worth it.
I just stopped uploading. I kept my content there because it is still generating payouts. And I'm afraid it will be a real pain to get it removed, wand wait for ... I don't know how long. 3 months + another month for every 100 images before I can upload it to my personal accounts? So I just let it be and take whatever they give me. I missed the email announcing the iStock/Getty submissions and possible opt-out, and I also missed it on Slack. So my content is on iStock/Getty now, which is fine by me I guess, but I'm worried about possible duplicates. Didn't check that one yet. I don't mind the 300 images / month limit. That's enough for me, and I guess for most of us. I have a 95% approval rate or so, and I'm not really worried about it to drop below 85% unless they go funny again with AI reviewing. It's more about the way they handle things, how they make it a real hassle to upload, get content reviewed, how everything is so fuzzy and completely lacks transparency, how I get the feeling that they just do as they like, that made me stop uploading there and just submit everything to my personal accounts.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
