|
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 - kuriouskat
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25
76
« on: July 13, 2023, 10:53 »
Well they are training their database with consent from contributors, on the assumption that contributors are abiding by the rules. I won't link to an individual, and this is part of a larger set, but I found this vector of an elephant today.
This is clearly AI created, (which Shutterstock don't allow), and then autotraced as a vector, (which Shutterstock don't allow). On top of this, the keywords were spam, (which Shutterstock don't allow) - light, girl, woman, people, happy, person, sky, silhouette.
If AI is being trained on this two trunked elephant, with two and a half legs and a tusk coming out of his backside, then we are all screwed.
77
« on: July 12, 2023, 02:57 »
According to this, anyone can write in with information: https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/How-does-Shutterstock-investigate-infringement-claims?language=en_US"If you are not the copyright owner to content you believe is being infringed, please write in to [email protected] with the following information:
identification of the original works you believe are being infringed (website URLs or Shutterstock content ID numbers); and
Shutterstock content ID numbers for the content you believe is infringing.
Please note that Shutterstock requires both sets of information (original vs. allegedly infringing) to adequately investigate infringement issues. We cannot fairly or accurately investigate problematic accounts with just screenshots or account names; we require information to specifically compare original content to infringing content. Shutterstock only requires a few examples to make an assessment of problematic contributor accounts."
78
« on: June 28, 2023, 16:14 »
At least they paid the remaining earnings. But certainly they could have included the amount owed to an author in that email.
Communication with contributors is definitely not their strong point.
Not paid yet, but they have promised it with be forthcoming shortly.
79
« on: June 28, 2023, 05:07 »
Did they also change something about requirements for model releases? I just got an image rejected for missing model release - All that was visible of a human on the photo was a piece of a (my) forearm. 
Never had a problem getting images approved without a model relase before that just had random body parts like hands or arms in them before, and, quite honestly - I don't feel like Shutterstock is worth the effort to create a model release just for an arm.
Current FAQs say this: When is a Model Release Required? Generally speaking, a model release is required when commercial content depicts:
A recognizable person
A body part of an unrecognizable model with a visible tattoo
Nude models or models who are part of a sexually suggestive concept, including unrecognizable models
Illustrations, vectors, or animations created in the likeness of actual peopleWas there a tattoo? If not, it's probably a mistake.
80
« on: June 28, 2023, 01:57 »
They could have just sent an email explaining that.
I agree, and they should have given contributors at least a day or two to collate any financial information they needed before closing the account. I managed to get screenshots of my earnings page before the account disappeared, but only because I was quick. They should also have made in clear in the email what they intended to do regarding unpaid earnings. To be fair, they've been quick to respond to my emails and have been polite and friendly, but their original email could've been worded to avoid any concern and speculation.
81
« on: June 27, 2023, 15:01 »
You need to add the day. They changed the rules recently, I believe.
82
« on: June 27, 2023, 14:59 »
Did they give any explanation why?
Does it affect everyone who hasnt uploaded in a while?
They could have just sent a warning, so that people become active again.
their answer was
Unfortunately the portfolio has been deleted because we are now focusing on more Nordic images
Ah, you got an explanation - thanks for posting that. When I started there my images did fit that brief but, over time, I just added my all the rest of my portfolio, so I guess that's why it fell outside of current requirements. To be honest, I wish some of the other sites would be a bit more discerning.
83
« on: June 27, 2023, 09:13 »
Did they give any explanation why?
Does it affect everyone who hasnt uploaded in a while?
They could have just sent a warning, so that people become active again.
I don't think it has anything to do with being active, as I've been active all year, but my portfolio was still removed. About 6 months ago they changed the acceptance criteria, and removed about 1% of my images. I think it was to do with image size, but I can't find the original email. The recent email says that they are planning to 'use different parameters to scale down the image bank and make room for images that fulfill both technical and visible criteria we've set up'I take it mine didn't meet what they were looking for. I did wonder if it was because I uploaded a selection of AI images recently, but I didn't get the disclaimer that @Cobalt mentioned earlier, otherwise I would have simply removed the AI submissions.
84
« on: June 27, 2023, 02:18 »
Well that was a bit rude. email saying sorry we dont want you anymore, fair enough, then closed my account instantly, so no idea how much they owned me, IF they are planning on paying out (email them to ask), or even if they have really removed all my images instantly from sale.
Anyone else?
Same here. I wasn't bothered, as it was underperforming there, but the email didn't cover what would happen to the money following their decision, which I thought was pretty poor under the circumstances. Fortunately, I took a screenshot before everything disappeared and i couldn't access the earnings page, but they confirmed by email that they would be paying me my balance shortly.
85
« on: June 19, 2023, 15:07 »
Shutterstock seems a total haven for thieves. Shutterstock always suggests similar images or video clips, but somehow can't detect thieves uploading the same images or video clips. They should solve this problem.
They earn the same money, from honest and thieves. They don't care, and spending time to solve this would be a lost of time, i.e. money.
I asked one time long time ago to remove my files sold by thieves, they did nothing at all. They don't care. I understood I had to forget and that it was better to ignore how much times my files were stolen. Because it's very demotivating. And I stopped looking at tineye and google image, because it's a nightmare, so many dishonest people.
I know I loose money, I dont' want to loose my time too. A kind of "Angels' Share" (lol?) and it's difficult to fight against...
Yes, they earn the same money, but there is plenty of 'honest' content and no need to sell stolen stuff. I find it hard to believe that Shutterstock would risk their credibility with customers by not jumping on this quickly when it comes to light.
I'm talking about facts. And you?
I've seen threads posted on here identifying suspect portfolios, and I've certainly seen action being taken to remove the offenders. I'm guessing a lot goes unidentified, but I would certainly expect a response if I was sending a DMCA regarding theft of my own images.
86
« on: June 19, 2023, 10:56 »
Shutterstock seems a total haven for thieves. Shutterstock always suggests similar images or video clips, but somehow can't detect thieves uploading the same images or video clips. They should solve this problem.
They earn the same money, from honest and thieves. They don't care, and spending time to solve this would be a lost of time, i.e. money.
I asked one time long time ago to remove my files sold by thieves, they did nothing at all. They don't care. I understood I had to forget and that it was better to ignore how much times my files were stolen. Because it's very demotivating. And I stopped looking at tineye and google image, because it's a nightmare, so many dishonest people.
I know I loose money, I dont' want to loose my time too. A kind of "Angels' Share" (lol?) and it's difficult to fight against...
Yes, they earn the same money, but there is plenty of 'honest' content and no need to sell stolen stuff. I find it hard to believe that Shutterstock would risk their credibility with customers by not jumping on this quickly when it comes to light.
87
« on: June 19, 2023, 05:37 »
88
« on: June 19, 2023, 01:36 »
There are two possible rejections for non-English text, the first is for text within the description and/or keywords, and the second is for text within the actual images.
I can't find the exact wording for the first, but it mentions a list of problems with the description, including spelling, grammar, relevance, as well as foreign text.
The second reads as:
An English translation is required for non-English text that appears in content. For small amounts of text, please provide translations in the title field. Large amounts of text are not allowed in content.
Was your rejection the first or the second?
90
« on: June 16, 2023, 07:42 »
As I've said a number of times, it is the agencies' responsibility to review content, for the protection of their customers (even if they don't give a toss about us as contributors). This is especially true with new portfolios - lots of the ones you posted had less than 100 in their portfolios.
I understand the agencies are trying to automate and cut the costs of the inspection process, but they're not doing a good job of that. They're fouling their own nests with this sort of short sighted cost cutting.
This struck me as funny (in a gallows humor sort of way). One of the people who stole your mushroom shot had apparently stolen other work and decided to add text to it (genius disguise, that...). Small problem in that he's too lazy to even add the greeting correctly.
Haha, that's funny, (as you say, in a gallows humour kind of way). However, it does raise a question as to who is reviewing these images? Is it just a lazy reviewing letting this slip in, or is it all being done by a bot who can't spell?
91
« on: June 16, 2023, 03:44 »
Sorry, I couldn't get the screenshot to attach above.
92
« on: June 16, 2023, 03:43 »
I was browsing this morning, and came across several portfolios with the same images. After clicking around a bit, I realised it was a total minefield, with one copied image leading to another, and the issue just getting bigger and bigger. I have quite a large portfolio, and with competition form both AI being passed off as 'real', and stolen content at every turn, I'm feeling the pinch. Fair competition is fine and healthy but this is really getting to be a bit much. If I can find this from the similars displayed on the same page, then why can't the sites involved? If I submit two images that are vaguely close, then one gets rejected for being too similar! You may want to check if any of these portfolios contain your work, as they all contain an image of these lovely musrooms: https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/MohamedMehalla?mediatype=photographyhttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/rezzzahttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/Dykamahadyhttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/Faiza+Anwar+8To be honest, I'm not sure if any one of these is the original photographer but, from clicking around a bit, it just leads to more and more suspicious content. This image from the second link above, https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sweet-fresh-delicious-orange-fruit-1874601004, leads to: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/shaggysarthttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/fatimomihttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/Take_photo_byhabibhttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/mrbabaraslam1https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Umamfalshttps://www.shutterstock.com/g/vilculesemi02The same oranges image is free to download from Pexels and Freepik, so I guess this has all become a free for all at our expense?
93
« on: June 15, 2023, 03:01 »
I posted this in response on FB, not aimed at Matt but AS in general.
The various FB groups along with other forums are full of people doing this. Actually asking for help in how many AIs they can submit before account gets flagged, what happens if they don't tick the boxes and so on.
There are verifiably, a large number of people, bulk submitting AI to the main collection without labelling. And its getting accepted.
There's no detection and no sanction for this.
(Yes SS and others have the same problem).
Agree - the problem is widespread, and for those who are trying to play by the rules, it's a kick in the teeth and further crashing our earnings. At first, I thought 'how can the reviewers not see that this is AI?', but now it's getting harder and harder to tell. By allowing it, the flood gates have opened to a lot of people who are willing to cheat the system for short term gain. Put a REPORT button on your pages, so that anything suspicious can be flagged and checked, before the problem gets totally out of hand. Maybe also do a search in the database for Generative AI, then exclude 'Generative AI' from the results? There are over 140k images that mostly shouldn't be there, which can't be good for your customers and is certainly not good for the rest of us who are trying to play by the rules. And that's just people who forgot to tick a box. The genie is out of the bottle, and we can't put it back, but we do have a responsibility to figure out how to control it.
94
« on: June 09, 2023, 15:26 »
I like you so I will play your game (but it's small pictures to tell from):
1- AI
2- AI
3- AI
4- AI
5- AI
6- AI
7- Reality
8- Reality
9- AI
10- Reality
11- AI
12- Reality
13- AI
14- Reality
15- Reality
16- Reality
17- AI
18- AI
19- Reality
20- AI
21- Reality
And don't tell me they are all AI because then I will not like you anymore 
I have a nasty feeling they are all AI.
95
« on: June 09, 2023, 07:50 »
they've been enforcing the all-caps requirement - maybe haphazardly. but don't think circa x was ever acceptable. they also reject vintage slide scans from the 70-80s as too old! non-editorial from those shots easily accepted, even if date was in the description
Circa has always been accepted (i have plenty using it).
Their blog on writing a caption also says its ok:- https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption
But that article is from 2010, so plenty could have changed since then. My understanding is that Circa is acceptable if the date is unknown, such as with vintage editorial but, if you know the date, but can't be bothered to check it and include it, you will get a rejection.
96
« on: May 12, 2023, 02:29 »
Don't know about Bigstock. But whenever I get this 406 error at Shutterstock, it means it doesn't like my IP address. Cookies clearing or resetting browser would not cut it. Only resetting my router to get new IP fixes it for me.
Agree - that's what I've had to do in the past. Also, if you switch off wifi on your phone, and connect via 4G, that seems to work.
97
« on: April 27, 2023, 08:47 »
Did you add property releases?
Adobe requires a property release for real looking people that are not based on real people photographs.
Thanks for that and, no, I didn't submit a property release - first AI generated people, and other site accepted them with 'fictitious person' in the description, so I forgot about the rule. I would have remembered if they were rejected for needing a property release, but the model release rejection threw me. I'll resubmit later and attach the correct release.
98
« on: April 27, 2023, 07:42 »
It's an interesting questions as to whether the AI images of people look real or not. There are a few clues if you look closely, but a large amount are certainly passable.
Mine clearly fool the reviewers because, despite being clearly marked and checked as Generative AI on the submissions page, I'm still being asked to supply model releases.
99
« on: April 21, 2023, 08:14 »
Sorry no time to answer, I'm busy making a pink letter X, within a circle with some floral accents.
The other pink letters have gone, so you can corner this lucrative market 
100
« on: April 19, 2023, 05:22 »
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that.
If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange. 
Well this is currently the most popular in the photo search, and has been for a while:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068
High Usage and customers 'love this asset'.
What is going on at Shutterstock these days?
Ok, but I can understand that.
I worked in Sri Lanka some time and can only remember ripe bananas.
Otherwise, there's really not much to see in this country.
I can understand the subject matter being popular, but the execution should also be up to scratch to be the most popular photo on Shutterstock. It's held that position for several weeks or more.
EDIT: I see it has gone from the top spot today, and isn't visible in the first few pages. I assume Shutterstock are reading and acting upon information shared here?
My posting was meant rather ironically.
But I have to realize again and again that this sometimes goes wrong in English.
I did wonder, as you said there wasn't much to see in Sri Lanka! I've been, and it's a beautiful place to visit, with some amazing sites to photograph. As you say, humour and irony doesn't always translate well in forums posts.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
