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 - gnirtS
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 38
751
« on: August 05, 2019, 11:38 »
I like the IDEA of it but how they apply it could mean everything. Im assuming its AI based but is it checking just this uploaded batch or the users entire portfolio?
Given the huge amounts of stolen images on there at the moment which are pixel by pixel identical to other images getting accepted im dubious.
752
« on: August 05, 2019, 04:26 »
This may explain my sudden drop. Generally on average $250 - $300 a month from the 15th to 15th billing period. Fairly consistently for a fair amount of time. Not much but it all helps.
Suddenly this paying period instead of that average ive made a grand total of 1 sale for a massive $2.80. Combined with that my views have dropped significantly literally overnight.
Maybe its a coincidence but quite possibly the cap is hitting me. I had no idea there was a trial cap until i saw this thread (and had no idea P5 had a forum).
753
« on: August 01, 2019, 08:11 »
Alamy were notified by someone from MSG last week of some of the images too.
Utterly stunned this is still active. It really isnt a good PR look for SS.
754
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:46 »
Hows that free health in the UK working?
For urgent/emergency care its great. For non urgent surgery and treatments its not so great. Waiting lists for things like eye operations and so on are 2-3 years on average in some areas. Roughly 3.5 week wait for an appointment to see your GP.
755
« on: July 31, 2019, 09:44 »
Most of my sales show LLP but until that all have been 50% then 40% of the set selling price. This one is substantially lower.
756
« on: July 31, 2019, 03:20 »
Nothing to explain the price.
Its showing version HD, license LLP NLR $7 and i get $2.80.
The clip itself is set at $49 for a HD clip, $20 for web.
I cant work out where $2.80 comes from in there at all, its far lower than anything i set it to.
757
« on: July 30, 2019, 21:23 »
I just had a truly insulting $2.80 video sale. No idea what package that was from but certainly nothing like 40% of any of my pricing structures.
758
« on: July 26, 2019, 18:19 »
is said here (and on various other sites) to be in the Caymans: http://www.scubaverse.com/celebrating-two-iconic-shipwrecks-in-the-cayman-islands
That one i can confirm first hand. Its a terrible photo of people sat on the stern of the ex USS Kittiwake. And also a minimum of 4 years old because since then the wreck has been moved and tilted over twice in storms and isnt vertical. (Ive taken 100s of shots of that wreck through work!). Edit:- Just read all that article, it was actually me with the guy and the last photo (diver by the stern of the wreck) is my image (not sold on or used on stock sites)
759
« on: July 26, 2019, 17:41 »
He's adding to his portfolio. This week he's taking photos in Dubai that have been online since 2010 for example.
760
« on: July 26, 2019, 05:49 »
Its probably a good idea to understand where contributors fit into the MS food chain these days.
Quite simply, we're expendable. These days everyone has a phone, has a camera and will give images for pennies or even nothing at all. So we're replaceable and dont matter in the slightest to them. If someone objects to a new price or terms, they'll be immediately replaced by 3 or 4 others who are happy with it.
A tiny tiny percentage of MS contributors overall submit images of a unique and high standard which would be hard to replace but the majority do not and from an MS point of view, wont be missed.
We need to stop thinking the sites need or care about us in the slightest - they dont.
761
« on: July 24, 2019, 15:13 »
There is no way this portfolio is a "mistake".
Every single image has been stolen from elsewhere, cropped or altered and reuploaded. Its a deliberate, entirely stolen portfolio. Its also nowhere near the only one.
SS needs to get more proactive, instead of refusing to act until an original copyright holder complains they should actively follow up 3rd party complaints and address the whole portfolio not just a per image basis.
But at the end of the day, they needs reviewers to actual review images. I suspect most now are just AI flagged. No sensible human reviewer could have looked at these images coming through and not been suspicious.
Plus "similar images" - it SHOWS the image was stolen on the actual site but seemingly is not checked at upload time.
762
« on: July 24, 2019, 09:46 »
Photos taken on the space station. Not at all suspicious.
Not that an astronaut wouldn't have a side hobby of selling stock photos, but how could they be doing the underwater photography while they're in space?
Whilst single handedly documenting the iran crisis. The port is still up.
763
« on: July 23, 2019, 13:25 »
This is a good one:- https://www.shutterstock.com/g/owenr+osemarie?page=2&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en§ion=1Just uploading current news photos to SS and getting them accepted and sold. A lot of the military ones appear to be stolen from an Alamy account "PJF Military Collection" Either that or hes a really clever guy, hes in Boston, the Persian Gulf and Marshall islands on the same day.  This one appears to have been stolen off Reuters as far as i can tell.  This one was nicked from MarineTraffic. SS may get away with reselling individual peoples stolen images but reselling illegal images from Reuters, Alamy, the US Navy and other big guns is not going to go down well. Especially as SS approved these images for sale.
764
« on: July 09, 2019, 17:51 »
My download *numbers* are steady the last few weeks. But my download revenue is way way down below 50% of average. 2-3 weeks ago something happened and my steady revenue per download over many months dropped massively.
765
« on: July 09, 2019, 17:48 »
I assume that means no way to add 50 comma separated keywords at once too? Problem solved for now, i spent an hour manually editing - with hindsight i may have been better off deleting the lot an readding them. Surprised it wasnt picked up in QC though given none of the keywords were related to the images!
766
« on: July 08, 2019, 07:19 »
Is there any way to edit/change the entire set of keywords on previously approved images by pasting in a new set (as you can do prior to submission)? Ive tried deleting them all on the image in question then pasting in my normal coma separated batch but it doesnt seem to work - the engine treats them all as a single keyword and doesnt enable the OK box.
The reason for asking is ive submitted a load of images with completely incorrect keywords due to my having to repaste in the priority order ones from a CSV in Bridge since LR still wont support priority keyword export. Entirely user error which i didnt notice at the time.
The end result is a load of pictures of windfarms with completely inappropriate keywords about roadworks and bridges etc. I assume nobody manually checks keywords on review either as they should not have been approved like that!
Another thing i cant get to work - batch editing on submitted images. I select multiple images, change the keyword by manually typing in one at a time but the change only happens to one image not all the ones selected. Does this work somehow or isnt it meant to work like that?
767
« on: July 01, 2019, 19:25 »
June ended up a BME due to strong video sales.
Earnings for me have been generally going up the last 12 months but from my graph its fairly clear to see video is where the effort/reward earnings seems to lie more and more.
In this 12 month period my image portfolio tripled in size,my video increase by 30% in size.
768
« on: June 19, 2019, 19:49 »
Normally on here i get relatively consistent monthly sales (within $20 or so each month of an average).
Ive had one really odd day in May where someone bought 11 pages worth of subscriptions - a large chunk of my portfolio here which is extremely unusual to the point of being suspicious.
Has anyone seen anything like this before or have i just had my portfolio stolen to be reuploaded on SS and others by the photo thief mafia?
769
« on: June 18, 2019, 18:31 »
You'd like to think theres a reviewer ID embedded in their database for who approved an image. If so, you'd also like to think they can go through to see these people approving clearly stolen images/not checking similar and so on and "re-educating" them.
Then again, im fairly sure SS dont really want to do that. They've done the maths and the benefits of not bothering to check outweight the risks.
770
« on: June 16, 2019, 03:00 »
Sadly they seem to refuse to do anything except a per individual photo report. So there's no system for reporting mass stolen portfolios and it would need the original copyright holder to be identified and individually report each image.
771
« on: June 15, 2019, 18:42 »
This is great (in a tragic way). One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279 Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics. All of which are stolen. Im just waiting for tank man or afghan girl to make an appearance.
772
« on: February 26, 2019, 12:26 »
I;d be thoroughly checking the computer for trojans and malware (and absolutely ensuring random, long, unique passwords for every single thing logged into).
773
« on: February 22, 2019, 05:17 »
Thats a bad sign to lock a thread. If they had an effective QC procedure for approving images and if they had a functioning fraud/misuse system allowing people to bulk report fraudulent accounts the entire thread would not be needed. The current system where you can only report an individual stolen image and MUST be the original copyright holder to complain is completely unsuited and ineffective for the large scale, factory style abuse profiles.
The fact is they have neither of those so these accounts exist and are still being created and the ONLY time they took action is when people put a lot of their own effort in and went public with it.
You'd have thought they'd welcome people doing their work for them and flagging frauds but apparently not.
Its a bad sign for a company to start locking and restricting, especially when its failed to address the issues that allow the problem in the first place.
774
« on: February 20, 2019, 05:16 »
That's so racist.
/s
No, its a basic statement of facts.
775
« on: February 19, 2019, 20:13 »
I just got this as well. Just when i thought $1.50 was a new low for sales it looks like SS has come up with a way of making it worse.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 38
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|