thanks for sharing! interesting/different assortment of images! do you travel a lot?

I now offically have the worst earnings since 2014.

It's collapsed by 20% and SS and Alamy are the worst followed by the debacle at Envato

what happened at envato?

Lol, why would microsoft acquire adobe?

It would be like Kentucky Fried Chicken deciding they wanted to purchase GM, and start making cars.

Makes no sense.

Also wonder what this means for agencies. This Icons8 company is giving images away for now. Once it's improved they will start monetizing it. So these AI companies could replace agencies. Or agencies will adopt AI and make their own images so there could be a mix of images created by AI where the agency keeps 100% and types of photos that only a person could create.

Interesting times.

This kind of thing already exists. (Look at any of the on demand video services).

Basically what I see happening is this.

a) Icons8 isn't the first company to do this. But as more of these 'types' of companies get free publicity (= free advertising =sales for products/services they sell) - more and more companies will start releasing these 'image' packs.
b) There will be a HUGE oversupply of these types of images. Literally hundreds of millions.
c) Yes, consumers will 'initially' flock to these 'free' images. But then because 'everyone' is using them, it will look stale/repetitive/etc, and companies/agencies/etc will want a more 'natural' look (aka photographers taking pictures). So then you'll see a spike in 'real' photographers pictures.
d) The cycle will be iterative (i.e., the "ai" companies will then tweek their algorithms to look more 'natural' and the whole cycle repeats itself). Spike again, repeat, spike again, repeat, etc, etc.

Eventually a bit of an equilibrium will be achieved, with very inexpensive photos (same with videos).

BUT - there will still be artists (photographers) that flourish - because this will evolve more into an 'artists' type of world. I.e., photographers who use a combination of both their own photography and "ai" items (i.e., landscapes/backdrops/some generated content) - and people will purchase from them just because they like the look/feel of that artist.

And yes - eventually - algorithsm will then start to steal/replicate/artists 'look & feel' - but that is a little bit of a ways down the road.

I think there will still be a demand for stock photography, just the 'way' it is done will evolve/change.

I think stock photographers will start to become more like 'artists' - so, whether they use an AI generated image, or actual models - the scenery, backlighting, composition/etc will attract 'followers' that like the 'artwork'.

You'll probably start to get more 'on-demand' service, so while computer algorithms can't 'yet' say make a family picnic pose in 10 different shots, the photographers will do custom work for clients.

When the market gets 100,000 images like that in 2 seconds, it will become 'too much' for the regular/average person to sort through. So they'll probably start hiring curators - or graphic designers to 'pick' the right images for the composition.

So it's a shift, yes.

Interesting.

While I will get less 'expensive' content if it is worth it and I can 'easily' find it (i.e., simply comparing two sites for the same asset)... If I have to 'hunt' for it - I value my time more than trying to hunt around to save a few bucks. So at a certain point, if I can't find what I want inexpensively - I will pay a higher price for the asset content if it is what I need and what I want.

That's interesting.

Sounds like they are desperately  trying to get people to sign up  for their "great" "$0.05" (or less)/video download program.

They do have a huge enough library now that I think they can coast quite comfortably for the next 5 years, but I don't think many people will be too excited to work for pennies and submit new worik. Unfortunately - there is a large supply of "newcomers" - but - not sure if they will take the time to keyword, title, edit, etc videos for the wonderful prospect of 5 cents a video.

Plus - since they' basically screwed people over in the past (100% "we'll never change! not like they other guys!" commissions -> 50% "oops sorry we have to" -> "buh bye now, give it to us for pennies!" structure).

Now 'supposedly' how they calculate the contributor pool is by "3x the HEIGHT of commissions when contributors earned 100%" to make it sound like a "huge" amount. (They don't actually specify that number - which leads me to believe it's really just something they are picking out of their butt). Educated guess they are probably only allocated about $50k (out of their $30 million revenue) to be split amongst contributors.

But then it would be very naive to believe they were actually being honest, since they've proven themselves already to be dishonest several times over. They don't actually "commit" to any number (so no accountability whatsoever). And then - for the arbitrary number they've chosen - they'll probably squeeze it as low as possible until people actually start dropping out.

They've just gotten too greedy.

Read that but I don't know anything on audio.

Quote

For Music Tracks and Sound Effects, your share of Net License Revenue will be 35%

This time I will c/p the whole text for the next "update"

Not sure if I remember those words previously:

Quote

We may also exclude or deduct any of the following from the calculation of the Net License Revenue and the net amount payable to you: (A) taxes or other withholdings paid by the customer or that we determine are required by applicable law; (B) refunds, chargebacks and uncollectible sums; and (C) fees, charges and/or costs payable to or deducted by financial institutions for the processing of any credit card, debit card, e-check or alternative payment method and/or currency conversion for payments received by us or paid to you in a currency other than U.S. Dollars.

Edit

plus this

Quote

In cases where a customer purchases an Extended License, we will deduct from Net License Revenue and retain a portion of the additional fees charged for the Extended License as a "Legal Guarantee Fee" to cover our self-insurance costs as determined by us in our sole discretion for providing the customer with additional legal protection. For avoidance of doubt, you will be paid your share of the net Extended License fees collected by us after such Legal Guarantee Fee is deducted. Refer to the Website Contributor Portal Payout Overview for further details.

I have a copy of the old license (as of Jan 2018).

These portions are identical (nothing changed, it was already there).

Quote from: SuperPhoto on August 22, 2019, 21:08

Quote from: charged on August 22, 2019, 20:28

Since it reads like you know how to code, here's some random thoughts of the top of my head...

Setup it up a bit like Squarespace.com have a bunch of different beautiful templates that people can choose from. Then do sales in 2 different methods.

1st method - allow sales via individual accounts, individuals keep all profits.

2nd method - build out a platform that shows all files from all individual sites. Have some pre-defined rules about how the search algorithm will work, and make that public. Ask all the files that are submitted here are exclusive. A large amount of exclusive files will draw traffic, for example like Stocksy.

Make this site a co-op, spell out how revenue would be shared from the platform sales. Give yourself a very nice unreasonably big payment in the future for doing work for nothing in the beginning. Spell this part out upfront. After that just pay yourself a reasonable salary moving forward from the sales.

Re: #2, was thinking of something like that... BUT... then it becomes

a) essentially a new agency
b) which, of course is a LOT more overhead than an individual sites. (An individual would be fully responsible for their content, whereas in an agency you need staff to review assets, staff for customer/sales assistance, staff for other items, etc, etc).

So I was wondering if essentially 'owning' your own site that was as easy as creating an account would be appealing.

I will give some thought to the marketing aspect though - just as I was writing this had an idea that might be appealing, going to think about it to see if it would work...

Virtually no stock buyer is going to go to an individual's own website unless it is amazing work and they can't find something similar on one of the big agencies' website. It is all about what would be the least amount of effort for the buyer. A big stock site is most often where the buyer finds what they want with the least amount of effort. Similar to shopping on Amazon.com, 50% of all US online shopping happens on that website because it is where people go to buy stuff with the least amount of effort. Anyway, the only way for you to launch something new is that you have to have contributors that commit to giving high quality exclusive files, otherwise buyers already have existing stock websites to go to.

Regarding staff, just find volunteers who will work for nothing, just like you will work for nothing. Then one day if and when the site actually becomes profitable, then pay all these people an unreasonably large amount of money out of the sales for all the free work they gave. Then figure out what the new pay will be moving forward.

Situation here though is - it's been my experience when looking for volunteers, in most cases you get what you pay for. In some cases, you might find a gem - but then they will have limited availability. Others - the quality of work varies widely, and then they may promise something will get done, but it doesn't. Unless you have a highly motivated volunteer - which if you have an insight as to how to find those, I'm open to hearing - it would be easier to hire someone. In which case - the 2nd option is like creating a brand new agency.

Might be a good idea though (creating a new agency), simply because the attitude of the larger ones is 'we are the king, do as we say, otherwise too bad'...

So........

Since it reads like you know how to code, here's some random thoughts of the top of my head...

Setup it up a bit like Squarespace.com have a bunch of different beautiful templates that people can choose from. Then do sales in 2 different methods.

1st method - allow sales via individual accounts, individuals keep all profits.

2nd method - build out a platform that shows all files from all individual sites. Have some pre-defined rules about how the search algorithm will work, and make that public. Ask all the files that are submitted here are exclusive. A large amount of exclusive files will draw traffic, for example like Stocksy.

Make this site a co-op, spell out how revenue would be shared from the platform sales. Give yourself a very nice unreasonably big payment in the future for doing work for nothing in the beginning. Spell this part out upfront. After that just pay yourself a reasonable salary moving forward from the sales.

Re: #2, was thinking of something like that... BUT... then it becomes

a) essentially a new agency
b) which, of course is a LOT more overhead than an individual sites. (An individual would be fully responsible for their content, whereas in an agency you need staff to review assets, staff for customer/sales assistance, staff for other items, etc, etc).

So I was wondering if essentially 'owning' your own site that was as easy as creating an account would be appealing.

I will give some thought to the marketing aspect though - just as I was writing this had an idea that might be appealing, going to think about it to see if it would work...

What was �wrong� is that buyers don�t care about looking at an individual�s site.  Those that have niche content that is very valuable already have a way to sell.

OKay - so what you are saying is you'd need marketing?

For niche content sellers - do you know what ways they sell?