|
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 - Uncle Pete
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 195
801
« on: October 23, 2023, 12:44 »
Honestly the forum is getting full of it. Hard to keep track of who's a "their among us guy", who's a Q guy, whos a chem trail guy, a white replacement theory guy, a the neo-Marxists are out to get us guy, a far right ethnonationalist or libertarian, an incel/ misogynist on and on.
Guess it's the destiny of all online forums eventually. The people who are put off by the madness slowly just back out the room. It just isnt a pleasant place to hang out.
Haha, does that make you the 'believes 100% everything on t.v. and totally obedient to what the newspapers say' guy?  BTW - probably if you are finding a lot of people are trying to get through to you... then it might be worth looking into/using your own thinking to look at its merit... There is most certainly a difference between a "conspiracy theory", and just plain old "conspiracy"... (as well as the label 'conspiracy theory' is a tactic to make someone short-circuit their thinking, and just automatically try to 'dismiss' something without looking at the merit of it). But, I do understand with years of schooling for most people - being taught to be 'obedient to authority', and that 'authority is right without question', it can be hard to break out of that thinking to see things as they really are... Good luck.
" Historical Exploitation: Throughout history, colonial powers, often led by European males, have oppressed and exploited indigenous populations in various parts of the world. This exploitation included forced labor, land theft, and cultural suppression. Slavery: The transatlantic slave trade, largely driven by European powers, resulted in the forced enslavement of millions of Africans. This brutal system of oppression led to centuries of suffering and continued racial disparities. Racial Discrimination: Discriminatory practices, including segregation and institutional racism, have marginalized racial and ethnic minorities in many societies. This discrimination has resulted in disparities in education, employment, housing, and criminal justice, among other areas. Stereotyping and Prejudice: Minorities often face stereotypes and prejudice perpetuated by the dominant culture, which can lead to bias in various aspects of life, including employment, education, and social interactions. Cultural Appropriation: The appropriation of cultural elements from minority groups by those in power can lead to the erasure of cultural identity and perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Unequal Access to Resources: Systemic disparities in access to resources, including economic opportunities, healthcare, and quality education, can disproportionately affect minority communities. Violence and Hate Crimes: Hate crimes and racially motivated violence can target minority individuals and communities, causing physical harm and psychological trauma. Disproportionate Incarceration: Racial and ethnic minorities, particularly in the United States, are often overrepresented in the criminal justice system, facing harsher sentences and unfair treatment. Political Disenfranchisement: Minority groups have historically faced barriers to political participation, including voting restrictions and gerrymandering, which can limit their ability to have a voice in decision-making." Wow those evil WASPs? Back on topic, it would be nice if AI could look at an image and say, here are keywords, for us. On the other hand, isn't that what keyword suggestions already do on Adobe, SS and DT, for example? Or is there something in "please generate good keywords for an image of sliced vegetables" and then we use the results to add to are already thoughtful keywords? Hey, not bad? I see some I could use. Sliced vegetables Fresh produce Culinary preparation Food preparation Chopped veggies Colorful ingredients Healthy cooking Salad ingredients Kitchen ingredients Food diversity Vibrant colors Nutrient-rich Cooking ingredients Culinary art Ingredient diversity Sliced carrots Chopped bell peppers Vegetable medley Knife skills Nutritious meal prep I'm happy the Chat GPT 3.5 supports "Ingredient Diversity" for vegetables. 
802
« on: October 17, 2023, 11:31 »
Actually, Ive just thought of something. There could be a reason why the keyword 'animal' was added to my photo of a tree. Previously, I had made the mistake of adding 'fauna' to the metadata when I meant to add 'flora.' It's super rare when I make those kinds of mistakes though yea I was going to try and correct that after submission (with another support ticket.) So I wonder if the inclusion of the word 'fauna' triggered some automatic word generator to add 'animal' there as well.
And I do have another recent tree photograph submission where I mistakenly added 'fauna' instead of 'flora.' Maybe I was doing the keywording for both images at the same time (can't recall exactly.) I'll check that one out on iStock as well and see if 'animal' is added there too.
Edit: Yes, the keyword 'animal' is included with the other tree photograph. So it's a fair chance that it was the 'fauna' keyword that is responsible for this (a word that shouldn't be there.) I'll ask them to remove 'animal' and 'fauna' and add 'flora.'
Yes and I wouldn't have known this if you didn't start the thread. "Fauna (PL: faunae or faunas) is all of the animal life present in a particular region or time. "
804
« on: October 17, 2023, 11:10 »
I have sent you the information. Thanks.
Thank you @Hannafate. I received your email and have removed the generative AI tag from all the files you listed. I'm sorry for the inconvenience the mistake caused you and others.
Regarding the comments from @Synthetic, you are correct that the support team is particularly busy these days, so it is taking a longer time than we would prefer to resolve many contributor issues. That said, this is not a low priority at all. We take it very seriously and are working to resolve this, and all other issues as quickly as possible.
As always, your patience is greatly appreciated.
-Mat Hayward
Does it make any difference? I mean should I search and report any images of mine that are not AI that are labeled as that? Or can I just ignore the problem and see if something changes?
It's hard to say. If your image was not created with generative AI software but was inadvertently tagged as generative AI, I believe it is a reasonable request to remove that tag. The team is doing their best to get through support cases as quickly as possible. You are welcome to reach out to me directly as well.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
Thanks, I'll watch and see how things go. None are anything that sold before the change. I don't see how worrying, will change anything. If they are still mislabeled in a month or two, I'll make notes and take you up on the offer.
805
« on: October 17, 2023, 11:05 »
Five weeks now without a verdict. I think I will switch from weekly to monthly reports here. Have sent another email to Diego/contributor support.
<sarcasm>Perhaps it takes longer to check a portfolio where you find nothing wrong</sarcasm>
Here's a 👍 to both of those.
806
« on: October 16, 2023, 11:34 »
When I checked last time....japan web had 28 000 results in new vector search.
Two weeks later 61 000 . MORE THAN DOUBLE.
30 000 of a same styled " vectors " from a different contributors which is more than obvious one and same person or group of a crooks.
No one can assure me that adobe moderators didn't noticed this amount of such look-alike files, so it is obvious that they are accepted in collection deliberately.
30 000 AI generated files in a two weeks , 61K+ in total from just one fraudster that are not marked as genAI - that totally undermines the ethical AI marketing messages Adobe has been pushing.
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211695781/charlotte?load_type=author&prev_url=detail 15 images?
David 30 images
Daniel 29 images
Benjamin 31
Caroline 28
"688 results for japan web red line art in all"
But still, this seems like an odd game they are playing? And yes the collections are much larger in some cases. If Adobe cares, it's easy enough for them to do the same search and disable all of these accounts.
Each of those files have just "japan web", no need to add "red line art" as a search term.
I guess that this crook added that japan web term in all files in order to see which of these files are accepted ( considering that we all know that the title is searchable at Adobe stock )
I was searching for the specific set of images, not the multiple accounts that may or may not have them. What I noticed beyond the who knows how many accounts and the 22,000 files that they may have, depending on real keywords. But still, there are some with 20-30 images, and the same style or images. Why? If they are trying to hide in plain sight, it just makes it easier for Adobe to eventually catch on and remove all of them.  Lets hope that happens.
807
« on: October 16, 2023, 11:28 »
9 Million+ AI generated photos - Stock Photography coming to end Unfortunately, yes!
Just like film photography, vinyl record players, tape recorders, paper books and newspapers, corded telephones, optical discs and much more.
And stock photography is killed by production studios, united teams of stockers, and even single stockers because of their own greed and stupidity.
It doesnt matter that artificial intelligence still takes clumsy pictures. It won't be long before he learns. And we will be "the last of the Mohicans." And yes, indeed, we will have to carry lawn mowers. But, however, this is only if by that time the lawns are not mowed by biorobots.
Already here: https://buyersguide.org/lawn-mowers/t/robot?msclkid=3cfaf996b37c17edb8e79cbbd0501e2e&m=e&d=c&c=74011169756934&oid=kwd-74011059969351:loc-4133&qs=robot%20lawn%20mower&lp=105822&li=&nw=o&nts=1&tdid=8844783Of all the things you listed, the one that seems to be surviving is paper books. For some reason, people still enjoy a good book, rather than a computer screen. All the rest have been made obsolete by newer technology that does a better job. I'm not convinced that AI/Machine Learning does a better job. I'm not hoping that it does for a while. A computer can do some things, that humans have taught or programmed, but it can't reason or know function, or why. That's why 3 arms, 7 toes, or mechanical things, just get mashed into flawed and often impossible combinations.
808
« on: October 16, 2023, 11:16 »
I have sent you the information. Thanks.
Thank you @Hannafate. I received your email and have removed the generative AI tag from all the files you listed. I'm sorry for the inconvenience the mistake caused you and others.
Regarding the comments from @Synthetic, you are correct that the support team is particularly busy these days, so it is taking a longer time than we would prefer to resolve many contributor issues. That said, this is not a low priority at all. We take it very seriously and are working to resolve this, and all other issues as quickly as possible.
As always, your patience is greatly appreciated.
-Mat Hayward
Does it make any difference? I mean should I search and report any images of mine that are not AI that are labeled as that? Or can I just ignore the problem and see if something changes?
809
« on: October 14, 2023, 13:45 »
When I checked last time....japan web had 28 000 results in new vector search.
Two weeks later 61 000 . MORE THAN DOUBLE.
30 000 of a same styled " vectors " from a different contributors which is more than obvious one and same person or group of a crooks.
No one can assure me that adobe moderators didn't noticed this amount of such look-alike files, so it is obvious that they are accepted in collection deliberately.
30 000 AI generated files in a two weeks , 61K+ in total from just one fraudster that are not marked as genAI - that totally undermines the ethical AI marketing messages Adobe has been pushing.
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211695781/charlotte?load_type=author&prev_url=detail 15 images? David 30 images Daniel 29 images Benjamin 31 Caroline 28 "688 results for japan web red line art in all" But still, this seems like an odd game they are playing? And yes the collections are much larger in some cases. If Adobe cares, it's easy enough for them to do the same search and disable all of these accounts.
810
« on: October 13, 2023, 11:07 »
There is no relationship with any agency. All agencies provide a platform to distribute your content and in exchange the platform gives you a small royalty and it's always on their terms. All agencies have a unilateral contract. We are all expendable. Those are the facts.
And the only way we can enjoy fair compensation for our work is to unionize. Period. Otherwise, online agencies will always be in control. Either you accept their terms and continue providing them with your images or you don't. That's the world we currently live in. We set-up our own agency and agree to providing OUR agency with images, clips and illustrations and no one else.
You lost me at "unionize" and "set-up our own agency". That said, why don't YOU set up an platform that provides better royalty rates and terms?
Unfortunately the stock photo industry has gone from being a once viable and lucrative career to being a losing game career wise. I know this because I have seen the pendulum swing both ways. To think any agency is going to improve the situation you are fooling yourself.
Sadly we are all at the mercy of corporate greed.
Yes we are. As much as I would like to see conditions for microstockers improved, I don't know that having an entire forum dedicated to it would have much point.
Periodically some "hero" comes along who is going to save us all from our drudgery. They start some grandiose thread and get everyone stirred up. But inevitably it always devolves into the same old gripes and circular arguments, followed by the departure of whoever stirred the pot in the first place.
Bottom line is as long as supply continues to outstrip demand by such a wide margin we don't have a lot of leverage... I wish it was different.
A trade organization or union has been discussed over and over, but most are not interested, and of those of us who would support the idea, nobody has the time or know-how to step up and take charge.
June 02, 2010 and many times since. My main point has been, in order to have a Union, you have to have power and something to hold over the agencies. (LEVERAGE - see above) We don't have that. In order to have a UNION you would need to be organized and agree how to proceed, there would be dues and officers and... like herding cats, I'd like to see someone get us all to agree or even have a majority that agrees on how things should be done. I will say the way to create this hypothetical exclusive agency that is better for contributors and would require people to be exclusive to join, would be buy an existing agency. For anyone interested in some history GL stock, which came from Graphic Leftovers, was on the market for $5,000 at auction and received no bids. That would have been a steal? Or maybe not? The owner said he was making around $200 a month and didn't have time to devote more to the agency. And the only way we can enjoy fair compensation for our work is to unionize. Period. Otherwise, online agencies will always be in control. Either you accept their terms and continue providing them with your images or you don't. That's the world we currently live in. We set-up our own agency and agree to providing OUR agency with images, clips and illustrations and no one else.
There's the answer. Buy an existing agency. A great shortcut to the future. Then set it to exclusive only, and see how many artists would agree to that for, lets say 50% on every sale? Is 50% fair enough? Anyone here thing that's a good number or what would it take to ask people to be exclusive to a smaller market agency. For an idea? How much do you make on Dreamstime? What would that be if you were exclusive and had no other source of income for RF images? Maybe someone wants to buy Yay or Mostphotos or 123RF?
811
« on: October 13, 2023, 10:38 »
With a name like Freepix I am not too excited.
After what we've seen, trials for earnings, and the disappearance, I don't understand how some people are so desperate that they will continue to support a business that's against everything we do to make money from our work. Everyone is an individual and you can do what you want. I make my own choices too. That's not the point. How can anyone justify competing with themselves for pennies? Is EyeEm or Freepic going to make a difference in your life? Or will it just lower your earnings elsewhere and cheapen the value of your products on the marketplace. I think that's what these two have done and will do, and that's why I wouldn't support them or contribute anything I create.
812
« on: October 12, 2023, 11:07 »
The whole article is loaded with interesting points. Much of this related to the Warhol Foundation decision. Which is also complicated by the results which are mixed. This case, and artist used an image, to create a tattoo. The photographer sued. Both at this point are claiming that the Warhol decision should be grounds for summary resolution, in the matter.  The most recent decision, the judge has sent the case to the jury. Seizing on the new Supreme Court decision, Sedlik argues that Warhol clarified that photographers routinely license their creative works to serve as reference for other artists, and that such artists reference licenses are how photographers make their living. Artists references, does that apply to AI? https://copyrightlately.com/court-to-revisit-fair-use-in-tattoo-infringement-case/And while I'm typing: https://copyrightlately.com/making-sense-of-copyright-fair-use-after-warhol/ a breakdown of the decision and situation, Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.
813
« on: October 09, 2023, 11:55 »
Whenever we ask agencies to remove the copyright violations, they close the account of culprit and keep their pending account balance themselves, why?
Isn't this unethical?
While you make a good point that they should pay what's due, if an image was downloaded from a thief's account.
How do you prove that the stolen images were actually sold? Just seeing it listed, we can't assume there was ever a sale or that the agency was actually profiting from showing the image.
I still say the agencies hide behind the protection and don't really try to be proactive to prevent the numerous fake accounts that steal images and try to make money from others work. Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services.
Places like SS will claim that they try to protect us from theft, while it's just a show, minimal effort, so they can claim that they try. It costs money to prevent the fraud, and everything for the Microstock agencies is based on how to make more money, while spending the least.
Note DMCA doesn't protect us either and we have to do the filing?
I think this has became normal for companies to keep the earnings. I agree with you that least effort is made to protect us from theft.
I have seen many contributors whose max portfolio is of theft images.
This is really a concern that needs to be addressed properly.
Just to ask, how much power do DMCA hold?
DMCA is a toothless watchdog that doesn't bark. Symbolic but does nothing to protect us. Max portfolio that's stolen images? Some are 100% stolen images. The agencies could find these and remove them, before they make a sale. Look at how many time, we, meaning members here, find and expose the image thieves. Often just stumble across them, not by trying to find fraud. Imagine if SS was making any small effort, how much they could prevent or discourage. They pretend to look and do the minimum, just for show. On the other side, I don't think, like some others have suggested, that any agency is intentionally using the non-payment as a way to make a profit. Whether they pay us or someone else, it's all the same. We don't know that the stolen images make anything or get any downloads, or that anyone is ever paid. Back tracking every image sold from every fraud account, if there are any and the thief hasn't been paid, to send people a dime? Not a reasonable demand and not cost effective.
814
« on: October 07, 2023, 11:17 »
I just received around $1 from Wirestock via the Dataset Deal Program. It is so strange because I sold only 1 image with this program.
I am very curious to know how Wirestock distributes those "partner earnings" to their contributors, without knowing which files were sold?
I see no way to know or find these, or what images. Searching the site shows nothing in the way of details. Dataset Deal Program 1 $2.62Here's something that might help? https://wirestock.io/docs/terms_of_use search for "Dataset" Dataset Deals Program
When you submit an item of Content to Wirestock, you agree that the item of Content will participate in our Dataset Deals Program, unless you opt out in accordance with this provision. As part of the Dataset Deals Program, Wirestock will license sets of images belonging to you, along with other Wirestock users, to third parties (the Dataset Partners). Wirestock will select the Dataset Partners in its sole discretion. You agree that Wirestock may license your Content, as well as all associated metadata, to Wirestocks Dataset Partners for the price and in the form, extent, and scope that Wirestock, in its sole discretion, chooses.
For all of your Content that participates in the Dataset Deals Program, you agree to be compensated as follows: Wirestock will pay you a royalty equal to your Fractional Participation multiplied by 50 percent of the total payment Wirestock receives from the Dataset Partner (Dataset Deals Royalty Formula). You agree that Wirestock shall retain the remaining 50 percent of the total payment. Fractional Participation is defined as the total number of items of your Content participating in the Dataset Program divided by the total number of items of Content (whether your Content or another users Content) participating in the Dataset Program.
Example:
100 (your total participating Content) / 10,000 (total Content participating) * (50% * $10,000 (payment)) = $50.00
Opting Out: You have the right to exclude your Content from participating in the Dataset Deals Program. To opt out, you must go to your account settings and unselect the option for Dataset Deals for one or more, or all, of your Content.
Minimum Royalty Amount: Each time your Content is licensed as part of the Dataset Deals Program (a Dataset Deal Licensing Event), Wirestock will track the royalty you are entitled to based on the Dataset Deals Royalty Formula. However, Wirestock will not transfer funds to your Wirestock account until the amount of royalty you are entitled to based on one or more Dataset Deals Licensing Event, is at least $0.03 USD (three cents USD).
815
« on: October 07, 2023, 10:50 »
Whenever we ask agencies to remove the copyright violations, they close the account of culprit and keep their pending account balance themselves, why?
Isn't this unethical?
While you make a good point that they should pay what's due, if an image was downloaded from a thief's account. How do you prove that the stolen images were actually sold? Just seeing it listed, we can't assume there was ever a sale or that the agency was actually profiting from showing the image. I still say the agencies hide behind the protection and don't really try to be proactive to prevent the numerous fake accounts that steal images and try to make money from others work. Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services. Places like SS will claim that they try to protect us from theft, while it's just a show, minimal effort, so they can claim that they try. It costs money to prevent the fraud, and everything for the Microstock agencies is based on how to make more money, while spending the least. Note DMCA doesn't protect us either and we have to do the filing?
816
« on: September 25, 2023, 10:45 »
getty announces their ai generator
https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23884679/getty-ai-generative-image-platform-launch
Interesting. The company said any photos created with the tool will not be included in the Getty Images and iStock content libraries. Getty will pay creators if it uses their AI-generated image to train the current and future versions of the model. It will share revenues generated from the tool, allocating both a pro rata share in respect of every file and a share based on traditional licensing revenue.
817
« on: September 20, 2023, 20:40 »
It does seem you can only see any images or delete images from the catalogue if you opt in to data licensing which is a particularly cynical move even by SS standards.
True, just another SS catch 22
818
« on: September 20, 2023, 20:39 »
Even though this is about close an account, I'm pretty sure the same applies. https://www.dreamstime.com/faq207-i-am-a-contributor-how-do-i-close-my-account#:~:text=You%20are%20allowed%20to%20disable%2030%25%20of%20files,disable%20the%20remaining%2070%25%20after%20six%20months%20pass.You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date. You can disable the remaining 70% after six months pass. Once the files are disabled, nobody is able to view/access them, except for you. The files will remain in our offline database for 12 months until all liabilities (refunds, potential copyright infringements, etc) concerning them are cleared off, then they are automatically deleted. The account cannot be closed until the above requirements of the contract expire.TOC: https://www.dreamstime.com/terms#contributorsContributors are required to keep at least seventy (70%) percent of their portfolio online with Dreamstime.com for a period of at least six (6) months. You may disable all files older than six months from the date of review at any time. You will be allowed to disable a total of thirty (30%) percent of your total Media submitted within the past six (6) months. Media that was disabled and then enabled again will be counted as new submissions, no matter of their original upload date.
819
« on: September 20, 2023, 20:33 »
One week now - still waiting on a reaction by Adobe. Shoot first - ask muuuuch later
My only wish would be that they did this with the image thieves, instead of over reacting to a change in policy, after the fact. Good Luck.
820
« on: September 18, 2023, 11:45 »
Worst of all is that you now cannot access the image and delete it. Today, for the first time in months or maybe even a year, I had an image rejected and I know it is a perfectly technical fine image with commercial value. So I want to re-submitt it, but I cannot delete the old one that went to "data licensing". That's really upsetting.
Yes, you can view and delete all these " Eligible for data licensing" photos . Just go to the reviewed content, in here you can click on "data catalog",which you can find at the affected image.
And is there a delete button now? There wasn't before. When some of us wrote SS answered, these would be archived, in case we changed our mind about data licensing. HA! More like held hostage and what right do they have to archive our rejected submissions? Plus, lets say I want to make it exclusive elsewhere? How do I do that when SS has a copy on file.
They did say they would review the process and our ability to delete our own images. Did they?
Pete, like I said you can delete them now.
Thanks for pointing out that it has been added.  All gone now. You get SOME rejections now but not many. Most are "Similar" or issues with IP.
Almost all now are rejected with "accepted for data licensing" even if opted out.
The usual broken programming from SS.
821
« on: September 15, 2023, 11:29 »
Worst of all is that you now cannot access the image and delete it. Today, for the first time in months or maybe even a year, I had an image rejected and I know it is a perfectly technical fine image with commercial value. So I want to re-submitt it, but I cannot delete the old one that went to "data licensing". That's really upsetting.
Yes, you can view and delete all these " Eligible for data licensing" photos . Just go to the reviewed content, in here you can click on "data catalog",which you can find at the affected image.
And is there a delete button now? There wasn't before. When some of us wrote SS answered, these would be archived, in case we changed our mind about data licensing. HA! More like held hostage and what right do they have to archive our rejected submissions? Plus, lets say I want to make it exclusive elsewhere? How do I do that when SS has a copy on file. They did say they would review the process and our ability to delete our own images. Did they?
823
« on: September 05, 2023, 12:43 »
I'm still searching my database of images and videos for possible copyright issues and after a very long read of many official posts in the AdobeStock Discord I came across that the filename can be a problem.... I probably wouldn't have thought of that, since the customer shouldn't actually be able to see it?!
Anyway, I used "Giger" in the filename of an image series, assuming the filename is "mine" - that was a wrong assumption it seems.
The metadata does not contain anything from "Giger", I always remove names (see picture below).
I think you discovered the problem and I'd agree, who would imagine that our file names are a liability?
Thank you - Yes, I never expected that to be a criterion.
Because let's say a file is called "beach in the style of ABC" that's exactly what's in it - so for example I named my files "in Wrendale style" (not in titles or keywords) because "in a watercolor painting style" was too long for me.
To make the assumption that you have copied a style here is a very dubious assumption at best.
In the future (assuming I get my account back) I will use a filename scrambler, a script that makes the filenames unreadable before uploading.
But as I noted above, I did indeed miss a keyword in a series of images when removing the automatically generated keywords, so I'm doing my part to be in this situation.
Now I have to be patient, because I'm sure I've already annoyed Mat and the other Adobe employees from the AS Discord enough with my questions - but I'm sticking to it:
The people with blocked accounts urgently need information on
(a) whether they can get the account back
and
(b) by when this will happen.
YUP! I feel warned just in case. I could make the same mistake.
824
« on: September 05, 2023, 12:39 »
...
Just think of the Covid virus illustrations, they are not a real photo of what the virus actually looks like.
...
and even a proper electron microscope image can be misleading - scientists know what false-colors mean, but ordinary folk could think virii are rainbow colored. similarly, many ordinary microscope images are of stained-prepared objects
And just in case, a polarizing filter or polarized light. Some microscopes are darkfield which gives some not so characteristic color results that would match a real photo.
825
« on: August 31, 2023, 11:50 »
i've had ridiculous non-licensable rejections -
- mountains in the north cascades, climbers on a generic trail
- market scenes submitted as editorial where some of a batch are approved and others rejected.
also images rejected as 'altered editorial' where only had minor PS tweaks, or blurred background and a few where there were no post-processing
maybe i shouldn't mention it, but my sacre-coeur images are still online
There are others, not a specific place, but types of images and subjects that I could upload in 2011, for example, but now they get the Non-Licensable Content: We cannot accept this submission into our commercial or editorial collection, or we are no longer accepting this type of content. rejection. However the old images are still up for sale. Nice that they are protecting my interests by limiting competition?  IS is the place that removes images. I've never had SS remove an image of mine after the fact.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 195
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
