However, ... if you paste an AI-generated image (Image A) over an unedited image (Image B) in Photoshop, flatten it, and save the result, Image B�s EXIF metadata will not retain or include any metadata from Image A. I think it will have NO data from image A, except the pixels copied. Basta. All the info, in the EXIF or out of it, will be the one Image B had from the beginning, except "edited in Photoshop" will be added almost for sure.

Yes, this works.   I tried it, just for curiosity.  It certainly wouldn't be worth the effort of doing this regularly.

It confirms that iStock is doing the most simple-minded thing possible.  They just discriminate against the use of particular software tools because they are capable of doing generative AI, even if they are not being used for that purpose.

Has anyone had any images removed yet? If so, do they get buried under Not accepted or does Adobe specify which images got removed?

Yes, they get buried.  It is frustrating for somebody like me.  I have been uploading to them for close to 20 years and have several thousand online, and over a thousand rejected over the years.  Finding the ones that have recently been rejected would be like searching for a needle in a haystack.

I have received three separate emails from them about this over the past few months.  In each one, they include in the email a thumbnail of one of the photos that has been removed.  As far as I can tell from this, it is because they have different IP standards now than in the past.  I have re-uploaded two of the deleted files, designating them as illustrative editorial, and they were accepted.

Any of these are at worst $5/$6 better that the cost per share of SSTK. What's missing? Why aren't people buying at $22 to get back $28?

Proposed merger deals don't always succeed.  The share price of both SSTK and GETY have tanked.   Investors presumably think that there is a substantial risk that GETY will change its mind, and find a way to get out of the deal, or at least revise down the payment terms.

Are others seeing this? The legacy uploader is gone. But the new catalog manager now has the option to select video thumbnail, phew!

The last time I checked, the new uploader is more cumbersome than the old one.  That's just like Shutterstock, to change things for the worse.

However, sales there are so bad now as to be insulting, so I stopped uploading a while ago. 

To add insult to injury, there is a total lack of guidance from them about what the merger with iStock will do.  Will they merge their portfolios?  iStock has different selection criteria.  Will the SS files that don't meet their standards be deleted?   All these factors make uploading to SS a waste of effort.

I have been a contributor to both, but my portfolio on SSTK is somewhat larger, both because iStock is pickier, and I have not bothered to upload as much there, as it is more trouble.   

That seems to go even more for others, as apparently the total number of files at SSTK is more than double what it is at iStock:  https://photutorial.com/shutterstock-vs-istock/#shutterstock-has-2-times-more-content-but-i-stock-is-more-curated

iStock has taken a more restrictive view of what is acceptable, based on no known legal principles of IP.  For example, I have found that they have zero tolerance for interior shots for editorial, even of public buildings where photography is permitted.

It will be interesting to see how they handle that, and whether they will cull the SSTK portfolio to eliminate images that iStock would not have accepted. 

I hadn't actually realized that Getty was a free-standing company with listed shares (I knew that about Shutterstock).

If you can't beat them, join them?

We downtrodden, underpaid contributing photographers could save our pennies and buy shares in these companies, and make money on both ends.   However, the problem with stock market investments is that the senior managers of corporations often get away with overpaying themselves, so you could be both a photographer and a shareholder owner of these companies, and still get the short end of the stick.

They appear to have sorted out the problem, as the missing files just popped up in my portfolio this morning.

Alamy's opaque bookkeeping drives me nuts.

Alamy is the only agency that I deal with that refers to the total sales value in my "Revenue" chart, prior to deducting their commission.   The other agencies at least are honest enough to report what we actually got paid after they deducted their large cut.

Adobe has suddenly gone from accepting about 90% of what I submit to rejecting 80%, including many that I consider to be quite high quality, and not too similar to others.   There must be something going on with their review process.

When they do accept something, they sit on it thinking about it for about a week.

I have stopped uploading to them for the time being.  Might as well save up my files for when they are ready to accept them again.

For the last few months, Shutterstock has fallen to third place for me, well behind Adobe and even Istock, though my portfolio at SS is considerably larger.   It's not the level royalty calculation that did this, but the fact that most subscription sales are now 10 cents compared to 35 cents previously.  By the end of January, I will be at level four, but most sub sales are at 10 cents regardless of what your level is. 

If they ever explained the radical change for subscription sales, I missed it, but explanations are beside the point anyway.  The bottom line is that they are paying out a lot less.  They've suddenly gone from being one of the more generous payers to one of the worst.

As a result, I've paused in uploading to SS and I'm working on building out my Adobe portfolio, particularly in catching up with editorial (which I find is selling reasonably well there).  It will take years, but eventually buyers will notice that SS does not have as good a selection of new material as it used to.

I have to say I'm feeling quite pleased with Adobe recently.   Yesterday afternoon I took some nice fall color shots, and then uploaded them in the evening.

This morning, when I checked, they hadn't been reviewed yet.  The next time I checked my account, it was around noon to look at my sales.  One of the shots I took yesterday had already sold (for 0.99).   From pixels to pennies in less than 24 hours. 

It looks like face detection software has been implemented.  I uploaded a photo with a crowd of people with their backs to the camera.  There was one person I hadn't noticed in the corner who was facing the camera.  The system flagged it right away.