So I exported a video from Sony Movie Studio and uploaded it to SS. I was also planning to upload the same file to AS and P5 but I got an "unsupported file" error on SS. And this has me puzzled. It's an mp4 video and has a frame rate of 25fps. According to VLC, it has the h264 codec and it's also an MPEG-4 video. And apparently, both SS and AS accept MPEG-4 videos. The codec information in VLC also mentions AVC (part 10) and avc1. I thought that surely, a video with those specs would be acceptable but I don't know much about AVC. Would anyone have any ideas on why I'm get an "unsupported file" error for this video file on SS?

Maybe someone will see the original question, instead of the way the thread went off topic and no one is answering what you needed help with. Sorry I don't know Sony software or why this would happen.

Good Luck!

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 28, 2025, 14:52

They don't use it, it's not accessible, the files are still stored, in case we change our mind. Because of that, I left Data licensing active and anything that gets reviewed and put into that, I delete immediately. Tricky how they did that, keeping a catalog, in case we change our mind, We can't delete or see the content unless we opt in.

Yes, and the reason you cannot delete or see the content is because Shutterstock WANTS you to have to opt in to see and delete the content.
A fraction of a second is literally all an AI needs to grab your image and use it for training. Once you delete it, it is already too late and the damage is done. It might not be used for future customers, but it will 100% be used to train Shutterstocks own AI, even if it was just in the data licensing catalogue for a second.

If it wasn't so, Shutterstock would let us see and delete content from there even if we were not opted in. It was a deliberate choice to make it that way.
Everyone who does not want their content to be used for data licensing, but opted in just to delete the content, is playing right into Shutterstock's hands.

Yup! Correct. I have to Opt in, and as soon as something goes into data licensing, I have to delete it. They make it difficult.

But it's still funny how they worded it, in case we change our mind in the future, like it's some benefit or feature. Any reasonable system, would allow us to delete, without being Opted In. My answer is no, never. If it's not for license, it's not for data use.

Quote from: devy on May 28, 2025, 11:52

I opted out. No weird rejections anymore for data licensing and everything comes directly into my 'normal' portfolio..
I think a very good decision.

Really? Shutterstock state that you can still get content selected for Data Licensing, regardless of whether you are opted in or out.

"For those opted out of data licensing, the Data Catalog will not be visible, however any content that is not acceptable for the creative Marketplace but is acceptable for data licensing will be marked as such in the Review tab. Shutterstock will retain these review results and this content can be published for data licensing in the event that the contributor elects to opt in to future data deals."

https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Shutterstock-Data-Licensing-and-the-Contributor-Fund?language=en_US

They don't use it, it's not accessible, the files are still stored, in case we change our mind. Because of that, I left Data licensing active and anything that gets reviewed and put into that, I delete immediately. Tricky how they did that, keeping a catalog, in case we change our mind, We can't delete or see the content unless we opt in.

Translation, they can't use the images for training, we can't see them, but they are archived.

Nice mix of positions and numbers as we move into June 2025 soon, 82 people have shared their results. 

I have images that have been waiting 9 month for review

You need to use this weeks secret discovery of the trick to passing review. Last week it was don't add a location. Maybe if you say the secret word, you will get passed on to the reviewers, instead of being stabbed by the bots. Maybe you should only upload one image from any series at a time, then rotate what's new. (actually not a bad idea anyway?) Then you will always have single images, nothing similar and always have a fresh image from that set, as long as the supply lasts.

My latest rejection, was very fast. An image was removed because of not meeting guidelines. I removed the logo, trademark, that probably caused the problem. Reminder this image has been approved, sold, and was on AS for ten years. It took less that 24 hours to be rejected, for "Quality".  AI reviewed quality rejections are fast. Real reviews take time, depending on what the type and subject of the content.

Quote from: zeljkok on April 25, 2025, 14:08

Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week.  You guessed - "Quality Reasons".

Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.

This image would likely be rejected due to harsh lighting, overexposure, and a cluttered composition that lacks clear visual focus.

While I have no problems with the quality of the image that was rejected, the AI intake review might have seen shadows. I remember when any shadows were a kiss of death to anything uploaded to SS and some other agencies.

I have had images rejected for focus and artifacts, before they went to, one stupid rejection fits all "quality". The problems were leaves on the ground, a sandy beach, and more recently, a cloudy river, that has reflections of clouds and muddy water.

I still believe AS, when they say every image is reviewed by a human. The catch to that is, some images are rejected, before they are seen by a human. In other words, if it passes the intake review, by the computer and AI, then it's seen by a human. The fast rejections are the computers, no one sees those.

Adobe's growing disrespect towards quality contributors was clear when they announced the limits for the 2024 bonus code for their software - rewarding AI spammers instead of quality content providers. I think no one should expect to be treated with respect by Adobe and thus you should act accordingly. Make plans what you will do when it's time to leave Adobe (or when you will be let go by Adobe) and work towards it.

I agree with your viewpoint, except the part about making a choice to leave. As long as they keep selling and sending me money, I'll leave my images. The other two, the current disrespect and the possibility that they could let some people go, are to be watched.

Quote from: angelacat on April 21, 2025, 05:52

Training a machine with images, and then the machine creates new images, without using any part of the training image, is not a breach of copyright.

That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative.

They are not derivatives, they are whole new creations. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) or diffusion models are used to learn patterns and concepts. Then the machine makes a new image, that does not use any portion or detail of any training image. Information or knowledge is not a derivative any more than knowing that water freezes at 32F or 0C is. A fact is a fact. Machine learning, is taught, not copying.

If the dumber "AI" systems, use bits and pieces of actual images, to make a new product, that's would be a derivative and can't be defended in any way.


ps the above message from Richard shows a quote tagged as me, and I didn't write "That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative."

Quote from: DaLiu on April 23, 2025, 04:04

Wondering if anybody who is in for this model would like to share the earnings or they are available only by the end of the month?

According to the email it doesnt go live until next month but looks like they lied about that.
Given the revenue share model they mentioned i dont see how they can do anything other than declare it monthly once they know how much it brought in during that period.  I can see an IS style 2 month lag while payments are calcuated.

Sounds about right. Revenue sharing, moving to an IS ESP format, we might see a download but won't know what we made, for a month.

Just another way to pay us less than they already do.

Question is if AI takes over and artists, creatives, bloggers etc are no longer seeing financial reward, or very little reward why would anyone upload anything of value to the internet.  AI companies must have thought this one through, do they really think people are just going to work for free or something. 

Sorry to be harsh but they sound like a self entitled bunch, lobbying governments, at least here in Britain, to weaken copyright laws.  Our silly governments are swallowing the line.

IF? That has already happened and we are already to the point of no longer seeing financial reward for our work. People are still uploading to SS for dimes and the reset. People are still trying to sell on Getty for 15%. How could the financial reward be less? (I hate to ask that, maybe it could get worse?)

"AI" is nothing more than the most open and large scale copyright breach in human history and shoved into a database.
Every single generated AI image is effectively copyright theft as the models were all trained to various extents on media without permission.

Ultimately Adobes gamble seems dull.  NOW people are buying AI from stock.  It wont be long until they just make their own from a prompt in whatever editor they're using and have no further need to buy anything so that market vanishes.

Diminishes not vanishes.

The judges and juries and courts of the world, will decide if it's a breach of copyright, not artists who have a personal interest in the use and decision. Using public domain images, without permission isn't copyright breach. Training a machine with images, and then the machine creates new images, without using any part of the training image, is not a breach of copyright.

If you use a thesaurus, or dictionary, to learn what a word means or how to use it, is that a breach of copyright? Having a machine look at an image and learn is the same thing.

No I don't use AI, no I don't like it or what's happened to the photo market, but that won't make me ignore the facts or the laws behind how the images are used, just because I don't like machine learning.

Adobe is jumping in, just like all the rest. It's "The next big thing" and here we are. Let me mention Kodak, and how digital is just a novelty, film is always going to be better. Remember Blockbuster, who could have bought Netflix, but they didn't think digital or streaming was a threat. So why would Adobe, just sit and watch as the AI market booms, without taking a part and making a profit?

Guessing Shutterstock jumped the gun...

https://www.shutterstock.com/unlimited now has a 404.  Anyone screenshot it before it went?

Sure thing and better than that. I just got this email:

    

Unlimited downloads. Just $19/month.
   
     
 
Introducing Unlimited downloads! A brand new, budget-friendly subscription built to give you more flexibility, more content, and more reasons to come back.

Whatever the project, our new collection of 50+ million high-quality images, video clips, and music tracks offers the assets you need at a price that�s hard to resist.
   
     
Get Unlimited   https://www.shutterstock.com/discover/unlimited?sfmc_id=14547313&subscriber_key=sstk-109388320&utm_campaign=EcomSSTK_D_GTM_Unlimited_InactiveUsers_V1_202504&utm_id=187045&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sstkemail



I don't think it's dead yet?

"The plan comes with unlimited downloads, but in order to be able to fairly pay Contributors for your use of their original Content, we limit daily downloads to 100 assets."

Quote from: cobalt on April 19, 2025, 02:39

easter holidays in many countries. schools and businesses closed.

If he doesn't have any easter content that would be a plausible reason.

But I believe that Adobe also had some major ranking algorithm shifts.

Oh good, maybe my images will be favored now. If one shift causes people to go down, the same shift will cause others to go up. It's impossible to have "everyone" going down.

Otherwise seasonal changes are the best answer. Whether that means holidays, seasonal demands that change, or new competition. Much better than the old blame the algorithm. That's getting stale for an easy answer to falling sales.

Maybe they adjusted the fake pay quotas for everyone? Ask some people here and they will say, it's all rigged. Then there are the others who say, it's just luck. 

One for similar, which is very possible, one for guidelines. Here's the guideline offender. A wide panorama image. Maybe the size or the format?



 

Quote from: Bauman on April 10, 2025, 08:30

Quote from: gnirtS on April 10, 2025, 08:18

Its a full circle for me.  I started out with most on Alamy/macrostock and RM.  Then migrated to the RF/Microstock model.

Now im seriously considering doing the same and retreating back to that.  Although to be fair, AS is still growing well for me currently.

And I would also like to go back to Macrostock or Midstock. But does it sell?

On Alamy, my historical average for 910 downloads is $7.52 net (about 20% are RM exclusive) vs SS's 39,000 downloads at an average of 60cents.

40x less volumes for 12x the price but then Alamy sells mainly editorial and no real point sending them generic commercial micro shots. 

At the end of the day, for me, it's more about taking back control of our assets and retaining some dignity.
 

Speaking for myself, I don't know what dignity there is to retain after I sold out to Microstock. A little late to take back anything, after it's out in the wild. New images, yes, that's possible.

You're right about Alamy, and people will argue, the volume isn't there. But last year, and Alamy is down, I made more on Alamy than P5, DT, IS and all of the minor sites I distributed to on Wirestock, all added together!. Selling out for pennies is just as desperate for any last money and this terrible plan from SSTK.

I suppose it's difficult to say goodbye to DT and P5. I spent time uploading, now that's just residual. Mostly, I'm waiting for the "Next Big Thing"  Which is the merger of IS and SS, to see what happens.

I�m also thinking of just contributing to Adobe and Alamy.  Seems most agencies now pays pennies anyway.

I think that's a good plan to be considering. They don't care if we leave, we don't get paid for the effort. What's the loss?