|
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 - Video1977
1
« on: January 18, 2025, 16:12 »
I have another theory about whats happening, especially on Adobe. I wont go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, Ive seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated contentimages and videos that look suspiciously similar to the top-selling ones on the platform.
Of course, last year, we got paid quite a bit because they "trained" their AI using our images. But what really worries me is the possibility that these accounts aren't real people, but rather fake company-run accounts, designed to grab all the earnings from contributors who actually put in the work and figured out what sells.
Through AI, they could be generating almost identical content under these fake profiles to compete with and replace real contributors. If thats the case, they wouldnt just be profiting from AItheyd be cutting us out entirely.
I really hope these accounts belong to independent people who are simply analyzing top-selling content and artificially copying it. Because if they are actually company-run accounts, created to take even more of our earnings, it would be a massive disappointmentespecially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
At this point, I have to agree with you on the whole.
There seem to be accounts that specifically copy bestsellers with the help of AI and fill the entire account with them. In another forum, someone explained how this is technically possible on a large scale.
Maybe he will explain it here.
Because I'm not very good at this sort of thing, I can't reproduce it here.
But it has nothing to do with Adobe.
Wow! That's interesting...! 
2
« on: January 18, 2025, 16:11 »
I have another theory about whats happening, especially on Adobe. I wont go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, Ive seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated contentimages and videos that look suspiciously similar to the top-selling ones on the platform.
Of course, last year, we got paid quite a bit because they "trained" their AI using our images. But what really worries me is the possibility that these accounts aren't real people, but rather fake company-run accounts, designed to grab all the earnings from contributors who actually put in the work and figured out what sells.
Through AI, they could be generating almost identical content under these fake profiles to compete with and replace real contributors. If thats the case, they wouldnt just be profiting from AItheyd be cutting us out entirely.
I really hope these accounts belong to independent people who are simply analyzing top-selling content and artificially copying it. Because if they are actually company-run accounts, created to take even more of our earnings, it would be a massive disappointmentespecially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
You started with a leading question and suspicion that Shutterstock is manipulating the numbers, based on your sales being down. Now you are suspicious about Adobestock having company run AI accounts to copy best sellers and your work. But you don't want to start rumors about conspiracy theories, or plots. No you wouldn't want to do that.
And who said I dont want to start rumors? 
Maybe you should try reading a little slower and focusing more on the subtext of what you're reading.
It helps.
Oh you did come here to start rumors and create suspicion, without any facts or evidence.
Not saying its a fact, but is there some manipulation going on from time to time?
No and Adobe didn't create zombie AI accounts to steal our best sellers. What's next, they are lying about sales and hiding them from our earnings. That one already showed up again, with no proof.
Hey, I came here to share my thoughts, concerns, and even my fears with fellow contributors in a microstock forum because I think others might relate to them. Where else am I supposed to do that? I apologize if I upset you, that wasnt my goal.
3
« on: January 18, 2025, 14:42 »
I have another theory about whats happening, especially on Adobe. I wont go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, Ive seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated contentimages and videos that look suspiciously similar to the top-selling ones on the platform.
Of course, last year, we got paid quite a bit because they "trained" their AI using our images. But what really worries me is the possibility that these accounts aren't real people, but rather fake company-run accounts, designed to grab all the earnings from contributors who actually put in the work and figured out what sells.
Through AI, they could be generating almost identical content under these fake profiles to compete with and replace real contributors. If thats the case, they wouldnt just be profiting from AItheyd be cutting us out entirely.
I really hope these accounts belong to independent people who are simply analyzing top-selling content and artificially copying it. Because if they are actually company-run accounts, created to take even more of our earnings, it would be a massive disappointmentespecially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
You started with a leading question and suspicion that Shutterstock is manipulating the numbers, based on your sales being down. Now you are suspicious about Adobestock having company run AI accounts to copy best sellers and your work. But you don't want to start rumors about conspiracy theories, or plots. No you wouldn't want to do that.
And who said I dont want to start rumors? Maybe you should try reading a little slower and focusing more on the subtext of what you're reading. It helps.
4
« on: January 18, 2025, 09:38 »
I have another theory about whats happening, especially on Adobe. I wont go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention. Lately, Ive seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated contentimages and videos that look suspiciously similar to the top-selling ones on the platform. Of course, last year, we got paid quite a bit because they "trained" their AI using our images. But what really worries me is the possibility that these accounts aren't real people, but rather fake company-run accounts, designed to grab all the earnings from contributors who actually put in the work and figured out what sells. Through AI, they could be generating almost identical content under these fake profiles to compete with and replace real contributors. If thats the case, they wouldnt just be profiting from AItheyd be cutting us out entirely. I really hope these accounts belong to independent people who are simply analyzing top-selling content and artificially copying it. Because if they are actually company-run accounts, created to take even more of our earnings, it would be a massive disappointmentespecially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
5
« on: January 17, 2025, 19:00 »
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding salesbut is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
Very easy to do programatically. Its literally a couple lines of code, and yes - that is a risk you have selling on a 3rd party platform.
Easy way to test - get several friends to purchase several of your assets. If you are not credited with ALL the sales, then yes - they are manipulating the numbers.
I believe someone (here) had done that 1-2 years ago with shitterstock (& posted the results), and came to the conclusion that shitterstock was indeed keeping/hiding some sales. You should be able to do a search and find that.
Interesting...
Someone CLAIMED that he knew someone who ran a test and they claimed that they didn't receive credit for all the downloads, but they were waiting to check the data in case there was a delay. In other words, no one had anything except someone on FB who said it happened.
Sorry about having a little fun, jezz.
The only people who see manipulation of earnings are the ones who have lower sales than they think they should have. Anyone who's sales are up, doesn't claim there's any manipulation or favoritism, because that persons sales are up. Get it? I wasn't lying, my images are 1st in some searches and on another I'm 2,3,5 on the first page. One more, I see my images, depending on the variety of the exact search, moving around, but six are on the first page.
According to the conspiracy people, I am getting biased position and an unfair advantage. People with lower sales, of course will claim, it's some software manipulation.
In truth, I think it's just what it is and since my images that got better position, have sold or have a different view from the spammed, multiple other images, I got better rank. No conspiracy. (Of course I'd deny the conspiracy, because it's favoring me...)
I also have content ranking at the top, and at one point, I was making 6K just on SS. But, of course, as soon as I hit that, they changed the rules and cut earnings in half. Then came the tier reset, video bundles, and so on. Not to mention, they bought out platforms like Videohive and Pond5where I was making great moneyand ruined them. So yeah, I go back to my initial suspicion. Not saying its a fact, but is there some manipulation going on from time to time?
6
« on: January 16, 2025, 18:20 »
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding salesbut is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
Very easy to do programatically. Its literally a couple lines of code, and yes - that is a risk you have selling on a 3rd party platform.
Easy way to test - get several friends to purchase several of your assets. If you are not credited with ALL the sales, then yes - they are manipulating the numbers.
I believe someone (here) had done that 1-2 years ago with shitterstock (& posted the results), and came to the conclusion that shitterstock was indeed keeping/hiding some sales. You should be able to do a search and find that.
Interesting...
7
« on: January 16, 2025, 18:18 »
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! 
No Pete, this is not manipulation. I have personally noticed that downloads increase when you dance naked around a public fountain in winter.
I'll submit photos later
Please don't, just imagining that scene is scaring me.
I generally sacrifice chickens, under a Full Moon. (others call it grilling BBQ Wings, but close enough?) I burn offerings to the all powerful and wise God of Microstock, Hephaestus, who is the Greek god of artisans, blacksmiths, carpenters, craftsmen, fire, metallurgy, metalworking, sculpture and volcanoes.
Also covering other options, I celebrate Saturnalia, with a Scotch tasting festival, near the winter solstice.
Charms are also something that everyone should have and use, for good luck. The rabbits foot is extremely powerful for more illustration downloads.
Okay, you win. I feel like a beginner right now. You definitely have more opportunities to influence your success
What's with all this weird spam? Im not sure what kind of private conversation you two are having, but it seems like it belongs somewhere else I mean, get a room or something... If you need to discuss this, maybe take it to a private chat instead of flooding the forum. You two have completely derailed the discussion.
8
« on: January 16, 2025, 11:21 »
I've noticed something interesting: when I find a content thief with a portfolio of thousands of stolen photos and videossome of them mineand I report them, there is a huge difference in how Adobe and Shutterstock handle the situation. Adobe usually responds quickly, verifies the information, and if the claim is valid, they take drastic action. They dont just remove the stolen video; they wipe out the entire account of the user trying to profit from stolen work. Once again, Adobe shows that they respect contributors. Shutterstock, on the other hand, only removes the specific video that was reported, while leaving the rest of the thiefs portfolio intacteven though it's pretty obvious that if they stole one video, chances are theyve stolen many others too. So... what does this difference in approach say about Shutterstock? 
9
« on: January 15, 2025, 10:15 »
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
Well... considering that theyve changed the rules over and over, whenever they felt like it, broke trust with contributors and clients alike, operate like a greedy and stingy monopoly, yadda, yadda, yadda... its only logical for people to get a little bit sensitive about them, dont you think? LOL!
10
« on: January 14, 2025, 09:08 »
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding salesbut is that even possible? I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
11
« on: September 17, 2024, 11:55 »
A lot... Can that be possible?
12
« on: September 11, 2024, 09:29 »
I see Adobe has already erased them.
Yes, Adobe took action on the issue, but Shutterstock, on the other hand, is doing nothing and is not responding to my complaints. It feels like Shutterstocks infringement and complaints department is not functioning at all. These guys are really a mess.
15
« on: June 10, 2024, 07:27 »
I already found it!
16
« on: June 10, 2024, 06:49 »
Hey! Is it just me, or did the button to sort user content by date disappear (Filter by Date) after they changed the platform so I could nominate assets? It is an element that I use daily... where is it??
17
« on: May 27, 2024, 14:08 »
I have a question for those responsible for Adobe Stock in the forum... How long will we have to wait for an improvement in the ingestion process in Adobe? Contributors waste a lot of time deciding which keywords are important and placing them at the top. This process becomes slow and tedious. Isn't it time for Adobe to invest a little in modernizing all this? Greetings!! 
18
« on: March 12, 2024, 14:56 »
I found some of my videos on this app called "capcut" which apparently allows users to edit videos from their phone.
I have no idea if they have purchased any type of license to be able to do this on any of the platforms where I sell my videos (ss, pond, adobe...), but it strikes me that there is some type of license that allows them use the videos in perpetuity in a computer program.
Of course, I start to find my video on YouTube channels where users share it (after having downloaded them from "Capcut"...
Does the same happen to some of you?
19
« on: January 25, 2024, 17:47 »
20
« on: January 15, 2024, 13:28 »
This is excellent and very helpful, thanks! And congratulations!! 
21
« on: October 14, 2022, 07:56 »
The eligible assets do not work well. Once you choose the videos you want to be considered, when you re-enter your portfolio, they appear deselected again.
I don't understand why Adobe spends time and resources on this instead of putting all its effort into what really matters: correcting the keyword ingestion system that wastes users thousands of hours.
22
« on: July 19, 2022, 16:43 »
Adobe sales lately are only for a few dollars. It's a shame. I was hoping that this company would be different. I thought it was part of his philosophy to treat the collaborator with decency and respect.
Once again... I was wrong. It's crap, like all the rest.
Clearly among all the crap I prefer shutterstock, at least there I make more money, and they don't pretend to
be better people than the rest....
Yeah.. in hypocrisy adobe is the big champion.
greeting.
23
« on: June 22, 2022, 05:16 »
The user wastes too much time in ordering the keywords according to their order of importance. Before any other new modification Adobe should focus on solving this problem.
24
« on: June 30, 2021, 12:26 »
Leaving SS and deleting your entire port is a personal decision that depends on several factors, I respect the people who have considered that it was the best for them, but in no way can these people pretend to judge others based on their decisions . In my case, I still do quite well in SS, despite those 0.25 sales, I usually have sales for 12, 20, 22 dollars, even yesterday, two sales for 120, so, it would be silly to erase everything the time invested.
Greetings!
25
« on: June 29, 2021, 14:47 »
The month is not yet ended, and I have over 100 sales of footage at price 0.25 USD. What have I done wrong ?
I try to focus only on the positive side of things: thanks to those multiple sales I am close to reaching level 5, I have never been able to before. On the other hand, I don't quite understand why, but all 0.25 sales are always from the same videos, sometimes the same video is sold 10 times for (0.25) on the same day. Strange! But who gives a shi_t.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
