You really don't have to be particularly clever or knowledgeable to realise that your portfolio has been copied here. This is not about a single image.
The answer from Adobe is, to put it kindly, a cheek.

If the current Adobe rules do not allow for any consequences here, then Adobe should adapt the rules to the current reality - which, incidentally, was promoted by Adobe in particular.

I can fully understand your frustration.

The best way is to contact Adobe via the MatHayward PM in the forum.

2. This young woman introduced herself and wrote her first and last name and attached a photo.

A little tip: If you accidentally write to your dating app support, you may not receive a reply from Adobe. Welcome to the real world.

Worrying update here from Alamy.

I asked Alamy whether my token damages over some $25 would bring the matter to a close and their reply:

Quote

"This matter remains ongoing with the case currently in front of the German courts. As mentioned, legal costs are being incurred by Alamy in defending the claims which as a contributor to you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. In the event of any further developments in relation to your cost liability under this matter we would provide you with an update to advise of any changes."

To be continued...

That is indeed worrying.
As a contributor, you are forced to pay for a court case without having a say in it, where you don't know what it's about, how long it will take and how much it will cost in the end.
Above all, you don't know whether it would have been cheaper to settle the initial claim.

Is there some other motivation behind Bild going after Alamy, because they are owned by PA News now?

Thanks, Pete. That was my impression as well, though I question how one can determine the exact costs for the defense in advance and know that Michael, for example, now has to pay 11.43 pounds.

Yes, it seems to be something "personal". Other international and German Stock-agencies are apparently allowed to continue using the logo and cover pages in the collection.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on March 27, 2024, 16:28

Received $60.97 for the Contributor fund today.

I'm not complaining about the extra money, but my choice actually looked like this since about a year now  :

If the system works as I understand how it should work... you should have gotten nothing?
So this means either the checkbox is doing nothing, and your content is used for AI training, or they have a serious issue in contributor fund distribution.
Or maybe the checkbox only works for content uploaded after you changed the setting. (because before there was no choice)

None of the above is good, there should be transparancy.

First of all, I'm glad that I don't have to live off this crap 

Yes, it's not just maximum instraparent.
But Shutterstock has probably decided to stop communicating with us altogether. As you can see from the new review times of 7 - 10 days. No Explanation.

I would also assume that the images will continue to be used before the checkbox is clicked.
At least that corresponds to the amount I have already received last year.

I rejected the "data licensing" primarily because rejected images were included in the "data catalog" and could therefore no longer be resubmitted (because they had already been accepted) and were therefore completely lost for sale on Shutterstock.

But that didn't change anything. Rejected images are now labeled as "Eligible for data licensing" and cannot be resubmitted either because they have supposedly already been accepted.

I hope that I have been able to make this more or less clear.

Received $60.97 for the Contributor fund today.
I'm not complaining about the extra money, but my choice actually looked like this:

Yes, for me too.

Images submitted on Friday.
Today, unusually after 5 days, the review of my editorial images:
Entire batch of different images rejected due to allegedly AI-generated images or illustration designations. Both of which are wrong.

Commercial images are still on hold. Something seems to be going very wrong at the moment.

Thanks for the info, this seems to be a general problem.

Hi Ralf,

Thank you for the really interesting information.

Editorial did really very well for me on SS, which is the main reason I miss the port a lot and twenty20. Also on istock still regular sales.

Never thought about sending editorial to Dreamstime. Will absolutely do that.

They even have a breaking news section from what I read.

And always, they were the only agency that raised payouts during the pandemic. i think that counts for something.

Jasmin, every agency reacts differently to the portfolio.

Because of the editorials, Alamy is probably also doing very well for me in comparison.
 
But I have completely written off iStock for myself. I only reach the payout limit here every 1-2 years.
It's a shame because of all the upload work, but it doesn't really upset me. It works better for others, so it's down to my port.

I absolutely agree with you that Dreamstime is one of the fairer agencies.
That's why I don't understand all the excitement here, or even hostility.
If you only cash out once in a blue moon, you should just forget about the agency like I did with iStock.

There are more important things to get excited about 

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on March 08, 2024, 09:17

Even automated online payments are not free. You need software, a payment service provider or payment gateway. This costs money and the prices usually depend on the invoice volume.

In this respect, Dreamstime's argument is understandable.

I prefer the high payout limit to lower sales revenue 

Payment companies offer these transfers, services and free software to many sender, as they take a good cut in the currency exchange, with the loss of the recipient of course.

In my opinion, this is not correct.
If you look at the price structures of payment gateways such as Ayden, Stripe (payment service for Airbnb) etc., the client (sender)  pays the costs and not the the recipient.

This is comparable to card payments. As a businessman, you pay the fees for the transfer and use of the devices.

You signed up with the site when these payment terms were clearly stated - no changes, no subterfuge. Making totally false statements about the agency doesn't help anyone.

Thank you Jo Ann, that's exactly the point.

Dreamstime pays me on time several times a year.

If one is  struggling to reach the payout limit, it might be the wrong agency for the portfolio.

Just wanted to check, Am I ok to use the recycling kitemark on images?

Perhaps you can specify this in more detail.
The BSI Kitemark logo for recycled Computers/IT is a trademark and protected. The classic recycling logo with three green arrows in a circle, on the other hand, can be used freely.

I think it's irresponsible and there's nothing but someone who knows someone who said they did this.

There needs to be better accounting and methodology to start running to forums with "Shutterstock steals sales. Control purchase" claims. I'm not the one, but years ago someone else and a few people said, if Leaf wants to risk the whole forum and being sued by allowing this kind of post, he's risking that all, for rumors and a friend who knows someone who.... What I mean is, SS could sue him into oblivion.

"The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7" And "9 purchases randomly" If there were 9 random purchases, how did this group verify, if there were sales reported or not. Did they go contact the 9 random people who had images, with no sales? Can you see if an image has no sales, on someone else's account?

How many sales does this image have?

If Shutterstock reads your message, they could shut down the forum, demand to know who you are, and by law Leaf has to tell them anything he knows, email/IP address/logins, and then you would be sued for libel.

How about someone do this test, with data, verification of everything, and independence from the contributors financially. Then after discovering if the claims have a basis in fact, publish the study. Do what you claimed, buy a 25 pack, start a fresh new buyer account, no link to any contributors. Find 25 contributors that can be associated with their images. Make the buy, without their knowledge, without knowing which image. Wait a week and collect the facts.

I'm really surprised at how many people here are willing to spread rumors and believe that the whole Microstock industry is just a game, and fake. I've read the same claims about other agencies, just in case that seems out of place. Especially DP and those not based in the US.

Fair is fair, ask for the proof and people making claims, show the evidence, not I know someone knows someone, who says...

Thanks Pete, thought I was the only one with rumblings in my belly here.

"Shutterstock steals sales..." is sold as fact in the headline here. No evidence is given.

But somehow it works, as it always does. Because the news fits the picture for many, the brain is switched off and the "facts" are  applauded.

Based on journalistic research, millions of people in Germany are taking to the streets against a right-wing party. Because it fits the political mood, the content was adopted one-to-one without thinking by politicians and the press.
It is now becoming increasingly clear that this research was largely a hoax.
The protests continue nonetheless, and the wording and narrative continue to be used.