|
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 - Big Toe
1
« on: April 23, 2024, 11:04 »
How are we different from a herd of cows or rams? We are no different !!!
Speak for yourself!
2
« on: April 22, 2024, 16:41 »
but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing
Being nitpicky, and IANAL, maybe they're banking on 'permanance':
Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".
I have no idea. It's a can of worms.
According to Wikimedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama
It's the sort of stuff that keeps lawyers in champagne, and scares the rest of us witless if we think about it for long enough.
No, the freedom of panorama (Panoramafreiheit) has nothing to do with the limits of editorial usage of photos, but is about commercial use. It means that the commercial use photos of buildings and pieces of art permanently located in a public space is not restricted by the protection of a buildings architecture or the copyright of a piece of art, like a statue. The commercial use can be prohibited due to other laws, though, for example, you cannot use a picture of a Mac Donalds restaurant commercially, because the golden M is protected as a trademark. The limits for editorial use are far wider. For example, pictures of the Wrapped Reichstag cannot be used commercially, because it was only wrapped temporarily, but photos of it could still be used editorially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrapped_Reichstag
3
« on: April 21, 2024, 14:30 »
I could be wrong, but this just smells bad of frivolous lawsuit and something other than, illegal image use, or copyright infringing for showing the cover of a magazine, as an incidental part of a broader scene.
.
I am not so sure about that. Bild is frequently involved in lawsuits. They should have a bunch of lawyers working for them, who are experienced enough not to start a frivolous lawsuit, without any chance of success. Also, Bild as a newspaper uses editorial photos themselves all the time. They would hurt themselves if they helped set a precedence restriciting the use of editorial photos. My guess is that there may have been some photos where it is at least not absurd to assume that they might violate Bild's rights. Alamy may then have deleted all images featuring Bild as precautionary measure, even though probably only some of them have been a problem and are now trying to collect the money for the lawsuit from all the people whose photos have been deleted. This could probably successfully be contested in court, but who is going to sue them over 20 or even 100 or 200 Pounds or Euros? It is really hard to say without knowing more about what the lawsuit is actually about.
4
« on: March 27, 2024, 15:04 »
I've already clarified that these characters are not AI generated. I hired an artist to make me specific designs in high resolution with clean lines (which AI generated ones have a problem making... not to mention it's hard to make specific character design and posture you want)
I do also make AI generated images, but I always tick the box that are AI generated.
Ok, sorry, then I misunderstood you. I wonder whether the high resolution and clean lines are that important, though, if the character lacks details like mouth or nose. At least I can see neither.
5
« on: March 27, 2024, 12:44 »
Funny you ask... because there were many images and videos I've uploaded that I have no clue why would they be used and they have sold anyways.
It can happen, but I still think that a picture with a useful concept has a better chance of selling.
Concerning this picture: There are alot of little things that dsiturb me a bit about it. Not a lot of the picture is sharp, the girls or women somehow seem to be hovering over these plates or tiles and the proportions seem a bit weird. They miss a clearly defined mouth or nose and the breasts are overemphasized. The hands are weird.
Character has been used multiple times as animation and a part of an image in the past and has sold multiple times... so I doubt any of this would now matter. Now when I made figures of them they found a "problem"?
The image in question is AI generated, isn't it? My understanding is that when Adobe started accepting AI images, they accepted almost everything, even images with obvious flaws. Enough examples of that have been posted in this forum. Now they are swamped with mass produced AI images and can afford to be more selective or I should perhaps say that they cannot afford not to be more selective and images that would have been accepted a few months ago are now rejected.
6
« on: March 25, 2024, 15:51 »
Funny you ask... because there were many images and videos I've uploaded that I have no clue why would they be used and they have sold anyways. It can happen, but I still think that a picture with a useful concept has a better chance of selling. Concerning this picture: There are alot of little things that dsiturb me a bit about it. Not a lot of the picture is sharp, the girls or women somehow seem to be hovering over these plates or tiles and the proportions seem a bit weird. They miss a clearly defined mouth or nose and the breasts are overemphasized. The hands are weird.
7
« on: March 21, 2024, 15:07 »
Maybe gone fishing?
Or they are playing with toys in the attic.
8
« on: March 16, 2024, 08:52 »
so, first all the AI rants about it killing sales on AS, now attacking SS because they DON't accept AI??
It is not necessarily the same people who are complaining about the two things. Someone who does not do AI may complain about AI taking away sales at Adobe, while someone who does AI may complain about Shutterstock not accepting AI.
9
« on: February 26, 2024, 14:17 »
Editorial images are images that can only used for editorial uses, like for example to illustrate a newspaper article and must not be used for advertisment. They also should NOT be altered in a way that compromises their editorial value
I bet that's what you meant? 
Yes, thanks, that is indeed what I meant, I amended my post accordingly.
10
« on: February 25, 2024, 21:08 »
I know people here care and we're at the mercy of the agencies, but if the customers go to Adobe, and SS has much more profitable business gains in AI, news, or whatever else they own and do, they won't care about a division that's losing money. If it's too expensive to operate and unprofitable, they could shut down stock photos, as a cost cutting, expense reduction, initiative.
What kind of business do they have that is not dependend on the stock photo business? When they shut down the stock photo business, the AI licencing business goes away as well. They may survive stagnation or even decline in the stock photo business, but without stock images (and videos etc.), they have no AI business.
11
« on: February 25, 2024, 13:51 »
...
There's still space for real and editorial, that AI can't make...
depends what you mean by editorial - for AS it's anything that needs a model release, even if it's not newsworthy - eg generic people in an office - here AI is an easy alternative
Editorial images are images that can only used for editorial uses, like for example to illustrate a newspaper article and must not be used for advertisment. They also should not be altered in a way that compromises their editorial value Generic people in an office with model releases are not editorial content. Where did you get the notion that for Adobe every image with people that need a model release is editorial?
12
« on: February 23, 2024, 10:06 »
Good news again but my last year bonus plan is already finished, I can't edit any photos in Lightroom right now, does I need to wait the next bonus code to work again ? Im confused.
The new code should already be there, if you qualified.
13
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:11 »
The easiest tool for copying is not ai but a normal camera.
In fact it is usually a lot faster to copy a bestselling image by just taking a similar picture.
It really depends on what is depicted in the bestseller. It is not so easy to copy a picture of a tropical beach with palm trees or of an iceberg, unless you somewhere near them or travel there anyway. Also customers and clients, if they really want to save money, they can just take pictures with their iphones. Including things like wood backgrounds, green grass and sky etc...a lot of the content that is ultrageneric is very, very easy to take yourself.
Even images of stuff that is seemingly available everywhere are no always that easy to copy. For example really clear blue sky with a nice cloud distribution does not occur as often as you might think. And if you want a specific type of clouds like cirrus clouds, you may have to wait a long time until you get an opportunity to get a really nice picture.
14
« on: February 19, 2024, 16:10 »
I am seeing more reports of new subscriptions being added instead of extending existing subs. Since it's a holiday in the US, many folks are off today. If you haven't already redeemed your code, and you have an active subscription. I recommened holding off until I can confirm whether there is an issue or not.
Thanks for your patience,
Mat Hayward
Hello Mat, how long will take until the codes expire, if they are not redeemed? The code I currently use runs until October 1 this year. If it looks like extending the period is problematic, I would just keep the new code until then and only use it, when the old one runs out.
15
« on: February 06, 2024, 18:49 »
In addition to what has already been said:
I also had a number of rejected editorial images and the rejection note lists several possible reasons, one of which may be relevant:
"- Die Datei hatte kein starkes redaktionelles Konzept."
(The file did not have a strong editorial concept)
Of course this is highly subjective. Perhaps the reviewer did not recognize MGM as an important brand.
16
« on: February 05, 2024, 10:56 »
This is modern slavery without any transparency. I
As unfair as our relationship with the agencies may be, it should not be compared to slavery. If we do not like the arrangements, we can just walk away and take our images with us. Slaves do not have this option.
17
« on: January 25, 2024, 16:10 »
What can science tell me about this box.
What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.
Not much. For a lot of reasons. First, as cascoly already hinted at, the technical quality of the image is not great. More importantly, you are withholding practically all additional information that a scientist would usually have to evaluate such a photo, like for example, where it was taken (that it was taken on Earth and not for example Bajor or Quonos is kind of a given), when it was taken, what scale it has, any information about the environment, any information you would get from touching it (you could probably tell whether it is made from clay or metal or plastic or cardboard etc.) and so on. What I can tell you is that is does not seem to be translucent, as you cannot see the background through it and it casts a shadow.
18
« on: January 24, 2024, 03:37 »
Appreciate if anyone who had encountered a similiar scenario to shed some lights on this matter or to direct me who i can contact with to seek a solution to this matter? Thanks.
I had this problem once in the past with a number of images. It helped to make some changes to the keywords (add or remove one or more keywords, I am not sure whether changing the order would have been enough). This solved the problem, probably because it forced the system to reindex the images.
20
« on: January 16, 2024, 13:53 »
Roswell is certainly real all day long. All day long. It wasn't project mogul and it wasn't a weather balloon. In fact it's looking more and more like the genesis of this whole saga. I won't even get into Roswell because its already been verified and more to come on that when it comes.
As I stated here before, Roswell was caused by three Ferengi and a shapeshifter inadvertently travelling back in time. That was revealed when the Deep Space Nine episode "Little Green Men" first aired in 1995. We even have live action footage of the event. In color. What could be more convincing?
21
« on: January 14, 2024, 06:13 »
There is a very big sway towards interdimensional. It seems to be being bandied about more and more. I'm not there on that one but it is concerning to see it more and more. Just another race seems inevitable but one or many that can open portals or doorways into our world seems incorrect.
From Northrop Grumman:
https://now.northropgrumman.com/do-doors-to-interdimensional-travel-exist
Background information from Wikipedia for those who don't know Northrop Grumman:
Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. With 95,000 employees and an annual revenue in excess of $30 billion, it is one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers and military technology providers.
Good to know that there are peole at Northrop Grumman with a sense of humour. Quote from your link: " Instructions on how to make a multiverse portal are, sadly, a bit disappointing (they're for a computer game module). But interdimensional portals also turn out to be a subject of interest for many websites dealing with religion and mysticism.
And, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper, London has gained a reputation as the Grand Central Station or at least the Clapham Junction of interdimensional travel. Portals are popping up all over town, and a mysterious blog is keeping tabs on them." In the more serious part of the article they quote a phsicist who believes it may be possible to survive interdimensional travel through a black hole that is large enough, like the one in the center of our galaxy. The distance to the center of the galaxy is about 26,000 light years. As you may know from Star Trek Voyager, even at Warp 9 you would need several decades to travel this distance. Since a warp drive is unfortunatly impossible, aliens would have to travel at sublight speed, so it would take them more than 26,000 years to cover the distance. So, aliens visiting us from another dimension would have to travel to a black hole on their side, somehow avoid being crushed by the other matter falling into the hole or torn into parts by the tidal forces caused by the gravity, then arrive at the black hole on our side, somehow escape the event horizon and again avoid being crushed or torn apart and then travel at least for 26,000 years in order to get to our solar system. So, no, interdimensional travel does not really make it any easier for aliens to visit us. At least not according to the physicist cited in the article.
22
« on: December 31, 2023, 10:39 »
Would it be shocking that we are being visited. Or that we are being abducted. Or that there is growing concern that there is a increasing number of 'spheres' being logged around the world by military forces. This is a fact that Kirkpatrick admitted and is a matter of record. They appear to be probes. They are being witnessed by all nations. None seem to know the source and claim it isnt theirs. They can't be caught, or shot down. Although other craft have been. Alaska being the latest well known craft.
Let's hope it's not the Daleks. Although in that case, I am sure the Doctor would help out yet again.
23
« on: December 30, 2023, 18:45 »
Can I sell my portfolio of 5k stock images to someone for a lumpsum price and remove it from my portfolio so they can sell it?
In theory, it is possible, but there are quite a few problems. The person, who buys the images has to upload them again, which may cost a considerable amount of time, the images may not all be accepted again and they certainly lose their search positions. All these issues combined mean that you will probably get considerably less money for the images than you would get in the future by selling them yourself. Also the person who buys the images would have to trust you that are no legal pitfalls in your portfolio and the images do not violate anybody's intellectual property.
24
« on: December 11, 2023, 08:01 »
Each page has 100 results and in this example you have 4 pages of video results for - Scorpion
Fly. How many pages would you be willing to search through to get the right footage?
Beacuse page 1 of 4 has .... 66% of the results which are not even insects. Birds, fish, food, and dragons. Many are insects which arent a scorpion fly
It is tragic - https://streamable.com/p5rhgo
And that was just the video results.
The search results are actually not that bad. Most of the top results actually feature scorpion flies. You can filter out the unwanted results by putting your search terms in quotations marks: "scorpion fly". Then you get only 33 results but almost all the results show scorpion flies. You can also search with the scientific name for the family Panorpidae or the most common genus Panorpa. And if you search for scorpion fly in images and sort by relevance, the first page shows almost exclusively scorpion flies. If you switch to sort by new, then the first page looks quite different. So the algomrithm actually does a pretty good jobs to show the relevant images first, when sort by relevance.
25
« on: November 30, 2023, 10:58 »
There are nearly 300 autumn leaves pictures in this contributor's genAI portfolio - all perfectly pleasant, but lots of repetitive material, not to mention all the other similar non genAI images already in the collection.
At least the AI has been very creative. Many images show new species hitherto unknown to mankind. For example this image: https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/maple-leaf-red-autumn-sunset-tree-background/657755682The leaves are somewhat reminiscent of maple, the fruits look more like hawthorn. Star Trek meets botany: We are Maple! Hawthorn will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
