|
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 - cascoly
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 165
1
« on: Yesterday at 19:36 »
...
Even with just one AI-generated pixel,do I still have to label the content as AI? 
don't underestimate single pixels --after all, the sophons are omniscient proton-sized nanobots
the 3-body problem!:D ok you've definitely already seen fallout!  I just recently saw that the 5th season of StarTrek Discovery is out,later I'll start the free trial via Amazon Prime,since i have already used the free trial in Paramount!
anyway yes,I wondered if something had changed since Mat's last livestream,however it would be interesting if we could have a checkbox for content where we can declare that the subject is real,because it's a shame to have to label content as AI if only an abstract background is added for example,who knows maybe in the future!
Here is the official policy per our learn and support page on generative AI about when to tag as AI and when it is not necessary.
Does the use of Generative Fill and Generative Expand in Photoshop and Generative Recolor in Illustrator require labelling an image as generative AI?
Label your image as generative AI when the use of generative AI tools in Photoshop or Illustrator changed, augmented, or added a new primary subject of an image.
Examples when to label your image as generative AI:
Generating new additions, such as a new person, animal, or object
Adding new subjects might compromise the accuracy of an image
Making significant adjustments or changes to a human subject in an image
Recoloring the primary subject of an image
Examples when you wouldnt be obligated to label an image as generative AI:
Extending background for any reason
Removing IP or other forms of retouching
Removing distracting objects or people
Recoloring the background of an image
so, basically, common sense!
2
« on: Yesterday at 15:27 »
...
Even with just one AI-generated pixel,do I still have to label the content as AI?
don't underestimate single pixels --after all, the sophons are omniscient proton-sized nanobots
3
« on: Yesterday at 13:39 »
If it was my food magazine I would make an important point that everything we print or write about is real content. It would be a major point for us.
There will be other magazines that don't care and that is their choice.
true, but we already have this problem with 'real' images - several instances recently where photos of older protests are presented as taking place now ( sometimes the photos are not even from the same country) or with deepfakes that use traditional photoshop techniques
4
« on: Yesterday at 13:34 »
does this mean AS uses none of its editorial collection in training?
perhaps because AS has a stricter definition of 'editorial' th an some other agencies, it accepts some images as commercial that others would label editorial (eg, some crowd scenes, or images with identifiable people in the background.
5
« on: Yesterday at 13:27 »
The days of stock images as a means of subsistence are numbered, we are much closer to the end than we imagined.
even before AI appeared, many us held this was the case - witness the stories in the 'days of yore' thread. the 'end' is behind us
6
« on: Yesterday at 13:15 »
...
Photography is different from ALL other arts because it requires a drawing from reality, an imprint of reality.
If it doesn't come from reality it's not photography, it's something else. Call it by another name.
the map is not the territory something that comes 'from' reality, or an 'imprint' of reality cannot be called 'real'
7
« on: Yesterday at 13:12 »
@Bauman AI contents are illustrations,in the end it is just a rendering of pixels,but it is certainly a form of art like 3D or painting,even if painting requires more skill and experience,there's no denying that creating AI content is an art form.
The problem is that many people use AI as if it were a photograph and not an illustration.
And this is not good for us photographers (because we lose sales) and for those who look at these images, because almost always, when they are published, it is not specified that they are AI and therefore they are confused or even deceived by fake photographs.
And this is not good for us film photographers (because we lose sales) and for those who look at these images, because almost always, when they are published, it is not specified that they are digital and therefore they are confused or even deceived by fake film images I take landscape images from real, but the web is full of fake landscapes that are believed to be real. Maybe you book a trip to a location that isn't the one you see in the photos.
first, you assume all those using 'fake' landscapes believe them to be real - if i'm writing about castles in general, i may just want a generic castle you describe a different problem - artists are responsible for proper description of their images - eg stock images of an ocean with tags 'atlantic' AND 'pacific'. and even more so, those selling the booking are responsible for accuracy - all images can be mis-used (eg, insects or plants with incorrect latin names)
8
« on: April 22, 2024, 16:32 »
...
It's more important to produce real content than AI,especially if you have some skills and experience,it's better to use it,but it is always better to try to do everything possible.
...
...
a label for real content is a good idea,i actually don't know if it's necessary,since if it's not AI it's real,but perhaps it can somehow highlight real content more.
right - "do everything possible." is why we use AI what makes it real to use a highly automated machine that measures light and turns it into a series of pixels, themselves descrbed by 1 & 0's? in ultimate terms NO art is 'real' but that's its beauty - an artist's interpretation of the physical world
9
« on: April 20, 2024, 13:46 »
i started in stock in the 70s - in those days you would send your slides to the agency. clients would submit a request and the agency would physically go to their files to select slides that might work and send those to the client. each agency had their own filing system and most of the knowledge was what the staff remembered.
the big problem was your slides might spend most of their time being sent to different clients w/o ever making a sale and the companies often didnt make duplicates as there was a lot of quality loss with slider dupes. footage was probably even more difficult to deal with.
the upside was you'd get $100 - $500+ per slide accepted. (but total I made per year was less than I made in the high times of microstock which I started in 2006)
in the 90s i worked with a Seattle agency that was one of the first to sell CDs with images - they'd put 100 640x480 images on a disc & sell for $150-$300!
10
« on: April 20, 2024, 13:42 »
The unwritten rule --- 1,000 images equaled $200 a month per site. That person said you should get $.20 per image per month.
Cannot remember who said but they were a microstock author (wrote a few books) as well. Their rule was pretty good at the time in the hey day of microstock.
keep your salt shaker handy -- in many fields the best way to make money is to sell a book or seminar telling people h ow to make that money i doubt the $200 per 1000 images was ever the case for a majority of artists. and of course, it always depends on content. similar for half-life rule - if your images are topical, yes, but more generic i mages can continue to sell
11
« on: April 20, 2024, 13:31 »
Hi there,
Apologies for the concern around the messaging here. I have shared the feedback here with our team.
The same email is currently being sent for all content removals, whether very serious violations of our Acceptable Use Policy, or contributed content removed from Creators as part of ongoing content library audits.
The messaging around "suspension" is not intended for the latter case; so please don't be alarmed by this, and you don't need to worry about account suspension.
Hope this helps!
doesnt help at all - yesterday i was told i was in violation for a shot of civil war re-enactors firing a volley - clearly identified, but now rejected due to violence! they have a lot of work to do: re-enactment 29,468 images civil war 178,809 battle 66,647 fight 180,345 rifle volley 20,526 (but most are images of 'volley' ONLY! rifle + volley = same # "rifle volley" 83,456,540 !!!! since canva no longer uses human reviewers (rejecting everything seconds after they're uploaded) those displaced workers have been transferred to the Ministry of Silly Works and why has 'DannyCanva' (26 posts in 4+ years) not responded to the absence of a sensible review process ?
12
« on: April 18, 2024, 14:35 »
...
There will be other magazines that don't care and that is their choice.
and that's the key problem - it isn't whether digital or AI content is used, but how it is represented. and that becomes increasing difficult in a world of deep fakes at all levels the discussion should not be whether a tool is ethical or 'real' but how users of that tool are presenting it
13
« on: April 18, 2024, 14:28 »
...
Doesn't really answer the question - if you cannot distinguish real photos from Ai created images, why should you inists on using real photos? Yes, AI suck at most medical content right now (though I have sold AI images of medical conditions already) and food is hit or miss, but I have sold many AI food photos as well. I even once posted a link here to a site with Asian recipes - all images were AI created. (And most looked very weird. Obviously the creator of that site did not care)
But AI is only going to get better in the future. So why should someone inists of using a real photo "just for the sake of using a real photo", when there is no difference in the end result?
Why use a real photo when, at some point, the people buying and reading the food magazine will not be able to tell whether real photos or AI images were used? Especially if AI images were so much cheaper and faster to create? I don't see the advantage from the publisher's point of view.
if a food article is about a specific recipe, then the final result would hopefully show an actual dish, but it could use ai for individual ingredients, or techniques or, Scientific American often uses illustrations for quantum, medical, astronomical and other complex articles but no reason AI couldn't help here, especially as a first draft, AS LONG AS there is human review for accuracy.
14
« on: April 13, 2024, 18:59 »
what a great idea ! latest from wirestock: "Great news! Weve launched the Wirestock Marketplace. To boost its promotion, well include 5% of your unsold content in our free collection. " "By offering your content for free, you gain unmatched exposure, potentially increasing your sales and overall platform visibility."
dont they know unmatched exposure leads to skin cancer?
15
« on: April 11, 2024, 09:30 »
I think society is not being told a lot. I see this in the example of Ukraine. There is zero information about Ukraine on US TV channels. But in Ukraine there is war and genocide. The same can be said about UFOs and aliens. The media of mass disinformation simply do not talk about it and everyone thinks that it means none of this. It's simple. This is a massive deception of the masses through the media.
i agree - every day headlines should announce "still no evidence of any extraterrestrial beings or ET wreckage here on earth" and TV 'news' stations dont report on many significant topics every day. you need to find real sources of news -- eg, the NYTimes and others report on Ukraine last every day - the facts are there if you want them
16
« on: April 08, 2024, 14:14 »
I'm curious: for US citizens, microstock agencies withhold the taxes amount like for foreigners? For me for example they withhold 30% of the incoming for sales in USA.
no, none of my US agencies withhold taxes on my accts - only one is AUS based Canva, & i I get those withholdings back when i file my taxes
17
« on: April 07, 2024, 11:16 »
No, it is income and not what is considered royalties. You will need to pay self employment tax.
Depends. True if it's active and makes the majority of your income. If it's passive, then it's Schedule E, no self employment tax.
At least that's what my CPA said.
you need a 2nd opinion! or a new CPA - do they understand that royalty-free doesnt mean you're receiving royalties?
...
I have created all of my stock assets before moving to the US, so I haven't engaged in any stock production on American Soil (tm). Why would I pay self-employment tax?
....
that's new info you didnt bother to tell us earlier
18
« on: March 31, 2024, 07:55 »
No, it is income and not what is considered royalties. You will need to pay self employment tax.
Depends. True if it's active and makes the majority of your income. If it's passive, then it's Schedule E, no self employment tax.
At least that's what my CPA said.
you need a 2nd opinion! or a new CPA - do they understand that royalty-free doesnt mean you're receiving royalties?
19
« on: March 29, 2024, 09:07 »
As of today, I have almost 550 photos on FAA, and I have made over $12k there since I started in ~2014.
I do not advertise, promote or cross-promote anything, I don't interact with comments and likes.
My last FAA sale was two days ago (see below). The advertisement mentioned is not mine (this is what the FAA does, hence the deep discount).
Is that $12k profit or sales? As I know FAA will take a lot of commissions.
you don't know - FAA takes no commission - they set a basic price for a product and you add the amount you want to get when it sells
20
« on: March 29, 2024, 09:05 »
yes, you need a decent sized portfolio and do the work - just waiting for sales won't get you anywhere
https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/steve-estvanik
we have a group of artists on FAA who cross-promote each others work and discuss working within FAA
https://fineartamerica.com/groups/the-hashtag-team.html?tab=overview
If that means to pay to advertise, I see no point. Better advert your own website. That's what I thought, that FAA stated they do everything, including advertising for you. And you only get the commission. At the moment I have around 2.6k on photo4me. Never sold anything, but not bothered because I don't have to pay any fees.
choice is yours - pay nothing and earn nothing or subscribe & make some money beyond what you pay - FAA gets noticed while individual sites rarely do
22
« on: March 21, 2024, 08:50 »
Hi there,
Apologies for the concern around the messaging here. I have shared the feedback here with our team.
The same email is currently being sent for all content removals, whether very serious violations of our Acceptable Use Policy, or contributed content removed from Creators as part of ongoing content library audits.
The messaging around "suspension" is not intended for the latter case; so please don't be alarmed by this, and you don't need to worry about account suspension.
Hope this helps!
once again canva takes an insulting way out with such weassal-worded messages -- why not be upfront & say "we deleted this - guess why?" i've been getting same rejections for erotic sculptures on hindu temples - are they going to start deleting any depiction of anatomy? a MUCH MORE serious problem is the rejection of entire batches SECONDS after uploading -- they refuse to even acknowledge this is happening despite being reported by many long time contributors. instead they send condescending boilerplate: We've reviewed your most recent image submission and found that most of them do not adhere to the Canva image quality standards. Based on overall artistic appeal, usability and technical quality, we are unable to accept them into the library.
and, of course, they can't be bothered to say what those might be. obviously an AI is running amuck (another inheritance from ancient Hindus).
23
« on: March 14, 2024, 07:32 »
If I still had a port on ss, i would just leave the port there and maybe upload less if i didn't like the returns. or just upload the weaker files from a series, sort of a "teaser" and if someone wants the full series they can look at pond5 or adobe....
how likely is it that someone seeing your 'lesser' work on SS s going to think you have better work on other sites? more likely they'll just find a better image on SS - stock is a commodity & users don't follow particular artists
24
« on: March 14, 2024, 07:28 »
How many downloads and earnings do you generate per month on Shutter Stock?
January 2024 -> 174 download , 20,57 dollar
February 2024 -> 162 download , 23,90 dollar
Total number of photos: 27123
Total number of video: 212
What's the situation with you? If we regularly state our monthly earnings, we can be a reference to each other. I was earning $100 per month in the last 5-6 months of 2023, but these earnings dropped in the new year.
my God what a disaster! 
Shutterstock is gone,someone who sells quite well,still sells,but is now an agency in decline,and then they don't want to accept AI content,another demonstration that they have no intention of continuing this business with contributors.
so, first all the AI rants about it killing sales on AS, now attacking SS because they DON't accept AI?? the fact that low prices are .10 is irrelevant when RPD is .6-.8 shows higher sales still occur. and for me SS is double AS most months
25
« on: March 13, 2024, 10:56 »
Feb 2024 numbers are in...
Applies +10%, Exports +3% -> Earnings -4%
Magic Creator Payment 2nd month in a row at "nothing", not even a number there...
Does anyone else have the impression that we're being screwed over here?
nope - my MC payments have been steady even with canva doing instantaneous 100% rejects of new uploads -- earnings dropped about 20% a year ago, but have remained at that point since then funny how so many assume there must be a conspiracy when their individual earnings go down.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 165
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
