Quote from: DiscreetDuck on July 04, 2025, 03:59

They should be ordered to pay an extended license to photographers who have intellectual property for each image ingested by deep learning.

Better still... they should pay a PERPETUAL recurring revenue license. Because after all - this is not a 'one-use' case - they plan on RESELLING YOUR ASSETS via their tools FOREVER... So - for every generation based in any part on YOUR asset - you should get a micropayment for EACH & EVERY generation.

you continue to ignore that there are 2 distinct questions here - the first concerns use of scraped images to train the AI and this is the question addressed in these lawsuits.  the second is the actual generation of images from the resulting dataset, which does not store any actual images.

you continue to show your ignorance of how AI works - each image generated looks at millions+ of possibilities so any payment based on usage would be vanish ing small. but more importantly, there is no way to track who created the original images used to train the dataset.

Quote from: cascoly on June 25, 2025, 17:10

Quote from: Bauman on May 19, 2025, 16:07

The only way I can give away my images is through my website, to do marketing FOR ME, not for agencies.

So, this year too: opt-out! Not a single image of mine in the Adobe Stock Free collection, if you want them, you pay! 

the point is NO ONE WANTS these images! i gladly take $4 of passive income for older images that havent sold.

and nothing prevents you from private sales - likely a very different audience

Many photos that I don't sell on Adobe bring me tens of $ on Shutterstock or Istock.

y
so why not get $ from AS which otherwise would get nothing?  it's unlikely to affect your sales elsewhere since they're buying elsewhere but one's buying on AS. how many users shop around when man agency offers images for pennies?

these variousm dataset payments have kept my total income where it was 3+ YEARS AGO.

I got nothing. Never happened before. I hope you got what you wanted.

i got over $300 for images that had almost no sales - those who opt out because they think their non-sellers will suddenly make more than $4 are, at best, unrealistic

The Internet is not the place to disclose your personal data.
A lot is known about me, I shoot videos and a few photos. This information is enough for questions and answers.
I did not suggest that you publish the address of your YouTube channel here (although usually the owners of these channels like to do this).
You were asked a simple question, to indicate approximate figures. Especially since you yourself raised this question.

LOL - from anyone else  this would be a reasonable request (and of course others are free to decline), but your response is despicable hypocrisy - you constantly demand stats while refusing t even show your portofolio

and earlier you told us

...
The forum was created to share information.

guess it's a one way street

+about  $300

For anyone who has had files removed and can't work out why, please can you check to see if they were duplicates? Do you still have the same files in your portfolio, with file numbers that are different to the ones that have been moved to the Not Accepted tab?

i've had about 300 removed - it's not worth my time to track them down - a much bigger proble is AS doing bulk rejections of batch es accepted elsewhere

I found one that was a lake removed for "incompatible with terms" - not sure what terms it might be incompatible with. I might have a typo for "Sierra" that is "Seirra" - maybe that is a bad word in some language? But a search for "seirra" reveals 17 results for seirra in images but over 3000 in premium. It is still visible if I search for it on Adobe but not under seirra. ...

not that it's an excuse, but it's possible it was rejected since 'sierra' is also trademark for a car - for awhile human reviewers at SS rejected images taken in Newport, OR (a US cigarette)

--- as idiotic as thump's cohort removing pix of the 'enola GAY' ( dropped a-bomb on hiroshima)

and recently i keep getting some (designated) AI images rejected for "needs a model release"  -  it may be due to a bug in submittal that doesn't always show a secondary clickbox when 'ai gen' is selected.  it says "images are of fictional people"

i have thousands of images, many years old, waiting to be meta'd

i've been using visaulmind.ai which does a great job for about 2-3 cents / image. (you can try it for free on 30(?) images) you can append keywords or add to descriptions before submitting (eg adding a byline for editorial, or location when it isn't obvious.  but VM has identified the rhine river by a castle in the background or accurately named the interiors of Istanbul mosques. and Even translates from some greek or latin inscriptions on mosaics. it correctly identifies plants & animals.  for simitars they actually write different descriptionsi.  in a recent example of a poster from last week's protest "only you can prevent fascist liars ", it understood it as a reference to smokey bear!

i can set up 200-300 images in a few minutes & it runs in background - i then select for various post-processing (several thousand) & resizing.  i've added >2500 images to SS, >1000 to  AS over last 3 months  and i can also update my excel captions sheets by appending the resulting csv (these sheets allow me to locate any of 50K archived images by keyword in at most a few minutes)
 

for free services like chatgpt, you need to consider the time it takes to prompt or upload & you'd still have to add the result to your image meta.i'm not aware of any free services that process in bulk & update the image meta & provide a csv

...

Later, when the large customer base becomes dependent on it, the quality and service/support are reduced and prices are increased. Until eventually a collapse occurs (creative destruction) and the game starts all over again. Currently, we are in the cycle of crap and are drifting towards the big collapse.

no, that's just destruction & decay & may not see a replacement

creative destruction is a positive  process in which new innovations replace and make obsolete older innovations. -- word processing, transimstors, digital cameras, ...

Olympic, olympics are trademarked by the IOC so you should remove them.

Apart from that, maybe you could add in amphitheatre seeing as you have both UK and American spellings of theatre/theater.

I've had pix taken in Olympic national Park (a public domain name) rejected for this reason (& our state capital is Olympia!)

a trademark only covers use that infringes that particular use (eg 2 different  uses of trademarked 'Apple' are accepted), but IOC managed to trademark a word that was millennia old and bludgeons anyone trying to use the word in another sense.

otoh SS has  300K+ olympic images! so likely a big difference in reviewers

dead thread alert!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: danielvisuals on March 24, 2025, 06:33

I get the idea of cleaning up a portfolio, but I honestly think it's a waste of time. From what I've read, buyers rarely browse an entire portfolio�they just search for specific clips. Instead of spending time deleting content, why not focus on producing more high-quality clips? That will likely have a much bigger impact on your sales than trying to �prune� the old ones.

...
however my percentage of content sold at least once is only 13.9% i still want to increase this percentage,maybe it doesn't make any difference,but as i said,i think it's worth a try.

...

and I almost forgot,in the week between February 24th and March 2nd only 3 sales!

not everything is worth a try when you're also eliminating the chance of sales

what's the difference between an image that sold once a year ago, & one that's never sold?  how likely is either type to get a new sale?

it's self-defeating to rely on an unproved theories of what a site's algorithm is.

and your timeline is unrealistic -- watching day by day is just going to magnify your distress

Quote from: synthetick on March 21, 2025, 16:59

I agree with this theory. Mine that have got stuck in review have location keywords that the bot probably didn't understand and may have flagged for IP concerns. When I re-uploaded them without the location names they were accepted overnight.

The only thing that is for certain is that dumb AI is pre-processing everything.

its stupid, but there are several (unrelated) santiago trademarks

for a long time SS wouldnt accept my Newport OR pix because of the same-named cigarette