Quote from: gnirtS on Yesterday at 06:55

However, you can log in, delete the data catalogue then opt back out.

I am very confident that even opting in for just one second will make Shutterstock take all your files to train their AI. That's all they need.

Quite likely but remember they trained it on most of our content without asking and before offering opt out so they already have most of it.  I also dont trust them not to use it DESPITE opting out.

You CAN delete from the catalogue but ONLY if you're opted in (which is cynical and ridiculous).

However, you can log in, delete the data catalogue then opt back out.

Slightly related note but elsewhere people are complaining of "download bombs" and Adobe blocking their account shortly afterwards and not responding to any attempts to contact them to ask why.

Now a lot of these are genuine rule breakers - on FB and elsewhere you see people (primarily Pakistan and sub-continent) openly advertising to "buy" images from contributors using stolen or corporate accounts to boost rankings and provide earnings.  These accounts then are blocked and fair enough, good.

However it does seem to be a minority of people who ARE genuine, havent used the services of these people who have had excessive downloads in a day or several days that have triggered whatever alarms Adobe has and seen their account blocked.  If someone has used stolen credentials to raid their account and the contributor is unaware then it really isnt that persons fault.  It also seems a good way to "get rid" of someone by using the same tactic on their account.
I stress this looks like a tiny minority of people but it does seem to be happening.  The lack of any communication or response from Adobe using any of the recommended contact methods seems to be the biggest problem making it near impossible for them to find out why or how to restore their account, or at best, it takes months.

We need to remember here that Adobe as a business looks out for Adobe.
Agencies with the introduction of AI are moving from being media companies into being data companies.  Our content is nothing more than a small pile of bytes in a vast data set.  The data set is what they need to train the AI and its the AI they see long term as the thing generating their money.

For all of these there's a time when they hope they wont NEED contributors - they're annoying, resource intensive and need paying.  Once they have all the data needed from them they have no further need for them.

Arguably with the vast amounts of AI bloating Adobe's library they're already further down that road than even Shutterstock.  A quick look on FB now shows most "contributors" on there are just text spamming AI generators using stolen or corporate accounts to produce thousands of images a day, use AI to upscale these images, AI to keyword and just upload in bulk.  There's no actual image creation any more.  Its feeding text into an engine.  And those are outgrowing actual, user created content maybe 10:1.  Its purely a quantity factory that is automated as much as possible to reduce the effort and time required as much as possible.

Looks like their review queue is full and then that stops processing FTP and uploading images to add to that.

Ive had hundreds stuck in review for months, now the overflow is still showing in the FTP directory, never get processed (stuck on 20% for weeks) and as a result thats full too so cant upload anything at all.

SS went from 10 days or so to "less time than it takes to eat a packet of crisps" last week.
Now it back to normal - a few days.

AS for me is 2-3 days still for photo and video.

Last few days they've gone the opposite and "reviews" (whatever that means any more) are near instant.
Had 130 reviewed in literally the time it took me to open and eat a bag of crisps.

That said, they accept anything now as the FB groups show.

Videos still seem to be taking a normal few days.

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 20, 2024, 07:41

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 19, 2024, 11:10

One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.

I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.

I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.

So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).

I find it difficult to justify it that way.
With an extended license, e.g. for print, the degree of commercial use is usually higher.

You have to distinguisch between an use for some random news / blog article as a gap filler or an use for print like a book cover.
A good book cover contributes significantly to a higher revenue amount, the commercial use aspect is much higher.
The same applies to print on demand stuff like t-shirts, etc.
So 10 cents are just extremely ridicilous low because the buyer will earn for sure thousand times more.

Ideally the extendend license would guarantee that the image is not used hundred of times but only the one buyer owns all rights.
The main problem is that no one is tracking the copyrights or the use restrictions (just like a half million prints, lol!), so such agencies just sell everything for some cents.

I agree that the licensing terms are too broad and vague for micros RF. Once we upload our images to microstock it's almost impossible then to track the usages and go after infrigement. The cost outweights any potential benefit except for a few rare cases.

We don't have to upload our images to these micros, there's always the option of going Alamy RM exclusive, that way we get a nice report everytime there is a usage and a clear procedure to go through to tackle infrigements (where the contributor can also earn from claims).

I'm happy at Arcangel as I know that the minimum I'll earn from a book cover is $75 net and as high as 4 figures. Once there is a sale I receive a report with type of license, the book title and author.

Even the Alamy reporting isnt great.  Theres a ton of licence abuse there.  If you only have 1 or 2 sales it might be possible to track and audit but for most people with 100s of sales or more a month across many platforms its simply not possible.

That is generally my experience (not making 20k to 50k a month though!), having been a video contributor since 2008, and earning a reasonable full time living from it until subs and other changes hit video sales.

Example would be SS.  Prior to subs and 4k video sub my average income from a sale was $40.  Now its $8.

Ive seen no noticeable uptick in sale volume at all to begin to address that shortfall.

Yes it's an old thread but just curious if the overall guidelines contained in here are still applicable or have there been any backend changes to AS/Search/Keywording in the meantime that we need to be aware of?

I reached out to Mat Hayward three days ago but haven't received a response yet. If anyone here has alternate contacts or can assist me in reaching an Adobe representative, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Have you tried the Discord group?

There have been contributors in the past - even back in the fotolia days - who manipulated the algorithm with downloads from another account or via "friends". Even fotolia moderators were banned for a longer period of time when this was discovered.

The FB groups for AS/SS (they advertise on all of them) are full of people advertising "account with xxxx credits - i'll buy your stuff for ranking" and other things going.
Its very prevalent.  And yes, so is the free trial thing.

Mainly Pakistan and India but certainly elsewhere too.

Accounts are either free ones, obtained using stolen CC credentials, stolen login credentials or obtained through someone's work.

Its getting to the stage i think agencies might genuinely need to consider a contributor block from certain areas or at the very least a much much tougher vetting, review and monitoring regime.

Some of these flagged accounts may genuinely be innocent victims - mistakes do happen and im aware of a few.  BUT the vast majority of people on FB complaining were breaking the rules, got caught and arent happy about it.

Quote from: gnirtS on December 15, 2023, 04:15

I'm putting a 99% likelihood on this sale being fraud.

I'm just hoping i don't wake up one morning and find my entire account suspended for suspicious activity.  There is no way that video is worth 1% of that fee.

WOW, congrats, never seen such a big sale, wondering if was sold under clip packs, enhanced video or cart sales.

Its down as a "Cart Sale".

But a 100% chance of being fraud/scam/error as it sold again today for a similar amount. 

(Previous record for me was $500 but that was legit).

Something bad is going on here.