|
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 - offisapup
1
« on: April 18, 2024, 00:33 »
Same in my case - this could be due to the fact that this April (March settlement) the 'Price per Image' is missing, which usually always comes in April as a 'big blue bar' in the chart.
(see image attached)
Why would they leave out 'Price per Image'?
From kelvinjay who's the administrator of the Getty Community forum - "Hi, Deals that report via the Connect statement generally involve the processing large numbers of transactions. It appears that one report for a technology company has been delayed / spread across multiple statements. I don't have any details to share, but we expect the reporting of these to conclude over the coming months." So there's still "hope".
2
« on: March 20, 2024, 13:20 »
Fully expect Istock to beat shutterstock this month considering how low SS sales have dropped off lately. Only happened twice before, January and February of 2024.
I guess I jumped the gun on this. First time ever that I've had "negative sales" on istock and it's a substantial amount. I hope it's a glitch but goddamn, it sucks whatever little enthusiasm I had for this "game".
3
« on: March 20, 2024, 06:13 »
Fully expect Istock to beat shutterstock this month considering how low SS sales have dropped off lately. Only happened twice before, January and February of 2024.
4
« on: February 17, 2024, 06:33 »
It's all speculation until it's proven of course. One of the reasons I'm (slightly) leaning towards believing the accusation is, I see about 150 downloads every month and that number hasn't gone up or gone down for over two years now. My port has grown by over 50 percent during the period. I find that sort of consistency a little difficult to believe unless there's some algorithmic/human control over how shutterstock distributes sales.
Of course, these are serious accusations and would need more than mere personal/anecdotal evidence to prove. But judging by how normalized sales on my port have been and how long I've been thinking about how it, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusations were indeed proven to be true.
5
« on: September 13, 2023, 05:31 »
Does anyone have an abnormally high number of sales to go with the bonus amount? Someone has downloaded 10 percent of my port in a single day. I'm not complaining but it's definitely not something that's happened before.
6
« on: August 30, 2023, 01:07 »
and never go to a cat party!
Looks more like a cat burning party.
7
« on: August 16, 2023, 01:31 »
Professionally licensing content is the right way forward.
The technology will not disappear, but users should have the option to work with an ai where the producers are being compensated.
And then the market will find a new balance.
There was that article about the actress from Singapor who licensed her image for video advertising as an avatar.
Some will say how horrible, but she says it all depends on the details.
For musicians there will always be the revenue from live concerts, maybe including live streaming for those who cannot be there.
And of course many musicians or music writers will now write their songs and bring them to life with ai, with full control over everything.
Young people will grow up with all this technology at their fingertips. Who knows what they will create?
ai is just a tool. It will bring forth a new group of talent.
I'm just amazed that in all your "AI POSITIVITY" you aren't able to grasp one simple fact.... How's an artist supposed to make money doing this? Of course, AI will enable people to create and make it easier and people will use and create and blah blah but HOW . DO THEY MAKE MONEY OFF IT IF NO ONE IS WILLING TO PAY THEM FOR IT? That is the issue. So yeah, all the young somethings can play with AI toys and make copycat music and images and movies and whatnots but all it will do is reduce everything to a hobby. There won't be a legitimate way to make money for anyone, which is already close to impossible in these times of streaming. Live concerts are great if you're Taylor Swift but ask any indie musician on the street and they'll tell you it's IMPOSSIBLE. So yeah, you'll need to brush up on those brick-lining skills because that's where bread money will be at and the entire world will be after brick-lining jobs.
8
« on: August 01, 2023, 09:42 »
Haha I was just about to post this.
But yeah, I'm sure the people who run multi-billion dollar corporations don't care so much for such pesky little things like employees.
9
« on: July 17, 2023, 13:40 »
Most of the 200,000 (?) would not opt-in, but what choice would they have if the agency in an "Exciting News" kind of way gives notice that it's either pay up or deleted.
If that happens, I know what my answer (and I assume a majority of contributor's answers) would be. "Go ahead and delete." There's no way I'm paying 10$ over and above the 85-70 percent commission no matter how much money I make. If it's a smaller player it's even worse because they probably wouldn't even sell 10$ worth of images a month.
10
« on: July 17, 2023, 03:43 »
All the reasons you wrote seem to benefit serious contributors: less competition, discouraging theft, etc.
But what advantages over other agencies will an agency get from doing that? I think having less images is not it unless it is an exclusive agency. But even then, what advantages over other exclusive agencies will it get?
One advantage would be to immediately improve their cash-flow. Even a modest sum of $10/month times let's say 200,000 opted-in contributors (is that how many SS have, I'm estimating now) is $2million per month. They would be wise to remove this fee from the earnings every month so it hurts less. Perhaps those earning less than $10/month can be excluded until they do earn enough. So many ways to spin this.
Do you really think 200,000 contributors would opt in? I mean, let's take a poll on how many people pay wirestock for their premium service here. I think you might get the answer. Not many. The agencies know this and so would never do something like this. Anyway, the game has moved on to getting as many images as possible in the database for the AI to learn and getting that many images for data use would be impossible if they begin charging contributors for uploading.
11
« on: July 10, 2023, 13:17 »
Think about it this way. 20 years ago, there was no microstock photography. There was stock photography where photographers were paid handsomely for their images. All that changed with shutterstock and the gradual race to the bottom. Why do you think things will be the same 20 years later? There's no reason why what happened to traditional stock photography wouldn't happen to microstock when VR and AR devices become the norm a few years later.
12
« on: June 13, 2023, 06:20 »
I don't think it's that simple. If they did that, who'd pay for the majority of their software that is their main bread and butter? The designers and photographers would be out of work so wouldn't need it.
Adobe's entire AI pivot is to attract big money from enterprise subs so those corporates wouldn't have to hire many pesky little designers and artists and just get a manager to make those images easily with text prompts. Even now, they make most of their money from corporate subs anyway and losing individual designers/photographers would just be a tiny little bump on the road.
13
« on: June 13, 2023, 05:08 »
The only sensible thing to do is not waste any more time adding metadata to "real" images and submitting them to stock sites (especially adobe) and complaining about how they aren't getting reviewed or rejected. The big players are telling you in no uncertain terms that they don't need your images and it's foolhardy to expect to make any money off photography in the future.
14
« on: June 10, 2023, 01:02 »
I also had an entire batch rejected two times for "Editorial Caption" because I only entered Month and Year (like I always have). Resubmitted with the Day and they all went through.
15
« on: May 14, 2023, 03:53 »
I trust Adobe.
Hmm yes... Like we all trusted Adobe when they made all the people who'd bought their softwares to keep paying them subscriptions for eternity. Yeah, very trustworthy those people. And yes, I know what you're going to say. "Don't use Adobe software if you don't like to pay subs". I don't and won't but that doesn't make them "trustworthy".
16
« on: May 12, 2023, 12:07 »
Now that SS has acquired pond5, is there a point in submitting the same videos to both? And if one has to submit just to one of then, which would be better?
17
« on: April 14, 2023, 04:15 »
I'm just glad I got 3000 odd images in when I did because right now, it seems pretty near impossible to get images reviewed let alone approved.
18
« on: April 12, 2023, 08:00 »
I suppose "cost restructure and reduction" means "Maybe you don't need to pay those 2 cents you pay people for their pictures".
19
« on: March 28, 2023, 01:15 »
Spend your time learning something AI can't make.
But what would that be? Because if you put AI in an android body there is really absolutely no thing I can think of that an AI couldn't potentially do in the future.
Maybe programming AI? But how long before AI can do that too...?
And what once seemed like something for the "far future", like out of si-fi-movie, now doesn't seem so far fetched with how fast AI is suddenly progressing.
AI can't possibly bicker about AI as well as we do. So maybe that's what we all ought to be training to do. And possibly learn the art of doing nothing and meditating till the end of our lives.
20
« on: March 11, 2023, 06:25 »
Not sure how Adobe is going to be impacted by this but this seems pretty big. 
21
« on: February 27, 2023, 10:22 »
When I first started in Microstock in 2007 I had a Nikon D50 a widely praised camera at that time. Actually it was rubbish. I upgraded to the D60, an amazing 12MP. Again the results were poor (looking back with years of experience).
I actually love my D50. Was a trusted companion for almost a decade and I've sold many images taken with it.
22
« on: February 24, 2023, 04:46 »
For me some images get approved almost instantly, some take a few hours right now. They don't approve images as a whole batch anymore. Haven't donbe that in a while, I guess part is AI reviewed, or at least AI pre-sorted, part human reviewed, thus the different review times.
So it seems to be working differently for different accounts. I've had absolutely no delay in approvals this week. And most images get approved instantly. Zero rejections too. I find it weird because I always had some of my images rejected before and some that I submitted would definitely have been rejected. I'm not complaining but it does make me wonder if SS is doing something nasty behind the scenes...
23
« on: February 24, 2023, 03:59 »
Has anyone noticed that Shutterstock appears to be approving every image lately and very quickly? I did an experiment with grainy images SS would never have approved in the recent past but they too sailed through. I wonder if there's a catch...
24
« on: February 22, 2023, 02:08 »
The current wait time for reviews is around 7-9 days on average. This varies based on the number of assets in the queue.
Thank you for your patience,
Mat Hayward
Good to know. Is it usually better to submit all the images you have in one go or a few every day? Does it make a difference? Currently, I submit 5 images a day and with these longer review times am thinking if it's better to send all 40-50 images I have at the same time.
25
« on: February 16, 2023, 15:08 »
And that's the watermark? Right click and save, it's a 1024 JPG, I just added websize for this post.
Select, content aware fill, brush the edges with the healing tool = free image.
Or just use one of the millions of free AI tools and get rid of the watermark in 2 seconds. AI to steal AI image.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
