pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - f8

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
1
Selling Stock Direct / Re: The game is rigged!! 🤬
« on: October 22, 2023, 15:59 »
I just took a look at your site. As usual I did a search in my area of knowledge and only one image showed up and it was not footage of the search I typed. You will have to up your game if you expect talent to come on board.

2
There is no relationship with any agency. All agencies provide a platform to distribute your content and in exchange the platform gives you a small royalty and it's always on their terms. All agencies have a unilateral contract. We are all expendable. Those are the facts.
And the only way we can enjoy fair compensation for our work is to unionize. Period. Otherwise, online agencies will always be in control. Either you accept their terms and continue providing them with your images or you don't. That's the world we currently live in. We set-up our own agency and agree to providing OUR agency with images, clips and illustrations and no one else.

You lost me at "unionize" and "set-up our own agency". That said, why don't YOU set up an platform that provides better royalty rates and terms?

Unfortunately the stock photo industry has gone from being a once viable and lucrative career to being a losing game career wise. I know this because I have seen the pendulum swing both ways. To think any agency is going to improve the situation you are fooling yourself.

Sadly we are all at the mercy of corporate greed.

3
There is no relationship with any agency. All agencies provide a platform to distribute your content and in exchange the platform gives you a small royalty and it's always on their terms. All agencies have a unilateral contract. We are all expendable. Those are the facts.

4
Adobe Stock / Re: review times??
« on: September 26, 2023, 09:29 »
The current review times at Adobe are a disgrace. Not to reminisce but back in the good old days before microstock and digital we used to package up our slides and send to the agency across the country or to another country by Fedex. The submission rejects would be returned usually within 2-3 weeks with a personal note from your editor. Surely a company like Adobe can do better than analog.

6
I am very concerned by the large payment I received (close to $700).

This means that my assets were heavily used to directly compete against myself.
We need a way to opt out from shooting ourselves in the foot for money.

You seem to forget this is not about you. Adobe is not shooting themselves in the foot at all. They are using your/our content to create their content for their benefit. Notice how much Adobe cares about your best interests... You can't opt out. Sadly we are all expendable. Adobe knows this, Shutterstock knows this, Getty knows this.

This is not so different from the beginning of microstock when anyone who willingly submitted was shooting themselves in the foot whether they know it or not.

If Adobe had any integrity they would let us opt out. And yes you can opt out, stop submitting and close your account. Or stay, Adobe has you/us over a barrel.

Sadly it's the way of the world.




7
I agree.  I think they way underestimated the number of AI submissions they'd get.

And that new pop-up checkbox just gives them a way out when accounts get suspended.

"Well, YOU checked that box, so....SUSPENDED!"

Mat should chime in, other than just regurgitating the official company policies and procedures, which apparently changes on a dime.

I don't think Mat has any say on this nonsense. Mat has an amazing track record for reaching out to contributors. I feel sorry for him in this current situation, he has always done a great job, but now I think his hands are tied.

That said, if you have any suggestive powers Mat, perhaps you could pass on the discomfort far too many contributors have with the recent actions of Adobe. It's no longer a comfortable environment for too many of us.

I am not one to have a hissy fit and threaten to close my account but I can say with certainty that I am debating to continue uploading to Adobe as the risks are far greater than the reward.






8
I agree. I don't do AI nor do I have any interest in doing so. What I have observed is that ever since the AI content came about my work has been rejected at levels that baffle me. My photos and illustrative editorial rejections are so random it's senseless based on my track record of having thousands of previous images accepted. My videos still go through with the normal/acceptable amount of rejections. And the wait time for inspections is a joke.

That scary disclaimer is also just that. I am so hesitant to upload anything, especially 'illustrative editorial' which does have logos and trademarks but the disclaimer does not address this.

My suggestion to Adobe is to get your shyte together. Before you get into full gear with AI, perhaps start using some I.

I am very concerned as a contributor.

9
Adobe Stock / Re: review times??
« on: August 27, 2023, 13:43 »
What is even more fun is our content ferments for a month or so only to find out your content suddenly does not meet Adobe qaulity standards, evenwith years of a proven track record.

Adobe is dropping the ball in every way lately.

It's really sad to see the demise of a once respected platform. It's almost as if the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.




10
Adobe Stock / Re: Account blocked - I need help please
« on: August 27, 2023, 11:24 »
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.

So sorry to hear this.

Adobe is wrong in the way they are handling established contributors who made a mistake with AI - and doubly wrong because their review process for AI images is so useless it doesn't catch any of the errors.

This isn't an intractable problem. It requires a bit of attention, possibly some extra staff assigned to the task and possibly some code. When a problem AI image is identified in an account more than one year old:

-Disable AI images temporarily while you investigate

-Email the contributor with the image numbers identified as problems and mark them in the contributor interface. Have a few categories of errors and specify what the errors are with each image number

-Block uploading but leave the account open for the contributor to delete items if that's their choice. Payouts should be available if the balance is sufficient.

-Respond to contributors with disabled images within a week - if their accounts are open, the urgency will be less.

-If the investigation takes longer than a week, allow uploading of non-AI images  until issues are resolved.

Established contributors have proved themselves with Adobe Stock. Treating them with respect, even if a mistake has been made (not only by them, but also by the reviewers), is the absolute least they deserve.
Jo Ann, thank you for the well thought and meaningful post. Quite brave of you  :-)

Yes, thank you Jo Ann.

Adobe has dropped the ball in so many ways lately. I am borderline terrified to upload there as one never knows what Adobe will do next.


11
... If I told you in 2007 that we'd all be getting pennies on the dollar for stock photos and illustration I'd be booed out of the tribe as an outcast. If I told you in 2012 we'd be getting a few dollars for video I'd be the social outcast. Were you prepared?

wow!  you're an oracle - your predictions only took 10-15 years to come true! (among other happenings, 2 major recession & a global pandemic)

An oracle? Hardly. But the predictions did come true. FWIW I did not factor in the "among other happenings, 2 major recession & a global pandemic" because the writing was on the wall and fairly obvoius.

It's also not agency bashing as you suggest because all the agencies out there today are similar. It's accepting the industry for what it has become and for what it is.

 

12
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.

Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself.

copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors - if your submitted work is accepted AS agrees to pay you

copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors and so it starts. If an image is not copyrighted then there is no protection from any agency. There is already very little respect for any contributor with copyright and submitting content that is not protected will be contentious in the future. I said same about microstock circa 2007 and could see the result of where we are today. As mentioned, be prepared. And it won't be AS specific, it will be industry wide. We are at entry level.

In the current situation where most people upload to multiple platforms there is no way to monitor copyright infringement. This will increase tenfold  with AI and the abuse will also increase tenfold.

I don't produce AI content, and for that matter nobody does. As mentioned, prepare yourself. There is not one platform/agency out there that has your best interests or finacial gain as their priority.

Microstock agencies and market are for sure not the greatest and most important company in which the AI will have impact

There are several great company that has BIG interest in regulate copyright and AI: let's say Disney, Pixar, Warner, any big company that produce visual content using AI, all of them will need a clear copyright on their own creations; and they will discuss and obtain it.

Microsotck is not the center of the world  ;D

Microsotck is not the center of the world This is true, but at one point in time it was for many photographers and the 'I told you so' photographers were shunned upon for saying as much. Now we do backflips to sell an image for 10 cents for unlimited usage and it is no longer a sustainable business model for the contributor. If you can name one stock site that has petitioned for the benefit contributor I'd love to hear about it. Not one agency since the microstock model has ensured our best interests in mind. Their profits keep going up and they keep lowering our royalties. Disney, Pixar, Warner will clear copyright for sure, but they have the financial ability to ensure this for themselbes, not the small "center of the world" contributors, we will be exempt from this. Lest we forget AS, SS, Getty etc are corporate and will ensure their best corporate interests, just like they have to date. Every microstock agency has abused their contributors, we have our little hissy fit, and it's business as usual. Prepare yourself. If I told you in 2007 that we'd all be getting pennies on the dollar for stock photos and illustration I'd be booed out of the tribe as an outcast. If I told you in 2012 we'd be getting a few dollars for video I'd be the social outcast. Were you prepared?


13
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.

Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself.

copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors - if your submitted work is accepted AS agrees to pay you

copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors and so it starts. If an image is not copyrighted then there is no protection from any agency. There is already very little respect for any contributor with copyright and submitting content that is not protected will be contentious in the future. I said same about microstock circa 2007 and could see the result of where we are today. As mentioned, be prepared. And it won't be AS specific, it will be industry wide. We are at entry level.

In the current situation where most people upload to multiple platforms there is no way to monitor copyright infringement. This will increase tenfold  with AI and the abuse will also increase tenfold.

I don't produce AI content, and for that matter nobody does. As mentioned, prepare yourself. There is not one platform/agency out there that has your best interests or finacial gain as their priority.

14
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.

Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself.

15
And only 1/5 of Adobe Stock photo sales.  So, I decided to opt out of photo sales to see if my Adobe Stock photo sales will go up as much as I make on Shutterstock.  If Adobe Stock photo sales doesn't change, I'll turn Shutterstock photo sales back on.

I am not sure how long you have been shooting stock but here is the grim truth. Apart from the original gold rush of buying cheap discounted images (the early days of microstock) with absolutely no quality control (real editing) of images and accepting almost every image uploaded (all sites guilty), sales and royalties have dropped and will continue to do so. If you were paying attention the writing has been on the wall for more than 10 years, if not longer.




16
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: July 31, 2023, 13:39 »
10-11 pages on this thread and "we are just spinning wheels here"

It is pretty self evident that Adobe has lost its way regarding the whole inspection process.

Far too many people with the same result of "serial batch reject" to be a coincidence.

It's really a shame as Adobe was truly one fine agency and now I am starting to have my doubts as the review times are seriously broken and the rejection rate far too random with no consistency at all.


17
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: July 27, 2023, 16:37 »
I have over 20 submissions which have been waiting for two weeks now. In my opinion, they are a step up in quality to the work I did in the past because my new camera/lens combo is that much better. All have been accepted on other sites too.

Anyway, I made a copy of the title and key words for all of them so I can resubmit real fast and with a minimum of effort. If Adobe want to play 'silly buggers', so can I.

Good call, why do something once when you can do it two or three times. At this point it is fairly evident Adobe is not interested in fixing the problem.

18
General Stock Discussion / Re: Rejections on adobe
« on: July 27, 2023, 15:16 »
Ok, got hit with a serial batch reject.

This totally sums it up, and so does this quote "we are just spinning wheels here."

The sad thing is that this random and senseless "serial batch reject" issue is messing with my livelihood and has absolutely no logic attached to it.

Smaller batches also don't seem to make a difference, it appears to be all accepted as per what was normal in the past and is normal still on other platforms or it is "serial batch reject" brought to you only by Adobe.

Also it is gut wrenching knowing it takes weeks or a month to complete the cycle of randomness when the content is already actively selling on other platforms.





19
Illustrative editorial or actual?

(Has the policy changed?)

I am not sure the inspectors even know the answer. Just sent in a submission and half got accepted and half rejected because it was not editorial??? Everything seems hit and miss lately with Adobe.

Editorial content on Adobe was always hit and miss for me and I am pretty sure it's not me, but the reviewers. I rarely submit images from the same batch at once, because I think they would compete with each other. If I send an image of some subject to Adobe as editorial one might get ccepted and later a different one from the same batch - so for example an image of the same subject, but maybe from a different angle - will be rejected, because suddenly it wasn't "editorial".  And I have read their editorial rules carefully and never submitted anything that was not meeting the requirement. But the reviewers don't seem to be clear on what the reqquirements are.

Same same. I don't take it personally and just move on. I have been an editorial photographer for 25+ years and have been assigned by many noted magazines so I think I have a handle of what editorial photography is. I too have read and re-read their guidelines and it's hit and miss.

Same goes for submitting to regular content, hit and miss, I just move on. I actually think Adobe is putting their priority into AI these days and randomly accepts photo content for AI training purposes only.



20
Microstock Services / Re: Anyone uses XPIKs to submit videos
« on: July 23, 2023, 13:44 »
Sent you a PM.

21
Illustrative editorial or actual?

(Has the policy changed?)

I am not sure the inspectors even know the answer. Just sent in a submission and half got accepted and half rejected because it was not editorial??? Everything seems hit and miss lately with Adobe.

22
in quebec we have to pay TPS/TVH if incoming is over 30 000$

Spend a few bucks and get a professional answer from a CFA not from a forum full of well intentioned ill informed people.

Not sure of the exact provincial tax laws in QC but at the federal level you don't have to pay any GST which I am presuming is called TPS in QC. Royalties are not considered sales so therefore no GST. You will however have to claim the income and pay the federal and provincial tax for income purposes.

Best to reach out to a CFA to confirm I am giving you the right info.


23
Getty used to do this - it was called Photographer's Choice.

Back then you could make so much from a good, useful image that it may well have been worth it.

I'd pay to go back to those days. I remember taking a chance on my rejected content and paying $125 to have my images duped in all the offices around the world. I would love to go back to actually have an editor accepting or refusing an image which is a bit different from the gong show of today.

24
From a platforms (microstock site) perspective in 10-20 years most likely a growth business.
From a contributors persective it has been an industry in decline for years and will continue to do so.

It is very difficult to be profitable when you only get pennies for your work. Take into account there have only been cuts in royalties from all platforms and never an increase and also factor in increased costs and inflation.

That amazing 0.10c to 0.33c we make has actually lost value. The the top 3 platforms are owned by corporations who only serve the shareholders.

Don't spend it all in one spot kids.

25
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock is an embarassment
« on: July 04, 2023, 16:56 »
This thread is an embarassment and so pre-pubescent.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors