|
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 - Big Toe
2
« on: September 10, 2024, 09:02 »
But your quotation explained "how much your images are seen" , not your stats and with that your Adobe contributor position.
Why should we care about our stats and our Adobe contributor position, unless they influence the search position of our images, or in other words, how much our images are seen?
3
« on: August 22, 2024, 13:20 »
How difficult can it be to write an algorithm with a few adjustable parameters so the queue is always at maximum two weeks or whatever their desired target range is depending on the content?
I think the problem is that they are just overwhelmed with AI content and no shuffling around of resources between different queues is going to solve this problem. They very likely would have to expand the available resources. They may be reluctant to do this, because they do not know how long the current influx will remain at this level. Or perhaps they are working on tools that allow the help of AI with reviewing AI content (and possibly other content).
4
« on: July 05, 2024, 06:56 »
Perhaps nobody included Pixta in their this month. There are a number of agencies with the rating zero, so it seems the voters have made no (or very little) money with them this month, so I doubt Pixta would have been excluding due to low earnings. Two people seem to have included Canstockphoto in their vote this month..
5
« on: June 05, 2024, 16:49 »
Since a warp drive is unfortunatly impossible, aliens would have to travel at sublight speed, so it would take them more than 26,000 years to cover the distance.
Now, this is the Himalayas of arrogance or ignorance. Random dude on a microstock forum declaring what is possible and what not in the Universe and the wider reality.
Random dude has some knowledge of physics. People dealing with the subject matter professionally think otherwise:
https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/3240.html?id=6192
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240506270015/en/New-Study-Achieves-Breakthrough-in-Warp-Drive-Design
First ot the second link: If you read this carefully, you will notice that ths is about a hypothetical drive that shares some common principles with the warp drive from Star Trek, but works only at velocities below the speed of light: "The team introduced the concept of a "constant-velocity subluminal warp drive" aligned with the principles of relativity. "Therefor, I would say that warp drive is a misnomer here, because usually warp speed is considered to be a speed greater than the speed of light. In any case, it does not solve the problem to cover large distances during space travel in a reasonable time. To the second link: This guy claims to have found some loophole in Einsteins field equations that enable travel at speed greater than the speed of light. As this goes totally against the whole point of relativity, you will forgive me, if I remain sceptical. I think, one of the reasons that physists deal with this kind of speculations is that theoretical physics seems to have reached a bit of a dead end. String theory is still unproven, we are no closer to solving the mystery of dark matter than we were 20 years ago and we have still no idea how to develop a quantum theory of gravitation. Therefore, quite a few theoretical phyisists are desperate enough to develop more fancyful theories and make outlandish claims. Even if it comes to nothing in the end, it is still a possibility to get yourself a name.
6
« on: June 05, 2024, 16:09 »
- You have ZERO proof that physical matter can achieve consciousness and perceive qualia. But you probably believe in it like in the gospel, because the mainstream was told to believe in it.
You do not believe that humans consist of physical matter? Or do you deny that humans achieved consciousness?
Where did I write something like what you imply?
1. Human bodies consist of physical matter.
There is zero evidence that humans anything else then their bodies. 2. There is absolutely ZERO proof that physical matter can achieve consciousness and perceive qualia on its own.
Many people have experienced NDEs or out-of-body experiences. I have also had an OOBE, so I know they are true.
Out-of-body experiences are but an illusion and can be artificially induced by chemicals. And please explains this: If people are able to perceice light and sound during an out-of-body experience, then why do people become blind when their eyes are injured? Why do we have eyes in the first place, if people are able to see without them during out-of-body experiences?
7
« on: June 05, 2024, 12:28 »
- You have ZERO proof that physical matter can achieve consciousness and perceive qualia. But you probably believe in it like in the gospel, because the mainstream was told to believe in it.
You do not believe that humans consist of physical matter? Or do you deny that humans achieved consciousness? - There is no proof of dark matter. And yet the mainstream accepts it. It was invented to prop up the prevalent model of the universe. But a working model, even if it fits the data, is not the same as proof. To understand what "proof" is, check how Pythagorean theorem is proven (spoiler: not by testing dozens of triangles).
So, dark matter was hypothesized in order to explain observations (data) within the assumed laws of physics. It could be right, I am not saying anything. Without dark matter/dark energy we have a gigantic anomaly within the current paradigm.
Dark matter is a rather broad concept. No one really knows what it is or whether it really exists or if there is another explanation for the observed data after all. There are a number of hyptheses what dark matter and/or dark energy consist of, but so far, none is really convincing. Most physicists probably believe in the existence of dark matter and/or dark energy, because they currently seem like the most simple explanation for the available data. However, I think most would also acknowledge the possibility that this is wrong, just like the luminiferous aether as a medium for the propagation of light turned out to be wrong.
8
« on: April 23, 2024, 11:04 »
How are we different from a herd of cows or rams? We are no different !!!
Speak for yourself!
9
« on: April 22, 2024, 16:41 »
but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing
Being nitpicky, and IANAL, maybe they're banking on 'permanance':
Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".
I have no idea. It's a can of worms.
According to Wikimedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama
It's the sort of stuff that keeps lawyers in champagne, and scares the rest of us witless if we think about it for long enough.
No, the freedom of panorama (Panoramafreiheit) has nothing to do with the limits of editorial usage of photos, but is about commercial use. It means that the commercial use photos of buildings and pieces of art permanently located in a public space is not restricted by the protection of a buildings architecture or the copyright of a piece of art, like a statue. The commercial use can be prohibited due to other laws, though, for example, you cannot use a picture of a Mac Donalds restaurant commercially, because the golden M is protected as a trademark. The limits for editorial use are far wider. For example, pictures of the Wrapped Reichstag cannot be used commercially, because it was only wrapped temporarily, but photos of it could still be used editorially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrapped_Reichstag
10
« on: April 21, 2024, 14:30 »
I could be wrong, but this just smells bad of frivolous lawsuit and something other than, illegal image use, or copyright infringing for showing the cover of a magazine, as an incidental part of a broader scene.
.
I am not so sure about that. Bild is frequently involved in lawsuits. They should have a bunch of lawyers working for them, who are experienced enough not to start a frivolous lawsuit, without any chance of success. Also, Bild as a newspaper uses editorial photos themselves all the time. They would hurt themselves if they helped set a precedence restriciting the use of editorial photos. My guess is that there may have been some photos where it is at least not absurd to assume that they might violate Bild's rights. Alamy may then have deleted all images featuring Bild as precautionary measure, even though probably only some of them have been a problem and are now trying to collect the money for the lawsuit from all the people whose photos have been deleted. This could probably successfully be contested in court, but who is going to sue them over 20 or even 100 or 200 Pounds or Euros? It is really hard to say without knowing more about what the lawsuit is actually about.
11
« on: March 27, 2024, 15:04 »
I've already clarified that these characters are not AI generated. I hired an artist to make me specific designs in high resolution with clean lines (which AI generated ones have a problem making... not to mention it's hard to make specific character design and posture you want)
I do also make AI generated images, but I always tick the box that are AI generated.
Ok, sorry, then I misunderstood you. I wonder whether the high resolution and clean lines are that important, though, if the character lacks details like mouth or nose. At least I can see neither.
12
« on: March 27, 2024, 12:44 »
Funny you ask... because there were many images and videos I've uploaded that I have no clue why would they be used and they have sold anyways.
It can happen, but I still think that a picture with a useful concept has a better chance of selling.
Concerning this picture: There are alot of little things that dsiturb me a bit about it. Not a lot of the picture is sharp, the girls or women somehow seem to be hovering over these plates or tiles and the proportions seem a bit weird. They miss a clearly defined mouth or nose and the breasts are overemphasized. The hands are weird.
Character has been used multiple times as animation and a part of an image in the past and has sold multiple times... so I doubt any of this would now matter. Now when I made figures of them they found a "problem"?
The image in question is AI generated, isn't it? My understanding is that when Adobe started accepting AI images, they accepted almost everything, even images with obvious flaws. Enough examples of that have been posted in this forum. Now they are swamped with mass produced AI images and can afford to be more selective or I should perhaps say that they cannot afford not to be more selective and images that would have been accepted a few months ago are now rejected.
13
« on: March 25, 2024, 15:51 »
Funny you ask... because there were many images and videos I've uploaded that I have no clue why would they be used and they have sold anyways. It can happen, but I still think that a picture with a useful concept has a better chance of selling. Concerning this picture: There are alot of little things that dsiturb me a bit about it. Not a lot of the picture is sharp, the girls or women somehow seem to be hovering over these plates or tiles and the proportions seem a bit weird. They miss a clearly defined mouth or nose and the breasts are overemphasized. The hands are weird.
14
« on: March 21, 2024, 15:07 »
Maybe gone fishing?
Or they are playing with toys in the attic.
15
« on: March 16, 2024, 08:52 »
so, first all the AI rants about it killing sales on AS, now attacking SS because they DON't accept AI??
It is not necessarily the same people who are complaining about the two things. Someone who does not do AI may complain about AI taking away sales at Adobe, while someone who does AI may complain about Shutterstock not accepting AI.
16
« on: February 26, 2024, 14:17 »
Editorial images are images that can only used for editorial uses, like for example to illustrate a newspaper article and must not be used for advertisment. They also should NOT be altered in a way that compromises their editorial value
I bet that's what you meant? 
Yes, thanks, that is indeed what I meant, I amended my post accordingly.
17
« on: February 25, 2024, 21:08 »
I know people here care and we're at the mercy of the agencies, but if the customers go to Adobe, and SS has much more profitable business gains in AI, news, or whatever else they own and do, they won't care about a division that's losing money. If it's too expensive to operate and unprofitable, they could shut down stock photos, as a cost cutting, expense reduction, initiative.
What kind of business do they have that is not dependend on the stock photo business? When they shut down the stock photo business, the AI licencing business goes away as well. They may survive stagnation or even decline in the stock photo business, but without stock images (and videos etc.), they have no AI business.
18
« on: February 25, 2024, 13:51 »
...
There's still space for real and editorial, that AI can't make...
depends what you mean by editorial - for AS it's anything that needs a model release, even if it's not newsworthy - eg generic people in an office - here AI is an easy alternative
Editorial images are images that can only used for editorial uses, like for example to illustrate a newspaper article and must not be used for advertisment. They also should not be altered in a way that compromises their editorial value Generic people in an office with model releases are not editorial content. Where did you get the notion that for Adobe every image with people that need a model release is editorial?
19
« on: February 23, 2024, 10:06 »
Good news again but my last year bonus plan is already finished, I can't edit any photos in Lightroom right now, does I need to wait the next bonus code to work again ? Im confused.
The new code should already be there, if you qualified.
20
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:11 »
The easiest tool for copying is not ai but a normal camera.
In fact it is usually a lot faster to copy a bestselling image by just taking a similar picture.
It really depends on what is depicted in the bestseller. It is not so easy to copy a picture of a tropical beach with palm trees or of an iceberg, unless you somewhere near them or travel there anyway. Also customers and clients, if they really want to save money, they can just take pictures with their iphones. Including things like wood backgrounds, green grass and sky etc...a lot of the content that is ultrageneric is very, very easy to take yourself.
Even images of stuff that is seemingly available everywhere are no always that easy to copy. For example really clear blue sky with a nice cloud distribution does not occur as often as you might think. And if you want a specific type of clouds like cirrus clouds, you may have to wait a long time until you get an opportunity to get a really nice picture.
21
« on: February 19, 2024, 16:10 »
I am seeing more reports of new subscriptions being added instead of extending existing subs. Since it's a holiday in the US, many folks are off today. If you haven't already redeemed your code, and you have an active subscription. I recommened holding off until I can confirm whether there is an issue or not.
Thanks for your patience,
Mat Hayward
Hello Mat, how long will take until the codes expire, if they are not redeemed? The code I currently use runs until October 1 this year. If it looks like extending the period is problematic, I would just keep the new code until then and only use it, when the old one runs out.
22
« on: February 06, 2024, 18:49 »
In addition to what has already been said:
I also had a number of rejected editorial images and the rejection note lists several possible reasons, one of which may be relevant:
"- Die Datei hatte kein starkes redaktionelles Konzept."
(The file did not have a strong editorial concept)
Of course this is highly subjective. Perhaps the reviewer did not recognize MGM as an important brand.
23
« on: February 05, 2024, 10:56 »
This is modern slavery without any transparency. I
As unfair as our relationship with the agencies may be, it should not be compared to slavery. If we do not like the arrangements, we can just walk away and take our images with us. Slaves do not have this option.
24
« on: January 25, 2024, 16:10 »
What can science tell me about this box.
What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.
Not much. For a lot of reasons. First, as cascoly already hinted at, the technical quality of the image is not great. More importantly, you are withholding practically all additional information that a scientist would usually have to evaluate such a photo, like for example, where it was taken (that it was taken on Earth and not for example Bajor or Quonos is kind of a given), when it was taken, what scale it has, any information about the environment, any information you would get from touching it (you could probably tell whether it is made from clay or metal or plastic or cardboard etc.) and so on. What I can tell you is that is does not seem to be translucent, as you cannot see the background through it and it casts a shadow.
25
« on: January 24, 2024, 03:37 »
Appreciate if anyone who had encountered a similiar scenario to shed some lights on this matter or to direct me who i can contact with to seek a solution to this matter? Thanks.
I had this problem once in the past with a number of images. It helped to make some changes to the keywords (add or remove one or more keywords, I am not sure whether changing the order would have been enough). This solved the problem, probably because it forced the system to reindex the images.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
