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 - Justanotherphotographer

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 120
1
Its the new political correctness gone mad" (Stuart Lee has a great routine on this). It is just a thought-terminating clich at this point with no meaning any more.

I assume the author isnt a native English speaker and has seen lots of people using it on-line. I wouldn't use it unless you want to take a political stance. It has all sorts of connotations about your world view.



2

Doesn't matter, there are many portfolios smoothly submitting AI content. There is no way for agencies to track whether the content is AI or not. And even AI cannot tell difference between digitally created and digitally generated images.

That's a fact, but at least there are some that are not allowing the flood.

That just means we can't sell it. Several of the agencies have deals to put AI generators on the sites themselves, and I would think also add AI generated work to the collection.

While also true, it seems a contradiction to the claimed reasons why we can't upload AI created images?

"Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual. Per our Contributor Terms of Service (Sections 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. As such, AI-generated content should not be submitted to Shutterstock."

We'll have to wait and see how this turns out. But for the half empty, doomed people, with a perpetual black storm over their head, and who never stop finding what's wrong, their mind is made up, "Artificial Intelligence (is) killing the whole industry".

Nope, just killing our income from the industry. Just like my allusion that Microstock is already dead, that's really just for some artists. AI will replace some of us and make some of our images less valuable, but AI will not kill the whole industry.

Some agency deals mean the AI company will use the agency's collection to train the AI. I am sure terms will be updated soon to say we agree to it if we want to sell through the agency.

3
That just means we can't sell it. Several of the agencies have deals to put AI generators on the sites themselves, and I would think also add AI generated work to the collection.

4
...
Is it still remarkable, though, that about 30% of the voters earn more than $1000 on average. So for a lot of people the money from microstock is still a significant part of their income.

Correct for the people that voted, for contributors overall; maybe, maybe not. Theres selection bias, we are on a microstock forum so the people here are invested enough to at least be frequenting an industry forum. Also quite an old one that doesnt get much promotion, a lot of newer contributors are on Facebook pages I think. Not sure this poll shows us anything much.

5
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: November 22, 2022, 06:52 »
You are obviously completely off topic. Adobe clearly wrote in my account that he wanted to nominate my video, indicated the amount and indicated the amount that I would earn.

You have a history of not reading/ thinking things through it seems. Slow down and take deep breath.

6
General Stock Discussion / Re: Adobe--No sales in (4) Days.
« on: November 20, 2022, 04:48 »
I'm doing okay on Adobe. Already got more downloads than in the whole of 2021 so fairly happy.
Just checked mine. Also already have more DLs and revenue in 2022 than whole of 2021

7
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 19, 2022, 12:07 »
...I doubt if I will ever have a BME ever again anywhere...

I guess the pessimism makes sense then. My BME overall was December 2021 (been uploading since 2006), hopefully I will beat it this December.

I also dont rely on video as much as you do I think, though I have some in my portfolio. Video RPD has been sliding quickly since the micros started taking it.

Wish you all the best with it.

8
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 19, 2022, 09:27 »

Contributors are scattered and powerless, this industry is heading to free downloads, advocating is useless unfortunately.


Well we don't have to be really organised. I am not talking about advocating with words but voting with our content. We can be scattered and still not upload where we are paid poorly. IMHO we just need to stop treating the agencies collectively as one income stream.

Otherwise the only break on pay will be when it becomes unsustainable overall. Uploading everything everywhere makes fair treatment absolutely pointless from an agencys perspective. They will get our work either way so why not race to be the one paying least and making most?

9
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 19, 2022, 08:44 »
I find that attitude really odd. Why not advocate for better conditions from the agencies? They are constantly pushing for better conditions for their end (less money for us). The competition from other contributors will be there either way, even if we get a fairer deal, so it isn't about fearing competition.

I am definitely not at the level where the the reset is almost meaningless. It takes 25000 dls to reach level six which takes me several months (with my old content; the only stuff SS gets from me). If you shoot through the levels in month 1 I can understand not caring.

10
iStockPhoto.com / Re: 3rd Quarter 2022 Financial Reporting
« on: November 19, 2022, 04:00 »
Very weird response to a post that is actually informative and relevant to our industry?

11
Not a tax lawyer but I believe what you are looking for is this:
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/Tax_Treaty_Table_1_2019_Feb.pdf

Page 3, royalties/ copyrights 5%  Treaty and Article 12(2) / P8


12
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 19, 2022, 03:49 »
... I think the reset is a very good structure to support contributors that are deeply invested into a solid selling portfolio or for contributors that see it as a marathon and not as a random gig...

Couldn't disagree more. If they actually wanted to motivate contributors with a similar scheme they could have had a rolling 12 month target (if you sold X number in the last 12 months you are on level Y). They could even work it so they are making the same amount on their end.

A January reset is just cruel and makes no sense. Does anyone feel extra motivated come January first, or demoralised and p*ssed off? I firmly believe they just didnt want to make the extra investment to implement the slightly more technically complex option.

13
Image Sleuth / Re: 52112.com STOLEN CONTENT OF ALL KINDS
« on: November 17, 2022, 11:51 »
Are you sure it isn't a partner site?

14
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 17, 2022, 11:50 »
Got a 3000$ sale yesterday, feels a bit over the top in terms of high sale, previous record was 600$ a couple of months back.

Any idea what kind of license is that?
editorial clip, not exclusive (the file is still live on site and on other sites as well and I was not asked to take it off).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've only ever had those sorts of figures as negotiated buyouts. Congrats.

15
iStockPhoto.com / Re: October sales statement in
« on: November 16, 2022, 04:42 »
Third best month ever and second best month this year. Pretty happy with that.

Nice!

16
Shutterstock.com / Re: Working together to lead the way with AI
« on: November 15, 2022, 09:37 »

that's not how ML works - the AI creates new info from each training info - none of original pixels are reserved. instead a condensed matrix is prepared. then based on tags, those matrices are used to create an entirely new image.  so the only question that remains is how owners of the million training images might be paid for the training. they have no claim to the new images created

Yes, I get it. Its the same sort of reasoning as no ones making the decision its up to the algorithm.

I just find the assertions about whether pixels are retained redundant. The app learns where to place and how to color new pixels based on pixels in the original images. The new info is learnt from the inputted info. The reductio absurdum to make the point is that I can use an image to write a table with only figures (no pixels) referencing the color to paint each pixel and its location. I could then take that table and generate a completely new image (new info) identical to the original, i.e. not reserving any of the original pixels. I could also create an algorithm to shift the colors or locations of those pixels for the new image. How complex a process would that have to be before it is acceptable?

Take the example of the images of business people featuring the near perfectly copied DT watermark the Ai was outputting. Imagine that DT licensed your icon to use as a watermark only on their site. The AI would be perfectly reproducing your copyrighted material; it would be (by you definition) new info, but it is also identical to your copyright work.

I am not sure which part of what I said isnt how it works. I tried to make it clear that the AI is outputting what you call new info.

17
Shutterstock.com / Re: Working together to lead the way with AI
« on: November 15, 2022, 07:06 »
One of the ways AI is trained is, for example, by blurring a photo in a way that involves some randomisation then doing its best to recreate the original image (which is never exactly the same as some randomisation has occurred in the blur). It does this for lots of images with the same keywords and looks for the points of similarity that make up the defining characteristics of the objects.

So it is trying its best to copy the subset of images. Even if it had one image to go on, the result wouldnt be identical as it is making its best guess.

I'm not an expert but I read something about how AI machine learn, and it's slighlty different from what you describe (if I understand well your words, sorry, I'm not native english...)

The concept is that AI, following your example, learn what is and how to produce a nice depth of field.
When it knows it, it can reproduce this in any image: so it's not exactly the production of an new image based on original one.
The concept is that you can ask a nice depth of field for any subject, not only the subjects that was in training images. So it's not a question of pixels randomization that can give you a different image from an original one. The point is that now AI can blur the image to produce nice DOF for quite any subject you ask.
It's not trying to do a "copy" with some difference. It's mostly like trying to reproduce an event.

This is what I understood
There are a few different methods/ models apparently. They all sound quite different to each other, but the formula is always: people's IP--->jiggery-pokery (skirting copyright)--->cash in the pocket of tech bro who did a fraction of the work it took to produce the millions of images and keyword them

18
Shutterstock.com / Re: Working together to lead the way with AI
« on: November 15, 2022, 06:03 »
Find your photo particles in the customers hand composite.
Now tell me you trust SS to let you know your photo was used and pay you.

It doesn't work this way.
Images are used to train AI to recreate an image of a hand.
There is no single pixel of your photo in the new AI generated one.
You have to be payed for training AI, not because you're giving pixels of your image

I struggle with that framing. A pixel is not a thing that is physically picked up from one place and dropped in another. Its just a range of values for relative location and color. That is true whenever you copy an image. I honestly think the it doesnt use any of the original pixels framing is irrelevant, as that is always the case when transferring images digitally.

One of the ways AI is trained is, for example, by blurring a photo in a way that involves some randomisation then doing its best to recreate the original image (which is never exactly the same as some randomisation has occurred in the blur). It does this for lots of images with the same keywords and looks for the points of similarity that make up the defining characteristics of the objects.

So it is trying its best to copy the subset of images. Even if it had one image to go on, the result wouldnt be identical as it is making its best guess.

At which level of randomization in the disassembly/ reassembly of images do we draw the line? There will be people out there making better and worse AI engines. What about the times when a programmer takes shortcuts and small chunks of the original images are reassembled in exactly the same layout of pixels? Is any level of similarity fine as long as the company labels it as AI and some disassembly and reassembly is involved (even if the app is reassembling in the exact same layout of pixels?).

IMHO the relevant part is that the AI is using the source IP and keywords to create the engine/ resulting images, regardless of how the images are copied.

19
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe profits more than double in latest quarter
« on: November 14, 2022, 10:29 »
I am around 200th for the week with around 1000dls (don't want to be more specific or discuss portfolio size)

Why not?

Because I am anonymous on this forum and any more info would make me (even more) easily identifiable. If I was in position 10000 a few dls either way on a given week could radically change my position. I have already narrowed down who I am to a handful of people (to the agency).

I want to be able to critique agencies without fear of being banned (like happened to Sean and Jo Ann).

20
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe profits more than double in latest quarter
« on: November 13, 2022, 04:47 »
I am around 200th for the week with around 1000dls (don't want to be more specific or discuss portfolio size)

1,000 per week is fantastic! Congrats!
Thanks. It's hard work but I've got mortgage to pay!

21
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe profits more than double in latest quarter
« on: November 13, 2022, 03:53 »
I am around 200th for the week with around 1000dls (don't want to be more specific or discuss portfolio size)

22
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 12, 2022, 04:09 »

I told you, you had what it takes. ;) Nice to see it all come to fruition.

(My husband Nick has been sick. He woke up one morning with the lefthand side of his face paralysed. It was such a shock - he only recently turned 50yo. But fortunately it wasnt a stroke. He has Bells Palsy. Doc not sure what caused it. Perhaps long working hours and stress, but possibly a virus - or maybe even a reaction to vacc. He cant work as well as he used to, so I've been helping out. It may be permanent or just temporary, just have to wait and see. Anyway, sorry to digress, I just wanted to let you know why I might not be around much.

I have been checking in on the forum occasionally, mainly for updates on Adobe PNGs, and then I saw your sale and had to congratulate you. BTW, I hope you and family have recovered after all the flooding. )

Oh no. So sorry to hear this. Sending best wishes to you and your husband. I know another regular member of the forum have had Bells Palsy (don't want to out them, but they have spoken about it). I believe they made a good recovery, hoping the same thing for your husband.

23
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe profits more than double in latest quarter
« on: November 12, 2022, 04:04 »
How do I get to see my weekly ranking?  I've changed the stats to weekly and monthly downloads but no ranking appears.  Am I missing something?

Go to dashboard - in left top corner you will see Time Frame dropdown menu - change to "This week".
Also works for "all time"

24
Canva / Re: Canva earnings are continuing to go down
« on: November 11, 2022, 03:36 »

I've been on Canva for a little over a year now. No, I have not been growing my port rapidly there, just submitting the same content regularly than on all the other agencies.
I agree it's hard to draw conclusions without a number. If you usually earn 5$ and suddenly it's $20 that doesn't say much. I admit I don't have a very high income on Canva compared to other agencie, which might have something to do with a lot of my bestsellers not being there as Canva doesn't accept images on white background, unless they are transparent pngs, but my income has still been very steady there and suddenly it's 75% more. It's not "hundreds", but it's at least over hundred. Sadly Canva does not give me any real insight on what images sell. I suspect Halloween might have played a role as that's usually bringing in a lot of money on other agencies, though from my individual sales only 3 have been Halloween-themed, so I do not know.

Interesting. I appreciate the insight, thank you for the additional context.

25
Canva / Re: Canva earnings are continuing to go down
« on: November 11, 2022, 02:59 »
My Canva october earnings are actually 75% up from previous months and it's my best month on Canva ever.

Have you been growing your portfolio rapidly there? Roughly how much is your income with them? (I mean really roughly, tens, hundreds, thousands?) If its like 20 dollars or even a couple of hundred its very hard to draw conclusions.

EDIT: Hope you dont mind. Checked your past posts and you said last month you havent been on Canva very long. Of course you are going to see growth in your first months when you start from zero. I think those seeing a huge downturn are comparing year on year.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 120

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle