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 - alan b traehern

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1 / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: November 27, 2022, 14:06 »
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.

Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.

I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.

How is that a Christmas image?

Published today in a pro-Dalle-E online news article

Bad news for stock photo businesses
If youre a stock photo business, DALL-E 2 might be your worst enemy. Stock photos already have a reputation as cheesy and inauthentic, but have been a necessary evil for content creators. That changes the moment DALL-E 2 becomes available for commercial use.

What justification would there be to pay for a stock photo license in a world where DALL-E 2 can create any image you want?

DALL-E is available now for commercial use. All those illustrations and creations, are allowed to be licensed. What's going to be interesting in the future is, right for images that use portions of people or protected property, designs or specifics. Open AI Users get full usage rights to commercialise the images they create with DALL-E, including the right to reprint, sell and merchandise,

What is Fair use? I hope that sometime in the near future the courts will decide.

There are real concerns with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and unaddressed rights issues with respect to the imagery, the image metadata and those individuals contained within the imagery, Getty Images CEO Craig Peters,sites%2C%20and%20stock%20photo%20sites%20like%20Getty%20Images.

Read this article which is looking at both sides. I see people on both sides of this extremely confident in their positions, but the reality is nobody knows,

What's interesting is that, lets say I create an image, using AI from one of the online services. If I don't have enough creative input and, the image is not created by a human's work, then it's not going to be protected. In the article they use Cat by Van Gogh as an example of what couldn't be protected. In the US, there is no copyright protection for works generated solely by a machine. However, it seems that copyright may be possible in cases where the creator can prove there was substantial human input.

What is substantial human input? What is a derivative, of substantial new design to change the image "enough" to make it a new work. Very subjective questions.

This is why I posted the Warhol case which is in progress now, that's examining what is fair use. They are both related.

None of this has to do with what's right or fair for artists, creatives or our interests, it's all about the legal side and could someone get sued for using something that AI created by scraping the web or using copyrighted images to train the AI?

With many players coming into AI, the companies are now shifting their licenses to commercial.
This is dangerous and I don't see good future of image industry.

Well said in many less words.

3 / Re: 3rd Quarter 2022 Financial Reporting
« on: November 19, 2022, 11:44 »
Very weird response to a post that is actually informative and relevant to our industry?

Which makes Microstockphoto what he is most often after 1200 posts. Irrelevant and uninformed.

4 / Re: 3rd Quarter 2022 Financial Reporting
« on: November 18, 2022, 17:44 »
still the most boring poster on this forum. no one cares what you have to say mate. give it up,
Why on earth would you attack Uncle Pete? He is maybe the only likeable person on this forum.
So many people to choose from and then you choose him?
What? Why? And what are you on?

troll friend or 2nd account for stoker2014, hasn't been on in a year, then shows when stoker is posting his nonsense. Sound familiar?

you will find that you will get your account suspended instead. agencies have lurkers on here and they just kill your port if they have the slightest idea who you are. ask a few on here, fotolia was notorious for that, in particular matt, who now works for adobe. istock does the same. rinder had his istock account deleted when they found him boasting on here. jo ann and others were banned from fotolia. i am sure there are more examples, people who were rioting against istock with the google deal, fotolia with dollar club. etc. best take this as advice or  a warning


 Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless.

Good advise that you should follow.

6 / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: November 09, 2022, 10:17 »
Uncle Pete, I have the right to know something, but not to know something, to forget something, but to remember something. What are your claims to me? I see you are satisfied that they began to pay you less, I am happy for you.  ;D

Thanks for being happy for me.  ;)

Speaking of remembering, I seem to remember someone else who's been banned from here, who used to make all kinds of claims and draw conclusions and ignored logic and reasoning. When they were asked a direct question, the answer would turn into no answer and twisted evasion. Can I try again?

I admit that shutterstock may promote authors from certain countries, or is afraid that they will sue it. In general, I think that either the algorithms have changed, or the buyers have left, or shutterstock is hiding my money from me.

People from countries will sue SSTK?  :o And you say, SSTK is "hiding money" from you?

What countries? How is  SSTK hiding money from you?

No I'm not happy or satisfied, making less on any agency, where did you find anything to come to that wrong conclusion?

No answer from stoker2014?

7 / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: November 07, 2022, 09:21 »
cascoly, read my posts in this thread, and not just one post, I described in detail why shutterstock went down, gave my personal examples, statistics. If you continue to make accusations against me, I will put you on ignore. I don't owe you anything. And I'm not a parrot to repeat and copy my posts. Who wanted to hear me, he heard. And I don't owe you anything.

Please ignore me and I'll do the same, you are nothing but a lost troll who has no clue that writes nonsense.

8 / Re: Bigstock Bridge is closed ...
« on: October 31, 2022, 11:35 »
To me, Bigstock is just useless. A waste of time.

Easy to agree.

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 31, 2022, 11:34 »
Justanotherphotographer, so write right away that you have stocks and more than 100 thousand dollars a year and no one will argue with you. I don't think there are many people on this forum with that kind of income. But the rest have to earn some money. Not everyone here is in the professional league.

If that's true? Anonymous can make up anything he wants. He's in Indonesia and 0.0053 Indian Rupee to a pound. 6 figures doesn't include the 2 to the right of the decimal point.

Do you have more than $100,000 per month?
Why are you wasting your time on this forum then.

That's the most dumb reply. If someone makes six fig earning, one should appreciate his guts to come out and tell the positive side when everyone talks about the negative.
And he is not wasting his time on this forum, Forum is for everyone.

If he is and do you believe anything that anyone says. I'm the ruler of a small country, you need to listen to me and believe.

10 / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: October 12, 2022, 09:33 »
Feels more like january than october. Obvious decline all across the board in what is usually the best selling month of the year
Me too

The copyright law changes in favor of physical artwork because artist organizations are lobbing and advocating for the changes.

If stock artists always accept whatever pittance without doing anything about it, the status quo will always be the same.

Given the number of stock artists in the world, it is sad that we are so weak. The basic problem is that there is no leaders among us.

Stock Coalition, how did that go? This is not about leaders it's about power over the agencies. What will you do to demand better pay that would force them to pay more?

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 12, 2022, 09:25 »
Didn't receive any letters. I don't think this is true.

cretino would say that inside only their own head.

General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 06, 2022, 08:19 »
Interesting analysis from Fabio Nodari here:

Flawed image because of the reflections of things that aren't there. Anyone looking for a few seconds would say, it looks fake and wrong.

Keywords seems to have become a necessary evil, with most submitters putting in all 50 keywords just to maximise chances of a view.

This is clear in the kind if results stock sites show up even for very specific queries. So it'll be interesting to kmow how buyers are actually searching for stuff. Is it a word, aeries of words, an actual sentence etc

In my opinion, the Alamy Zoom statistic gives a very good overview of how and with which terms buyers search for images. Some of the searches here are very complex. If you then come across search queries such as "OMEGA 3 AND RED FRUITS", "Fried chicken breast and fresh salad" or "16th century farm house", it makes sense from my point of view to use as many meaningful keywords as possible. But that is somehow also a question of faith.

If the extended keywords, or complex description are important and the image shows something specific, they are necessary and good. If someone just adds close words and similar meaning words, you're wasting time with words that buyers don't use to find image. If you were searching for your image, what words would you use to find it? If you were describing your image to someone else, what words would you use. That's what good keywords are.

General Stock Discussion / Re: Freepik not taking DMCA seriously
« on: October 06, 2022, 07:58 »
As Jo Ann said, it is not hard to do - checking the new contributors and detecting frauds... But they do not want to do that, since they gain anyways. Maybe even more if they let fraudulent activity happen here and there.
Going after that money - it won't hurt them much, but I guess it would be something every lawyer would be keen to do.
No lawyer will want this work, unless you can pay thousands of dollars to get $5. If this happens to you it's happening to many others, but no one is taking action. Why do you think that is? Lawyers don't work for free.

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection question
« on: September 18, 2022, 09:13 »
There is nothing to be proud about if you give your work away for free.

Or for $5

Or $50? I like the pay.

There's a quickly diminishing amount of creative/artist jobs already and this will just accelerate the decline. Once this is perfected over the next 5-10 years stock agencies will adopt AI and have little need for contributors. Free money for them and less of having to deal with us. AI wont kill the industry but it will be a big shift much like macro to micro. People will need to adjust to the shift and find a profitable niche. Editorial cant be replaced by AI.

I wonder how many buyers will want images that are authentic and real versus artificial.

Eventually there will be an agency with no artists where the buyer types in what they want and gets a selection of AI images to choose from.

18 / Re: SS strict rejection policy
« on: September 10, 2022, 07:09 »
Two accounts and they are noticing the same images uploaded to both. You won't last long.

Calling ss racist rejections for same images uploaded to another account?

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection question
« on: September 10, 2022, 06:56 »
What' is selected? And what's the criteria?

I've had some of my images selected by Adobe to be part of the program. Is it something to be proud about or they just select something randomly to be part of it?

Thanks for any info.

An image that made me .78 since uploaded, will now get me paid $5. That isn't giving away for free and I made more money than it ever did before. Not random, they want free images to attract new customers.

...It's the agencies that decide the price and they aren't the ones who have higher porduction costs, so they see no reason to raise prices for end products as, unlike contributors they have no financial loss due to rising production costs.

That's the whole problem. In microstock producers can't decide their prices. We can't forward our rising expenses to customers and microstock agencies don't have high enough morality standards to do it for us.

i agree with your analysis, except (of course) another reason ms dont raise prices is competition - if one agency raises prices, they're at a competitive disadvantage w other agencies


I don't follow your argument, because the same laws apply to MS agencies as to the rest of the free economy. If your argument was, true, no gas station would raise prices, no craftsman, no parcel service, no fast food chain, no supermarket, etc. because of competitive disadvantage.

But they all do - only the microstock agencies don't. Why not? Because we put up with it. From my point of view, it's as simple as that.

in most of those cases you cite,  they're near monopolies; also, many have prices that can easily be raised / lowered (sometimes of a daily basis) - eg, without explicit coordination, most gas stations raise prices immediately when oil prices increase, but only slowly decrease when oil does.  if a major portion of the suppliers don't participate, prices revert. 

MS don't have that option as their market is both more muddled, less structured & less correlated - the market is splintered- it's also not as easy to change prices, to test the response of other agencies. so, when one agency raises prices, the others gain a competitive advantage by keeping prices low

as far as "Because we put up with it.", that has near zero effect, as the SS boycott showed - the number of suppliers is huge and constantly increasing, so there's not been any way to get a co-ordinated reaction from a critical mass

The FT boycott before that and the IS boycott before that, had no effect. We can work for what agencies offer us or do something else.

General Stock Discussion / Re: 3D images?
« on: July 09, 2022, 08:34 »
Old novelty photo trick, no market, no demand.


A little rant from me for hearing too much about Wirestock:

Let me know what are you thoughts! Do you think this is all wrong and actually WS is a good time investment?

I was there for a little while amd left once I found my images were being given away in a free site just because they didnt sell well. That really sucked.

You mean the instant pay program? I cant recall Wirestock giving images away for free other than instant pay, which you can opt out of.

They don't give away photos that don't sell well, Wirestock sells nothing, doesn't give away anything, and some of the other comments are also nothing but what if, as they go out of business? Facts are they distribute our work and take 15% for doing that. Like it or don't, but that's not why "you should never ever work with Wirestock". [end of quote] [repeat line] Wirestock sells nothing, the agencies, which are the same agencies, are the same as if we upload ourselves. How can anybody blame Wirestock!

What does this mean, when does it end? Pride month and another letter added. LGBTQIA I get the first 4 but then things start to get lost. Is Q for questionable, I for I don't know.

I went exclusive on Pond 5 and I made less. Exclusive just doesn't work.

Urgh never mind.

Pond is not a concept it's a Noun.

Obviously. Pond wasn't meant to be a concept. Pond was just an obvious word in the title and keyword that someone would type to find dragonflies. The title that was rejected stated something like "Golden ringed Dragonfly basking in the sun after feeding near a pond. Scientific name (Latin name). It was rejected for the scientific name and keyword pond, life. Pond insects. Flying pond bugs all find dragonflies in the search bar. But I wasn't allowed Pond because there was no pond. It was a stupid refusal. I won't debate that any longer because it is patently obviously a pond related subject. Or stream either is correct.

I believe I did point out various examples of this rigidity being lame. I stated that we could no longer have conceptual titles because a photo titled meditation would now have to become "woman sitting oddly alone in room. But we cant have room because only one wall can be seen. Prisoner becomes "young man sitting on generic bed against a wall wearing grey overalls. No prison visible.

I guess it comes down to how badly do adobe want their photos to be found. Not very in that case. And I'm a native speaker of English. So to throw these subjective obstacles in the way is tiresome. It was removed on my behalf and then published. Well I say refused it was placed in a limbo state until I corrected mistakes. After 3 goes I couldn't work out why which is why I asked for help and the explanation given that title must be in English not foriegn languages (Latin is the only name for some insects but whatever) that I can only title what is visible which makes conceptual ideas risky and that future repeated instances of rule breaking like this could result in 'keyword spamming' and closure of account.

Pond. Ok lol  jeeze

Obviously you are wrong. I find many images with Latin names in title and many with concept words that you claim they don't allow. You are wrong or lying.

Maybe you are just watched more because you are a keyword spammer and got caught.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle