|
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 - Her Ugliness
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23
1
« on: April 24, 2024, 04:29 »
If you had 200.000 images in your Adobe port in November 2021 according to your old post and now had 50.000 images in January, you must have some kind of idea why your account was banned? Surely the 150.000 images didn't disappear for no reason?
2
« on: April 22, 2024, 02:32 »
It's tough times for commercial photographers with AI threats and then with editorial photographers we have to walk on eggshells. I remember a few years ago I had a shot of a kid playing in the snow in Milan during a freak spring snowstorm ("Beast from the East"), which I submitted as Alamy Live News and even though none of the images sold, Alamy contacted me:
Weve heard from the parents of the child featured in the following image from your collection which theyve seen available for licensing on Alamy.
XYZ images
They say they havent given permission for the image to be licensed and are asking for its removal as no consent was given. We understand Italy has strict privacy concerning images of individuals where they are published for commercial gain. We therefore just want to check whether you obtained consent when taking these images and whether this consent extended to making the images available for licensing, whether you would like us to remove the images or if you would prefer we put the parents in touch with you to discuss directly.
I mean it's getting silly, if I were earning consistently thousands from my 15,000+ collection then I could make the argument that there is benefit but I see my average at Alamy at only around $100 net a month, so I'm just shooting myself in the foot.
See, at least in Germany this would actually be a case of editorial content that is not allowed. I see a lot of editorial content like this on all kinds of stock sites, but at least here, you are only allowed to photograph people without their consent for editorial use images if they are either not the main subject of an image (for example a city scene full of people or a historic building, but there are people in front of it), or if they take part in an event of public interest like a demonstration. I can very well imagine that other countries in Europe have similar laws.
3
« on: April 21, 2024, 02:56 »
I beg to differ on this,the way Firefly was trained in my opinion is always the most ethical,even if they used AI images already in Adobe's collection.
Midjourney literally stole content for its own training,without even bothering to remove logos,signatures,watermarks,not paying anything to anyone,and asking substantial sums for subscriptions.
Firefly paid for all the content used,they didn't steal anything from anyone,and they didn't upload content with logos,signatures and watermarks,also leaving free access to the platform for months.
No. Just absolutely NO. You accuse of midjourney stealing content. But then Adobe knowingly used that stolen content from Midjourney images to train their AI. What's the differene? NO. We did not get paid for that. MY images were used to train Midjourney. Adobe used Midjourney images to train their AI. Where in that chain did Adobe pay me to use Midjourney images based on my stolen content to train their AI?! And you pretend as if logos, signatures and watermarks were all that matters? As if using images to train an AI without the creator's permission was somehow okay as long as the stolen images had no logos or watermarks? All Adobe did was let Midjourney do the dirty work for them so they can pretend their own hands were clean.
4
« on: April 21, 2024, 01:24 »
Someone who knows German law will have to tell us, how an incidental photo of a news stand, is infringing. If that's true, you can't take a photo of anything! Not a car, an airplane, a crowd on the street, a store front, nothing, because it would be showing trademarks and logos and service marks or copyrighted materials. The cover of a magazine, is not the subject and isn't protected.
I have spend a lot of time reading up on German laws regarding editorial content (mostly because a lot of people in Germany seem to think that the DSGVO forbids photographers to take any photos with people in it on public ground, which just isn't true and I wanted to be prepared in case someone gives me trouble in public) and I absolutely do not understand on what ground BILD is suing Alamy. Just like in any other country, the question whether there is an infringement depends on how the image was used and as long as the image was not used in any commercial way, the usage is allowed. The problem might be that agencies do not really give a crap about how their customers use the images. I found images of mine bought from iSTock used in a way that goes against their license agreement. Wrote them multiple times and was always completely ignored. They do absolutely nothing to enforce that images are only used in a way the license agreement allows it. Someone might have bough editorial images from Alamy and used them commercially. In this case BILD might sue Alamy for not enforcing that the images were only used according to their license agreement. But I have no clue how this is supposed to be the contributors' fault and why they have to pay for Alamy's failing.
5
« on: April 21, 2024, 00:59 »
I already critisized this when it was happening, but not all that many people seemed to care? https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-bonus-payment-for-adobe-firefly-training/Mat, do I understand this correctly, that the payment is solely based on portfolio sice and sales, not on whether the images were actully used to train your AI? Because if that's the case that basically means that someone who has not done a single real photo or illustration in all his life, but has only created tons of AI content based off other people's hard work also got the "compensation". So they basically got PAID for generating AI images based off the work of people who never got paid for it.
That's a far cry from Adobe's statement that you were "developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center."
The initial bonus is based on the all-time total number of approved images you submitted to Adobe Stock and the number of licenses that those images generated in the 12-month period between June 3rd, 2022 to June 2nd, 2023. The bonus is weighted towards license.
-Mat Hayward
Yes, I can read. I understood that very well. I just wanted to clarify whether that REALLY means that you also compensated people who only submit AI images, so never had any images to offer for your training in the first place. Because that seemed insane. But apparently that's the case as you just copied the info from the mail Adobe sent out without adressing the actual issue.
Very "fair". 
So far, of all the agencies that use their database to create AI content, Adobe seems actually to be the most unethical one! No opt-out option AND giving money that was meant as compensation for having our real photos and illustrations used to train your AI to people who only use our content to generate AI images. I am sure these tons of new "contributors" that only submit AI content are overjoyed from now profitting even more from other peoples' work. But Adobe seems to care more about these pople than real photographers and illustrators anyways.
Adobe does not care whether their AI is really ethical. They just want to put that label on it to tell their customers it was ethical and safe to use. It's nothing more than a marketing stategy to make more money and nothing is ethical about it. It's like green-washing, but for AI - Ethical-washing.
6
« on: April 19, 2024, 02:29 »
Interesting. I am not seeing any of this super fast "review within a few hours" other people are talking about.
7
« on: April 19, 2024, 01:50 »
but should I be reporting this to someone just in case?
Wasn't there actually a case here recently where a contributor noticed suspicious activitis, reported it to Adobe and then got his account banned? Considering this, reporting the issue to Adobe seems like a risk.
8
« on: April 18, 2024, 04:06 »
For marketing purposes alone I can see many customers using only real photos and no ai.
If I had a food magazine, I would insist on real food and cooking only.
Medical needs theme - only real people and real situationsetc..
Doesn't really answer the question - if you cannot distinguish real photos from Ai created images, why should you inists on using real photos? Yes, AI suck at most medical content right now (though I have sold AI images of medical conditions already) and food is hit or miss, but I have sold many AI food photos as well. I even once posted a link here to a site with Asian recipes - all images were AI created. (And most looked very weird. Obviously the creator of that site did not care) But AI is only going to get better in the future. So why should someone inists of using a real photo "just for the sake of using a real photo", when there is no difference in the end result? Why use a real photo when, at some point, the people buying and reading the food magazine will not be able to tell whether real photos or AI images were used? Especially if AI images were so much cheaper and faster to create? I don't see the advantage from the publisher's point of view.
9
« on: April 18, 2024, 00:43 »
the point is that AI content,however real it may seem,simply isn't,and customers know this,so if AI content is good for their project,they download the AI content,but if they need real content,they download the real content,simply this. 
I cannot follow this reasoning. If AI content cannot be told apart from real content (In the future, though with many photos it is already hard now and some people seem to not even be able to tell the most artificial looking AI image apart from a real photo) , then why should any customer insist on using real photos? Why would anyone "need" real content if no customer can tell whether the content is "real" or "Ai created"?
10
« on: April 17, 2024, 01:22 »
So, looks like my "I am getting almost the same amount each month" spell is broken for sure - My revenue is 1/3 less now.
11
« on: April 16, 2024, 01:07 »
Adobe stock only displays 100 maximum? Why?
Probably because it is extremely unlikely that any customer will click through 100 pages when searching for an image and not just take one of the images from the 99 pages before. I doubt most customers make it past page 3... or even 1.
12
« on: April 07, 2024, 05:18 »
I got a big for bigstock adjustment Apr 5 also. I opted out as soon as I was able to last year. I checked again and they opted me back in. So much for transparency and all that. I opted back out again. I wonder how long that will last.
This made me look it up in my account, but I am still opted out. Doesn't seem to mean anything either way. Both Bigstock and Shutterstock seem to use our images for data training regardless of whether we opted in or our. 
13
« on: April 06, 2024, 01:35 »
I just noticed that on April 5th I also got a big chunk of money at once on Bigstock ("big" at least for Bigstock, where I don't really make any money worth mentioning at all ) - even though I have data training disabled there too, just like on Shutterstock.
Looks like they really don't care and will use your images for AI training either way.
14
« on: March 28, 2024, 03:10 »
Received $60.97 for the Contributor fund today.
I'm not complaining about the extra money, but my choice actually looked like this:
I didn't get anything today, but I got contributor fund money from SS in January - Even though I am also opted out of Data licensing and always have been ever since the option was available...
15
« on: March 26, 2024, 12:27 »
My guess is it will become subscription based.
While I think it's well possible that they will go that route, they would risk losing the only real advantage Affinity really has over Adobe. The only reason why I ever even looked into Affinity was that it was not subscription based.
16
« on: March 18, 2024, 16:27 »
From iStock? About $0, but I don't have an account there, so that could be it 
Ah yes and I have friends who say the same about Shutterstock.  👍 We're all our own boss and free to do as we think.
No statement for me yet.
Yes, I was surprised as it's Monday the 18th and about the right time for processing.
The statement usually comes in by the 20th. Often it's earlier, but the 20th ist the official date. I do not know where the info is from, I just remember that that's the date I have read on their website at some point. Thought it might have been their forum, but it looks like iStock followed Shutterstock's lead and took down their forum?
17
« on: March 15, 2024, 01:42 »
It has not been fixed, since if you tick "Exclude Generative AI", you still get tons of AI pictures
As said before, I think you are still confusing what this issue is about.
18
« on: March 14, 2024, 12:20 »
Just bringing this up again in case it got forgotten, as it hasn't been fixed.
19
« on: March 08, 2024, 04:16 »
Has anyone written to them and asked them to consider lowering it?
I haven't written them, but I have seen statements by them in their forum, here is a direct quote: "We cannot accommodate requests of $50 for the simple reason this would increase the payment requests volume considerably." I have no idea why in 2024 some companies still claim an online payment process cannot be automated. Of course it is possible, other agencies can do it after all, I just think they don't want to. I know of people who say they have not been able to reach minimum payout for years. And in the meantime Dreamstime gets to keep that money, can invest it and gets interests. It's probably part of the business mode.
20
« on: March 06, 2024, 07:41 »
I have my doubts that it is a good practice to upload 200 images of the same subject at all, regardless of whether you upload them at the same time or not.
21
« on: March 05, 2024, 03:06 »
It's so funny that some people here complain that AI low range things gets stuck in queue.
No one in this thread is complaining about images being stuck in queue? We are complaining about a bug, about wrong display times. The images that are shown as "submitted a year ago", were not submitted a year ago.
22
« on: March 04, 2024, 14:39 »
is it one decade ago?
This is an indicator that you uploaded a file but didn't submit it. The date reflected in the review page is based on the upload date.
-Mat
No Mat. It is also happening to me and it only started today. And I always submit my files the same day I upload them. Yesterday the files showed in my "to be reviewed" tab as submitted 2 months ago and suddenly today it says "submitted a year ago." I did not upload these files a year ago, they did not even exist a year ago. Everything that I submitted longer than 4 days ago suddenly shows as "submitted last month", even though it was between 5-21 days yesterday. Everything that was submitted more than a month ago and has not been reviewed yet is showing as "submitted a year ago".
23
« on: March 04, 2024, 08:55 »
So, it's just me? Now that's worrying me even more. I just double checked, actually everything I submitted more than 5 days ago is displayed incorrectly, with a month to a year added to the time. 
24
« on: March 04, 2024, 08:01 »
Apparently some batches get into a black hole or somethnig, and never get evaluated. If a submission is older than 2 month, you better delete and resubmit those assets. At least that's what the guys from Adobe recommend on Discord. I also had few images that were 2 months old, but I just deleted them, without resubmitting, because I didn't like them anymore
Thank you, but that wasn't what I meant. I mean, I have files I submitted 3 weeks ago, but suddenly they show as "submitted over a month ago" and files I submitted 2 months ago that show as "submitted over a year ago". The times are worng.
25
« on: March 04, 2024, 07:56 »
I am not sure where you have read "files are processed in the order they arrive" . Maybe as a statement from contributors? But certainly never anything official.
For me files were never reviewed in the order they arrived. I have images waiting to be reviewed that were submitted 2 months ago, while images that were submitted 3 weeks ago have been reviewed.
And it has always been like this for me - now with AI images flooding the queue and the insane review times it just has become more extreme and therefore more noticable.
But even before it used to be like this and single files were always sorted out - For me for example it was usually images of objects isolated on white. Even though I submitted them in a batch with images of the same category (commercial, photos), the others were always reviewed 1-2 days earlier than the ones with objects isolated on white.
My guess was always that whenever a reviewer was unsure about whether he/she should approve the image, the image would either go to a different group of (maybe more experienced?) reviewers, or it was maybe thrown back into the pot, because the reviewer simply didn't want to deal with it and then the waiting time for that image to be reviewed was reset. Not sure my explanation makes sense.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
