More or less treading water since the big drop in 2020.

Overall: $3,526, which was down 4% from 2021, but up 2.5% from 2020.  High water mark was $6,375 in 2015

IStock: $1,212, up 8% from 2021, up 44% from 2020, but still 24% below all-time high

Shutterstock: $888, down 11% from 2021 and down 11% from 2020.  Down 70% from its all-time high in 2016.  Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Alamy: $435, down 20% from 2021, down 40% from 2020, and down 65% from its all-time high in 2018

Adobe: $565.  All-time high (started in 2016).  Up 28% compared to 2021, up 70% from 2020

Dreamstime: $301, up 22% from 2021, up 88% from 2020, but 17% below all-time high.

The only "good news" is that things haven't significantly dropped since the "big drop in 2020". I am seeing similar trends.

Quote from: Reimar on January 10, 2023, 09:45

My PS free subscription runs out Feb 4, 2023.  I have the blue banner, but clicking there indicates I have already redeemed my free code.
Will the subscription renew automatically, or will I have to do something closer to February?

The subscription will renew automatically, you will just have to pay for it.

Is this new information? I thought we were waiting for an official response from Matt?

I think to do it right for the customer you need to offer the png with the option as jpg on white background the way adobe does it and also have an easy search tool for transparency.

I am sure when the Adobe collection is successful and large enough, other agencies will offer it as well.

But how many of my png sales at the moment are actually png and not simply objects or people on white?

Not sure how many customers really want the png.

I would guess that for isolated objects, a customer would be more confident (with the isolation) when purchasing a png vs. a jpg. "isolated on white".

Quote from: wds on December 23, 2022, 18:54

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 23, 2022, 04:33

Quote from: wds on December 22, 2022, 13:16

What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.

Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?

No images were "purchased".  Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content.  So yes, more than one "asset".

Well one or more of our images were payed for and used for a purpose, I don't see the difference between an image being purchased to use in an ad, an article, or to train some AI....in other words they should still tell us which images were used regardless of purpose....not that it makes any difference in the end.

What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Yea....and why don't they show us which assets are being used?...don't like that at all.

I guess maybe it's only Adobe that plans to ask for the contributors permission to participate.
It would be nice if they at least showed you which of your assets was used. It seems not to be the case.

What is the "Contributor Fund" column in the Shutterstock "Earnings Summary"?

Hi again, moments ago, a blog article was published with more detailed information on this important announcement. You can read it here: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2022/12/05/amplifying-human-creativity-adobe-stock-welcomes-content-using-generative-ai
 
Let me know if you have any questions.

-Mat Hayward

Mat, link doesn't seem to work?

Sounds interesting. I'll have to catch it in "reruns"!

I thought you could apply and they�d judge you on your submitted work, but I may be wrong.

It certainly used to be that way, but I haven't kept track for quite a while now. I have no idea of how many exclusives they have and if that is a growing number or a shrinking number.

Justanotherphotographer, on adobe normal prices for videos. The income of the author from the sale of videos is very often more than on shutterstock. Adobe is the only stock that still pays authors well. Therefore, the arrival of a buyer from any stock agency in my adobe portfolio will only increase my income. And it's strange that you don't understand elementary mathematics.
 But for me, this is not even the main thing, I believe that the more videos they buy from me, the higher the rating of my portfolio will be, and the more income. The question of price has never been the main one for me, I have always believed that the lower the prices, the more sales and the more income. And as time has shown, it is. You are a dinosaur who thinks in ideas that are long dead.

Not sure I follow your logic regarding prices. Yes, lower prices lead to more sales. The problem is if the price was zero, there would be no income. So logically, there must be a curve that would perhaps show that lowering prices could lead to more sales and income, but at some point when the prices become too low, the contributors income will trend toward zero. I think that many contributors experience shows that we are in the down part of that curve.