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 - spike

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26
51
It would be interesting to see which categories are the worst sellers.
It certainly would and it will be a topic of a future blogpost / research at some point. Stay tuned!
but is the category poor because it has low interest from buyers? or because it's oversaturated with images? or because of quality? etc...

I would say it doesn't matter if it's low interest from buyers or oversaturation of images. How would that change anything actionable?

As for quality - I think it's fair assume that the quality of the contributor's assets is equal across topics. If they're good at nature photography, they're also probably good at other types. It's an assumption, but I'd be ok with it, as talent usually affects multiple clusters. Remember the "nerds" from school, they rarely did well in just one subject, they got As in almost all subjects. I'd say it's similar with contributors.

52

Thank you for your feedback. I updated the blogpost with portfolio composition information and indeed, it helps a lot!

P.S. I saw your original message and I don't know why this blogpost made you so allienated.

Appreciate the update. I still feel it could be improved by including the assets from Shutterstock portfolio that had not sold even once. The blog post says "On Shutterstock Steve has a bit more than 10,000 images that were sold at least once out of 15,000 total." - in other words, that means one third of the portfolio never sold! It would be interesting to see which categories are the worst sellers.

Furthermore, after adding in the asset #, it would be useful to know the ratio between the earnings and the # of assets. Then it's more clear that transportation-themed photos overperform parks/nature.

I apologize for the harsh words in the original message. It was due to my perception of analysis quality and has nothing to do with you personally.

53
Usable or not, contributors were told that when Firefly was out of beta there would be a compensation model for us - I haven't heard anything from Adobe Stock about compensation for data training

Yet people are still using it for commercial purposes. Nice to see that the contributors don't care.

54
Spike, I agree that the distribution of images would be a big help, but theres no need to be quite that forceful about it. We all tend to get super defensive if someone comes down on us.

You're right. I've made it more polite.

55
To be honest, I think there might be some room for improvement in this area. Im not sure if Im understanding the distribution of images in Steves portfolio correctly. If his portfolio is over 15k images, and 15% of earnings come from the transportation category, would it be possible to share what percentage of images from his portfolio are transportation-themed? It matters if it's 90% of his images are transportation-based and account for 15% of his earnings, or if 5% of his images are transportation-based and account for 15% of his earnings. That would help us understand the situation better. Without knowing the number of assets per category in his portfolio, its difficult to draw any conclusions.

56
He uploaded a lot more files, didnt he? 2000? I have 630.

Plus a lot of my content is seasonal, for christmas and now starting with easter, so the sales will come later. But for a good harvest you have to upload at least 6 months in advance.

And with the Adobe delay, maybe 9 months early. Henceeaster now, not October.

Everyone who is using midjourney doesnt have my cost basis.

I am not recommending to do it my way.

But I am not planning to use midjourney and I will not upload too many files in one go.

I am building my port very slowly with intention.

But for sales it is exactly like I said. Upload needed content, you get sales.

Upload stuff just for fun, no sales.

Dont worry, I will get my money back.

eta

unless you pay for the private room everything on midjourney is public. And we have an army of aggressive copycats on our heels.

and with ai files you will not be able to file a dmca takedown complaint. copycats are free to upload the exact same image, or with subtle variation without any consequences.

Everyone has to make their own decisions how to deal with that.

I have several thousand files good enough for processing and uploading. But I never upload a complete series in one go.

Not with photos or video or ai.

I would rather have a small port that is efficient.

But that is a personal choice.

If I'm looking at the correct portfolio, you have a lot of fantastical landscapes, steampunk, watercolor genAI stuff etc.

I get it, you're targeting a niche, but it may not be the most cost-effective use of your time.

I'm using SDXL on ComfyUI (previously SD 1.5 with various models), and spent $0 on producing any genAI images. Just electricity costs (25c per day) and some time to render them (I queue them overnight and wake up to 200 4k images to go through and select the best).

I have a lot of experience in automating workflows and finally found what works for me, so I'm experimenting with this. It's working well so far and I will continue.

Like with everything in life - the harder it is to make, the more value it has. Everyone can create images with midjourney. They all look the same and discord seems harder to automate. I haven't tried, so that's an assumption. Anyway, I would recommend to everyone to start producing genAI images that others can't easily replicate with midjourney. The more technical knowledge is needed (custom LORAs, nodes, prompting techniques), less people will be able to create it. I'm not concerned with sharing this information because I know how hard it is to make content like that, and 0.1% of people have the technical know-how of to do it. So even if I wrote it down step-by-step, most people wouldn't do it. To cut it short - yes, great to have a niche, but it has to be difficult to recreate and there has to be ample demand for it.

57
Just two weeks after crossing the 13 million mark, the genAI collection is now over 14 million - 14,062,823

Yup, it seems that there's over 100k approved images that are AI-gen per day. That's.. a lot.

58
I found a great example of what I'm talking about.

Check this out:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cu7GlhAt0t3/

a reel showing how the graphic was created (generative fill)

https://shorturl.at/absuH

The product, on a shirt, for sale.

So the guy publicly shows that he's using generative fill to create the graphic, and then sells it, despite adobe saying that's not allowed. And will Adobe react? Yeah, sure.

Instead of figuring out who to contact and lobby, just petition adobe to remove generative fill beta until we have been compensated. This is theft.

59
Obviously I would appreciate if Adobe puts out a statement that we get paid for the beta phase. Could also be a lump sum for data licensing of the entire port etc

This completely backwards in the business sense.

Essentially, you're hoping that Adobe pays you for the beta phase. And if they don't, what are you going to do? Nothing.

It's a misstep on their part - we should have been compensated first, then then can do all their stuff with the generative fill in beta etc. Because, as it stands, people are using the product for commercial purposes, Adobe's legally clear, and we won't see a penny out of it. If that's ok with you, fine, but it's not ok for me.

60
Maybe Adobe could put out a statement that they are obviously tracking all data used during beta and will add compensation when everything goes live?

I don't know if I'm old and cynical, or if you're just an optimistic person.

After over almost 15 years in the stock industry, I can say I sincerely doubt that we will be compensated for firefly usage during the "non-commercial" beta phase.

I have a feeling that generative fill usage will be tracked in such a manner only after beta; creative cloud subscribers will likely get a certain number of "credits" to do a number of "free" generations, and all the other generations will be paid with extra credits. And we, the contributors, will get a percentage out of that.

Any percentage of 0$ (which is how much they charge generative fill at this stage) is also 0. So we'll get nothing in all likelihood. Therefore, I still think it's in our best interest to petition Adobe to remove generative fill until compensation has been resolved.

61
I've come across multiple videos on youtube, instagram and tiktok of people using Photoshop's generative fill to create content and then make merch with that content and sell it. This is clearly against Adobe's guidelines for generative fill, which are outlined here: https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

Quote
4. No Commercial Use
While generative AI features are in beta, all generated output is for personal use only and cannot be used commercially.

Yet, people are still doing it. I feel like Adobe has covered themselves - they clearly state what is permitted and what is not - so is it up to us, the contributors, to find all content that has been created with the help of generative fill, and then sue? That seems impossible. So people just use the firefly model, the model built on our high quality stock imagery, and we are not compensated for it. This is clearly unfair.

My suggestion would be for Adobe to remove the generative fill from beta in Photoshop, since people are clearly misusing it, and there is no reasonable way to determine if someone has used generative fill or not. They can re-enable generative fill once we, the artists, are fairly compensated for training their underlying model, and commercial use can be allowed. This situation where Adobe is just like "yeah plz don't use for commercial use" but with no way to control for that, it's just not cutting it, to put it bluntly.

I suggest to organize and petition Adobe to remove generative fill from Photoshop beta until we are compensated, since our work is exploited by others who are in breach of Adobe's guidelines for non-commercial use. There is no reasonable way for us, the contributors, to know if any piece of content has been created with the help of generative fill or not, so this is something that is in Adobe's domain.

62
These are 100% AI-generated. Stable diffusion + deforum, most likely.

63
Great that it's back, but I really dislike the new "active contributor" criteria - it was 2 assets per year for the longest time, and we weren't given ANY notice that there would be a change. So in 2022, I just uploaded the bare minimum - exactly 2 images.

My account has way over 6000 cumulative downloads per year, yet I don't qualify because I didn't upload more than 20 images.

And just this year I was planning to start uploading a lot of generative AI stuff, but now I don't have the tools to edit them properly. And I refuse to subscribe, deliberately, out of principle, as people who have way less downloads per year than me got the complimentary subscription just based on the fact they were more active. So that's a boo for Adobe in my book.

If we were informed during 2022 that 20 assets would be the new requirement, I would have uploaded 20. But by not informing us and then pulling this off, I'd rather pay a one-time fee for Affinity photo, or just learn to use GIMP.

64
Alamy.com / Re: W9 forms for Alamy
« on: January 02, 2023, 12:54 »
I am trying to find how to fill out W9 form for Alamy. Cannot find it anywhere in the Account Settings. Is it because they are British agency and do not need it? Do they send 1099-MISC to US contributors?

I never got one from them.  I just report the income as other income, along with the other few sites that don't send 1099.

Is this still up-to-date data?

I can't find a way to get a W9 from Alamy so I'm wondering how to report that income.

65
...sorry, but authors do not nominate the files by themselves, Adobe does... we just approve or disapprove... My problem is I can't remove any files from this eligible free collection... Last year it was possible, now not!!! :)

They tell us which files are eligible for us to nominate them. We nominate from that selection and then they approve our nominated files or not.


"Eligible for free" only means that you may (or may not) nominate those files. If you don't nominate them, they remain "eligible", but they are not considered by Adobe.

66
Hi Mat!!!

Just a few comments:

1) I still haven't received a confirmation email for free collection nominees, although, in my portfolio, I see a huge number of files eligible for the free collection;

Same.

With the addition that I nominated the files, but so far none seem to be selected, in stark difference to the year before. Also no confirmation email. Hm.

67
it's not up to AS to do your taxes

Nobody said it's up to AS to do my taxes. But it is up to AS to inform the contributors if the licenses will be counted as US source income or not.
AS doesnt know your situation, so it's your duty, not theirs

Lol.

No, it's their duty to tell me if a certain license is U.S. source income or not.

That's not something that I can find out on my own.

68
it's not up to AS to do your taxes

Nobody said it's up to AS to do my taxes. But it is up to AS to inform the contributors if the licenses will be counted as US source income or not.

69
no one pays 30% in the US

I love people who are so confident and so wrong at the same time

I'm a nonresident alien living in the USA and I definitely pay 30% withholding. Also, because there is no tax treaty between my home country and the US, I also need to pay taxes in my home country.

So, in total, it's more than 30%, and closer to 50%

But that's besides the point. You said that no one pays 30% in the US, and that's just wrong. You're welcome.

70
Yes, this is taxable income just like any other payment into your contributor account. The actual rate you pay depends on your individual situation.

-Mat

Thank you, this makes it much less appealing.

Personally, 30% less for me (3.5$ per image) means that I won't be utilizing this opportunity.

I think that Adobe could have made it more clear in the description of the program. Not a lot of contributors will go to an obscure forum and read 10 pages of a thread to find that info. Not a good move.

71
Sorry if this has been answered, couldn't find the info.

Is the 5$ payment subject to withholding tax or not?

That's a difference between 5$ and 3.5$ per asset (assuming 30% rate), which is quite substantial.

Please share info before nomination deadline

72
Not asking for tax advice, just to share experiences.

For example, since J-1 is a non-immigrant visa, I still believe we are legally treated as US residents for tax purposes (resident alien), but I'm not sure if stock agencies will continue to keep withholding 30% of our sales, and if we need to fill the W-9 or the W-8BEN?

Has anyone been in such a situation?

(of course I'll talk to a tax professional when I finally move)

73
Newbie Discussion / Re: Tax Questions (US)
« on: October 06, 2020, 05:03 »
No.  Youre actively doing it, so its still a business.

What if one were to completely disengage and not do it actively at all (in fact, I think my contract may prohibit it)? Still Sch C in your opinion?

74
General Stock Discussion / Re: Moving to the U.S.; tax questions
« on: September 21, 2020, 12:41 »
For example, I found this online calculator: https://www.calcxml.com/do/self-employment-tax-calculator

If I earn $50k from my day job and another $50k from royalties, it spits out that I'd pay $7,065 in taxes (on self-employment income).

That's around 14%, which is pretty good. I find anything below 20% to be good. I'm just wondering if that's relatively accurate or is the tax rate dramatically different. Like, is it 5% or 35%. Of course I'll get more details from my accountant when I move, I'm just doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation here

EDIT: This calculator also spits out 14.13%: https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-calculator
I entered the amount in Self-Employment: (self-employed and Schedule K-1 Income)

I'm just asking people who live in the US is that relatively accurate, as these online calculators can be wildly inaccurate.

75
General Stock Discussion / Re: Moving to the U.S.; tax questions
« on: September 21, 2020, 12:35 »
suggest you email a us Tax attorney . Not a Microstock forum.

The second sentence in my post was: "I will talk to a tax specialist there as well of course, but I thought to prepare as much as I can before I depart."

I'm just looking for a rough estimate and if there are online tax calculators, just to have a rough idea of what I will keep.

I don't think I will be able to claim any expenses related to microstock, as I won't be producing any stock while working in the US.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors