Are you sure it doesn't say 'Discoverer'?

You probably did not know, but adobe takes into its free collection only the video that has not been sold even once in the last year.

While they did say that, I had videos eligible for nomination that had 0, 1 and 2 sales.

This marketing stunt greatly offended the authors who agreed to participate.

Could you share the data from the surveys, forum postings, focus groups and/or meetings you've held for you to arrive at this conclusion?

Adobe basically said, and i'm paraphrasing but still, "we're looking for videos for our free collection. We've highlighted which ones are eligible for the collection in your dashboard. Take a look, decide which ones you'd like to nominate, and then we'll decide which videos we'd like to include from all the nominated files".

Anything over and above that is your own interpretation... so you only have yourself to blame. You basically deceived yourself... and that's not correct behaviour.

Yeah, earnings per month, per image/video would be a good one. Just how much you earn can be skewed considerably by how long people have been doing it, whether they're full time, part time, how big a portfolio they have etc etc.

Nice! Not quite as impressive as yours, but the occasional decent sales still keep rolling in to help counter the $0.25 ones!

42,500th... beat that!

Quote from: Artist on November 14, 2022, 04:45

Quote from: stoker2014 on November 14, 2022, 04:15

Quote from: ADH on November 13, 2022, 16:32

AI is also bad news for agencies, eventually stock image users will be able to download cheap versions of AI software and get the images they want without paying subscriptions. In the medium term, AI will not only kill the contributors but also the agencies

It will not kill and will not even create competition. I dealt with one program that converts HD to 4k and removes any noise from the video, but it needs a very powerful PC to work, and even on a powerful PC it takes a lot of time. As a result, the cost of a PC and electricity will block the profit.

One can easily rent a cloud GPU at very cheap price.

ok, when you rent it and create something there, tell me.
 

He doesn't need to rent one and create something with it, as the majority of these AI image generators are all cloud based... so it doesn't matter what setup the end user has. If you'd looked into it and done even the slightest bit of research, rather than basing your opinion on incorrect information that you just made up (like you usually do), then you'd know that.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on November 10, 2022, 12:32

These are all from Blackbox, but as SS is the only place that does licenses that high, then they may as well be screenshots of SS earnings... but just 15% higher. Will that do you?

No. This is a juggling of some facts. Such licenses are on the Getty for example. And most likely it was sold to the Getty or Alami.
I have to add you to ignore, because. you write flood, troll and write lies.

Try again� Blackbox don�t submit to Getty or Alamy!

These are all from Blackbox, but as SS is the only place that does licenses that high, then they may as well be screenshots of SS earnings... but just 15% higher. Will that do you? Now, if you could just provide proof that SS gave you sales due to you emailing them, that everybody you've spoken to has experienced a massive drop in earnings, that SS are stealing etc etc... to demonstrate you're not a liar... that would be much appreciated.

I can give more than one, and more than one is all that is required to illustrate that such commissions on the SS are not new. You can count and you can write, that's not in question... what you seem to have issue with is interpreting what you read and what you have experienced. While there's nothing wrong with that per se... when people explain it to you you choose to ignore them, assume they're making stuff up, or decide that multiple instances of things happening to several contributors, is somehow less important than what's happening to you, an individual.

I can prove my words. I have correspondence, there are dates, there are sales statistics on SS. Naturally, I will not attach screenshots, because i am not in court and my privacy is also important to me.

Yeah, I told you I believed you, so don't worry about it!

But my conclusions about not correctly or manually working algorithms, as well as about theft, remain with me.

Yeah, but you have no way to prove your conclusions so they're just opinions. And it's not even like one of those things where everyone strongly believes something but they can't prove it (Like Zuckerberg being an alien or a robot)... it's just you that strongly believes it and can't prove it, and there's not really anything to give anyone the impression that it might even be happening.   

And if the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased, then the SS is stealing money.

Did you miss the whole royalty rate reduction and subsequent reset in January every year?! That's basically the very definition of 'the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased'. I mean, I guess that feels a bit like theft, but it's their website and they can do what they want unfortunately.