This morning, I discovered that my P5 port has been reduced to one video. I have no idea what has happened to all of my other videos. I have logged into my account on two different computers (not at the same time) and tried different browsers. The results are the same - only one video remaining. I have contacted support.

Not sure if anyone else is experiencing this issue on P5. At first, I tried to make some changes to my keywords for one of my videos on P5 on the laptop. But nothing happens when I click Save. I tried a few times but no luck.

I then tried to do the same thing on my pc and that did work. Then I tried to add some more keywords to another video (on my pc) and I'm having no success. No matter how many times I click Save, nothing happens. Seems like I can't make changes to the metadata anymore on P5.

I cleared my browsing data in google chrome but that makes no difference.

https://auth.services.adobe.com/en_US/index.html?callback=https%3A%2F%2Fims-na1.adobelogin.com%2Fims%2Fadobeid%2FAdobeStockContributor1%2FAdobeID%2Fcode%3Fredirect_uri%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fcontributor.stock.adobe.com%26code_challenge_method%3Dplain%26use_ms_for_expiry%3Dtrue&client_id=AdobeStockContributor1&scope=AdobeID%2Copenid%2Ccreative_cloud%2Ccreative_sdk%2Ccc_private%2Cgnav%2Csao.stock%2Cadditional_info.address.mail_to%2Cread_organizations%2Cread_pc.stock%2Csao.cce_private%2Cpps.read%2Cportfolio.sdk.import&relay=0786684e-f783-4ae4-842b-ae105748ec22&locale=en_US&flow_type=code&ctx_id=contributor_login&idp_flow_type=login&s_p=facebook%2Cgoogle&response_type=code&code_challenge_method=plain&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fcontributor.stock.adobe.com&use_ms_for_expiry=true#/progressive-profile/terms-of-use/

I thought this was interesting: "You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work....."

In particular the words "fully paid." I'm hoping that doesn't mean we have to now pay Adobe when submitting stock content! Or perhaps it's referring to the commissions they receive from sales of our work.

And this bit is interesting too. "For Work designated "editorial use only," you represent and warrant that: (1) the Work truthfully depicts the subject; (2) all corresponding keywords, descriptions, credits, and captions are accurate and are neither deceptive nor misleading; and (3) the Work has not been modified in a way that alters its editorial context or integrity.You agree that we may apply the designation of a Work as "editorial use only" where deemed appropriate by us."

I guess this means we can't clone out people (and perhaps other objects too) in illustrative editorial images.

I thought this was a little odd: "By continuing to submit or upload Works or by NOT removing Works, you are agreeing to any new Pricing and Payment Details as revised from time to time."

Though what if you do remove works? Would that indicate that you're not agreeing to new Pricing and Payment Details?

Ive just stumbled across a stock agency that I'm not familiar with - Agefotostock. I wonder what kind of reputation they have. It looks like they sell both commercial and editorial photos. And videos as well. They say they are based in Spain and have offices in New York and Paris.

I know that AS has a very strict policy on similars. I seem to recall that a change of angle is usually not acceptable when submitting more than one photo of the same subject. Though what if I changed the distance? For example, with a small subject, I stood further back for the first photo and then moved 1 - 3 feet closer for a second photo. Would this be acceptable?

I'm considering joining DepositPhotos for a little extra cash. So far, Ive mainly contributed to the big agencies like SS, IS and AS. I'm not expecting huge sales from DP (seeing as they're a small agency) but a few extra dollars would be nice.

Out curiosity, is it straight forward to remove or disable individual photos from your port at any time? And would those same images then be removed from the partner sites?

Also, is editing metadata after submission straight forward as well?

Just now, I did a search for one of my photos on iStock. The image happens to be a landscape photograph that is dominated by a large tree. I then checked the keywords and I was really surprised to find the word 'animal' there. A word that I did not add. And it is totally irrelevant. There are no animals in the photo. Ridiculous.

How often does this happen at iStock? It would be a huge hassle going through most or all of your photos to see if this issue is widespread. And extremely time consuming because you would have to search for each photo like a buyer in order to see the keywords. When I view my port (as a single collection) the keywords are not visible.

I recall reading that as contributors, we can get punished with the use of irrelevant keywords. Something about photos appearing in lower search positions when they're passed over by frustrated buyers. I'm not sure how much truth there is to that.

At iStock, it looks like you can get punished through no fault of your own if they decide to add silly keywords to your photos. And you may not even notice.

Is anyone else having trouble with Deepmeta at the moment? It can't look up certain keywords because of a server issue so I can't add them to the metadata of the submitted images. I'm trying to upload 17 photos in this current batch. I started the upload process last night and it's still running this morning. Says there are still 17 photos in the queue. Looks like it's making no progress at all.

I want to disable two images in my DT port. So last night, I clicked the trash icon for each of the files but they were still visible afterwards. I refreshed my port page many times but the two images were still there.

And now, the following day, they are still there (many hours later.) How long would it take for these two photos to disappear from my port?

I have an aerial image of a town shot with a wide angle lens. And in this photograph, there are several parked cars but they are very distant and impossible to read the license plate numbers. It is possible that a car expert may be able to identify some of the brands or models of the cars without zooming in though some people may struggle to do this. Would such an image be suitable for commercial usage in Adobe Stock?

There is also a brand name visible on a supermarket in the photo but it is barely visible due to the distance. I'm planning to clone the brand name out but that is probably overkill. You would be able to identify the brand name if you zoomed in to the photo.

I know in the past, stock agencies would normally accept photographs of cities etc for commercial usage if it was a wide shot (showing a city skyline etc and everything is distant.) However, these current warnings about logos etc on the AS submit page has made me extra cautious and I don't want to take any chances.

I could also add that there are some old historical B&W photographs displayed on the wall of the supermarket that are possibly in the public domain. Though once again, they are extremely distant and hard to identify as photographs. Though a local would probably be able to recognise them as photographs.

Just wondering if it's possible to use Davinci Resolve for compiling a time video from a sequence of digital stills? And if that's the case, does Resolve accept Tiff files?

Ive compiled a time lapse video from a sequence of digital stills. I'm going to create a 4096 x 2304 video at 24fps with the h264 codec. Just wondering what bitrate would people recommend for stock?

With the 3840 x 2160 videos from my Panasonic G7, the bitrate is usually around 93000 kbps or thereabouts. So I'd imagine the bitrate for a 4096 x 2304 video would be a bit higher.

Ive just submitted some HD video files to SS via Stocksubmitter. According to Stocksubmitter, they were submitted earlier this evening. Though when I got to the SS site, there are 0 files pending review. And 0 files to submit and no files have been recently reviewed. Is this a bug?

SS did have an issue like this in the past where files pending review would not be visible.