|
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 - Uncle Pete
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 179
102
« on: February 25, 2024, 12:46 »
./..
SS has diversified into other areas. They don't rely on just Microstock for earnings and income. Some day, the whole Microstock division could go away, and it wouldn't matter to the overall profits of the corporation. They won't care about our earnings or what we do as artists.
I know people here care and we're at the mercy of the agencies, but if the customers go to Adobe, and SS has much more profitable business gains in AI, news, or whatever else they own and do, they won't care about a division that's losing money. If it's too expensive to operate and unprofitable, they could shut down stock photos, as a cost cutting, expense reduction, initiative. ...
too many of the anti-SS crowd are quick to take recent numbers totally out of context w/o bothering to do their research
and declaring SS dead -- look at the actual numbers, after a surge during the covid era (during which they were also declaring SS dead) its performance has reverted to the mean and their actual change over 5 years has been -2% - not a great investment stock, but also not a disastrous decline
by comparison tho, Adobe had a similar burst during covid, similar decline but then has returned to its earlier high. Getty had 20% drop in 2022 and remained flat since.
It's hard to draw conculsions since Adobe is not just a microstock agency, but SS can declare "I'm not dead yet!"
Shutterstock is not just a Microstock agency. They have greatly diversified into other areas. I wasn't referring to their investment stock, that's a different area. I'm looking at Stock Photos and Microstock, which for contributors has lost, and for SS their income from the same has dropped. Shutterstock, the Microstock division, (the part we care about) is dying. The corporation and investment stock is doing fine.
103
« on: February 25, 2024, 12:39 »
From what I understand we always get paid normally if content is bought via free trials.
Which is where the abuse part comes in, some people do make their friends sign up for free trials and buy content. Some criminal gangs might even have a large networks organised this way and make thousands of dollars before Adobe finds them.
Then they steal or create new identities and start again.
Especially in countries where 3000 dollars is worth like 30 000 elsewhere, it is extremely profitable to steal via agencies with endless fake profiles.
In addition they sell their free downloads to other users who can buy much cheaper from then than from Adobe directly.
The problem is real.
But producers should be protected from criminals. There is no way you can protect yourself from abusive downloads.
Why would these gangs or groups target zi_fi, or anyone else not associated, for downloads then, if they have no financial gain in doing that? I suppose there could be some kind of personal attack or revenge motive to pick someone out to harm their income?
104
« on: February 25, 2024, 12:21 »
Yes.But some here think that making stock photography is making snapshots.
It's not? However, the concern for longer term remains as people start to generate their own AI stock images for their use rather than buying what we generated. Shutterstock is going the different rout letting customers generate by themselves, but not accepting any AI images from contributors thus keeping 100% sales to themselves. Eventually, they won't need us uploading photos/videos. We are being replaced.
I think you're right, we are being replaced, mostly, except for some people needing images, who won't want to learn how to make their own. There's still room for creative work and making things, ready to download, for stock artists to create with personal skills and understanding that AI just doesn't have. There's still space for real and editorial, that AI can't make. But for simple stock images, illustrative, icons, decorations, accessory images, AI will cut into artists earnings. Agencies will love to cut us out as we are an expense.
105
« on: February 24, 2024, 13:43 »
If this is the new normal for Shutterstock (and I really hope it isn't) then this imho is a collapse of the agency in terms of its revenues from image and video sales. I'm astounded at the depth and velocity of its fall but maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. It's predictable.
- First, you slash contributor earnings for a quick profit boost
- You fully decentivize your main contributor base
- Your bulk of quality contributors stop uploading - and instead upload their fresh quality content to other agencies (your competition) that treat their contributors with more respect
- A large segment of your customer buyers and subscribers just naturally follow the better, fresh, quality content where contributors are uploading
- Your sales, revenues and profits drop.
If this trend continues then I suspect the next quarterly report will show the depth of the damage done from this fallout with contributor and customer alike. Shutterstock actually has itself in a bind now. Won't be able to take another razor to contributor earnings again as this will just make the problem much more worse than it already is. Instead will need to find new markets and customers and might like to consider restoring some incentives to contributors given the lack of volume and quality of new uploads.
While I agree with what you wrote, there's a point that many people here are missing. SS has diversified into other areas. They don't rely on just Microstock for earnings and income. Some day, the whole Microstock division could go away, and it wouldn't matter to the overall profits of the corporation. They won't care about our earnings or what we do as artists. I know people here care and we're at the mercy of the agencies, but if the customers go to Adobe, and SS has much more profitable business gains in AI, news, or whatever else they own and do, they won't care about a division that's losing money. If it's too expensive to operate and unprofitable, they could shut down stock photos, as a cost cutting, expense reduction, initiative. We shouldn't assume that there will always be a Shutterstock, as we know it, or as it was founded. The whole idea of Microstock could be dead in five years, except for some bottom feeders and the last successful agencies. Adobe has the CC to support this area. Getty is a stock photo agency and that's their market. SS? They could go into other new areas, and drop stock photos as their main interest. Maybe they already have?
106
« on: February 24, 2024, 13:28 »
So there is roughly only 4000 accounts that have more weekly downloads than us?
Where is @WILM he understands this and was tracking the rank, long ago. In 2020 an analysis showed that over 60% of all active portfolios had ten or fewer images. Based on that, I'm already well above the 50% mark.  Predicted Lifetime Downloads / Position Old data 2019 8,000/4,700 5,000/8,500 1,400/28,000 1,200/32,000 450 /67,000 200 /120,000 From others ranks 2022 40,000/2,230 11,660/7,440 8,030/10,000 2,000/25,000 4,000 accounts with more downloads could be they have thousands more or one more. Next week, your position will change again. And I'm not sure that the positions are by numbers. In fact, I'm fairly certain they are by a range. If someone is position 4,000 that means they could be position 4,000 to 5,000 as a group. It's not precise. Look next week, did you jump down to 6,000 with almost the same number of downloads? Or did you move up to 3,500 with a similar number as the previous week? Finding your own images, I'd say, start with trying to determine from other sites, what words were used by a buyer, that purchased a license. Then test those on Adobe. I think SS, DT and Alamy will help you with that. Then search for your own, using at least three words. No buyer with any hope or sense would use one or two words only, and I suspect most use a minimum of three words. If any site has a reasonable search, it's going to include "diversity", so if you have 50 uploads of some subject, the buyer won't see 50 of yours in a row, when they match the keywords. Whether random or based on sales or location, the best searches will show one of yours, then many others, before one of yours will show again. No buyer wants a page of the same variations of the same subject from the same artist. That's why I personally say, upload the best 4 or 5 and move on. If those start to work, add 4 or 5 more, later. True, we don't know which one is "best" and what buyers will download, but we can generally see for our self, which images are best. For my own, I often upload one and maybe two, of any concept or idea. That's it. Sending 20 or 40 of the same shot does nothing, and just in case, the buyer might see 20 of the same and tend to think "that's common" or ordinary, instead of, that's a nice unusual shot? Shotgun and hope a little pellet will fly in the right direction, and hit something, or sharpshooter with a accurate single bullet, and target the bullseye? 
107
« on: February 24, 2024, 12:48 »
a) Current "AI" systems are theft, pure & simple. (says YOU. Until the justice system, reviews and rules, that is undecided)
b) YOU & OTHER people - through ACTION decide whether or not they "get away" with stealing your assets. Stop waiting for some 3rd party (i.e., "politician") to "give you permission" one way or the other - and btw - many are paid off - so if you don't do anything - will most likely side with the corporations stealing your content and repacking it as their own.
c) The "genie" is based off of theft. Again - if you don't "do" anything except complain - probably nothing will happen. Action speaks louder than words. If you don't like it - do something about it. You can.
What action do you suggest? What's your plan?
108
« on: February 24, 2024, 12:36 »
No more pilots in this industrial machinery which only cares about the money it makes. Absolutely No value except MONEY.
What are governments doing? Who makes the LAW?
Democracy Moneycracy
Be sure pdophiles will be able to have a lot of fun with the AI, and entertain many things before taking real action. Where is the metaverse police?
what's new? - this is the way capitalism has always worked. govt is controlled by money, esp'ly since hobby lobby decision - not understanding this just shows your naivete --> in general, too many posts here show a tunnel vision that focuses on solipsistic views about stock agencies without understanding basic modern economics & policy that play out on a macro-economic scale. this is just business as usual - both factions are complicit - it's just that democrats sometimes deplore it, republicans adore it - neither side does anything to change the underlying conditions
And the Democrats just pass bills that help the stocks that they own in a legal form of insider trading. Lets not blame one party or another for what both do. And your twisted generalization of the laws, based on freedom of religion, is specific, limited to privately held corporations ONLY. I suppose the liberals just want to tell everyone else how to run their life, their business and make more restrictive laws and raise more taxes. Lets punish the rich for being successful? Meanwhile back at stock. The plan long term, is like anything else that,s new and trendy. Pay to get people into the system. Offer rewards and hope. Then cut, cut, reduce wages, lower commissions, make it harder to earn a decent wage. The stock agencies have their inventory, now they don't care about the producers any longer. AI fits right into this, eliminate the expensive part of production, the humans. Ten people working at AI can produce as many images as 100 people working with conventional tools. The ironic part is that some of us are being paid to scuttle our own ship. Data Licensing isn't worth whatever they might pay and once the AI research has the data, they don't need the same data again.
109
« on: February 23, 2024, 13:52 »
Doesn't matter how much time it saves someone *if* it turns out AI can't be copyrighted you're not stealing.
That's right. Just like Public Domain images / copyright expired / created my the US government, are free for anyone to use, without a license. Which in an odd move, Getty decided to sue people for using images that Getty claimed it had published. But you will find PD images on IS, SS, AS, and many others. Legally, anyone can download those, or "steal them" and use the images, without paying, because the images are not protected. Since people who upload AI-generated images don't own any copyright, why can these people sell these images and get royalties???
Isn't it written in the terms of use for stock sites that you must own the copyright???
And there's another good answer that's a question. How do people upload and get paid for images that they do not own the rights to, and that they didn't create. AI images, expired copyright images, or public domain images, they are all the same. Plain and simple: "You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock." (They do not take AI images, according to the guidelines, but they sell them, from their own system.) And another "Public domain images, which are not subject to copyright restrictions, are not accepted on Adobe Stock." But Adobe does take AI images. iStock does take PD and expired copyright images, (under some circumstances) but they don't take AI. None of these are the same.
110
« on: February 22, 2024, 13:01 »
"Well great big thank you, after they used everything for free."
Yes I know - although this has been raised in a US senate hearing and the fact that artists have not been asked permission to use their work or compensated. (BTW I'm from England so not familiar with US political structures).
In England copyright is classed as "fair use" and not for profit but AI is very much for profit. And if it's damaging artists income how is that "fair use".
Disclaimer I'm not a lawyer but just curios.
Thanks
Cat
Also not a lawyer but one part that is behind some of the AI claims, by their legal defense, is, the catalogs they used to train the AI was compiled by non-profits. I'm not buying that escape strategy, and I'm not sure the courts will either. But just a point, down the arguments, in the recent cases. The claim is, it's fair use and the sources are non-profits. Seems that when AI is used to make money, that would change the standing and the type of use. There are many other interesting arguments from both sides. This will not end with a simple and easy decision.
111
« on: February 22, 2024, 12:48 »
Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.
Because YOU say so.  But that's fine, we all have a right to our own opinions.
We don't have the right to make laws or insist that others accept our own personal version of reality. The world functions on systems, courts and laws.
I'm waiting for the system to investigate, debate, and come to a conclusion. Then we'll know if AI is fair use or theft.
Lol. Not sure if you are just having fun, for sake of having fun, because I am pretty sure you are smarter than that lol...
It's because it is a fact, not just because I say so - although I do happen to say so as well.
So... if you believe the court is above your own common sense - WOULD you actually let someone sleep with your wife - just anyone - if the court said it was "fair use", and accept that verdict?
Yes, I'm having fun, because you are also, and you totally ignore the justice system, in favor of your own opinion and personal definition. But lets not let that stop, open discussions. This hasn't been determined and it's not over. How did viewing an image and using the knowledge now change to sleeping with my wife, or a cat is a cat?
112
« on: February 21, 2024, 12:27 »
I have opted out months ago. I don't know if that has an influence concerning downloads and performance.
Why would opting out of data use have any effect on downloads or anything else. That's like saying, where I park my bicycle, has an effect on how the car runs. As soon as they started putting my rejections into data, I started deleting them. This is just what others have commented on. They already used our work, and then changed to the new system, after the fact: When were datasets introduced? Shutterstock announced the launch of Shutterstock.AI and computer vision products, also known as datasets, in July 2021. At that time we posted contributor-facing information on our help center. This article is continuously updated, including new information alongside our October 2022 announcement of our AI-generated content partnership with OpenAI and November announcement of our partnership with LG. The inclusion of content from our existing library in datasets is covered under Section 1a of our Contributor Terms of Service, which grants Shutterstock the right to develop new features and products.
However, in January 2023 we added an opt out function in the contributor account settings, which allows artists to exclude their content from any future datasets if they prefer not to have their content used for training computer vision technology.
Well great big thank you, after they used everything for free.
113
« on: February 21, 2024, 12:16 »
Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.
Because YOU say so. But that's fine, we all have a right to our own opinions. We don't have the right to make laws or insist that others accept our own personal version of reality. The world functions on systems, courts and laws. I'm waiting for the system to investigate, debate, and come to a conclusion. Then we'll know if AI is fair use or theft.
114
« on: February 21, 2024, 12:06 »
Might be worth trying, many people reporting illustrations being accepted within hours.
My last Illustrative Editorial were reviewed overnight. I think they have done what so many have asked for. Send the AI along it's own track and get the other images, reviewed faster.
115
« on: February 20, 2024, 12:09 »
I can only recommend, stay away from all the sites that sell your content for pennies, or were custommers can even steal your content for free. Which pretty well eliminates every stock site, doesn't it?
And what's worse is, then artists have to contend with thieves who are competition, for those minimum pennies, with your own works.
116
« on: February 20, 2024, 12:06 »
The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft
A big thing you might remember is, that's a personal opinion, the courts and laws haven't decided that, yet.
Lol - "theft" is "theft".
If a court decided that a cat was actually a kangaroo with a mexican sombrero, would it make it so? No, of course not. It would still be a cat. (It's funny though, I suppose perhaps that's why a lot of ppl acting insane the last 4 years and did very foolish things, because they actually believed a 'court' had 'authority' over their own common sense/own two eyes/etc). Kind of like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes". Most people were "afraid" to state the obvious (i.e., never was a 'virus', wearing a "mask" was pretty dumb/foolish to suffocate yourself, which lol 'caused' 'respiratory issues', etc, etc).
It really doesn't matter what the "courts" say - a cat is still a cat. And regardless of what the "courts" say - if they declare stealing to be okay - it is still stealing. (& the "courts" are heavily influenced/owned by the corporations $$$, and the corporations heavily influenced by the people that pull the strings of those corporations).
Perhaps though - that is what a "kangaroo" court is. When people act extremely dumb like they did, and it takes a child to say 'Hey! The emperor has no clothes!".
While your argument is entertaining, and reality is, a cat is a cat, legal and illegal is not a physical object or scintific definition. You can't compare a concept to a doorknob and say, the same rules apply to both. Besides, against your cut and dried, everything is only what it is, and theft is theft because "I say so." The laws are different from place to place, country to country, and in fact, locally, state to state. Laws don't argue that a cat isn't a cat. What is allowed in the next state from here, all four directions, will get you some jail, possibly, we can't legally posses or burn, some specific natural herbs.  Legally, until the courts have decided that AI is fair use or theft, I think it's not reasonable to start and argument with a false premise or statemnt of fact, that is not true. AI fair use, is not theft.
The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft
Nope. But the rest you are right. I'm not impressed by some moving images tricks. Not yet. I'm not sold on the still images, that are distorted monsters much of the time, improbable and impossible physical objects. But they are fun for making the impossible into an image. Let the courts decide the laws.
117
« on: February 20, 2024, 11:51 »
Interesting article co-written by a journalist and a law professor about where the fair use argument has succeeded - and failed - in prior cases. The key issue, IMO, is that things that might be fair use by an individual for personal use, or researchers for academic use are not so if done by a for-profit company for commercial use.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/why-the-new-york-times-might-win-its-copyright-lawsuit-against-openai/
After a discussion of why Google won its case about building a search engine for books, including that it was built to be unable to produce no more than snippets, the article says:
"Ultimately, the fate of these companies may depend on whether judges feel that the companies have made a good-faith effort to color inside the lines. If generative models never regurgitated copyrighted material, then defendants would have a compelling argument that it is transformative. The fact that the models occasionally produce near-perfect copies of other peoples creative work makes the case more complicated and could lead judges to view these companies more skeptically."
The above is about Text and writing, not photos. If the AI for images, starts popping out "near-perfect copies of other peoples creative work" then there would be some complications. That has been the defense, so far, for art, that the new images are not one to one traceable back to any other work. I think the artists have a point when AI is using their style, and maybe allowing the association with their name. In a similar way, how can AI use the likeness of famous people, in creations, that look in many ways, much like those famous people. That shouldn't be allowed.  Specific person arguments aside, how is this allowed? (and I don't mean the horse with ahead coming out of it's behind, or the others with 5/6 legs)  
118
« on: February 19, 2024, 13:59 »
you can try every genre but still be very selective. especially if you have many agencies to work with.
the 25 image limit will be lifted, it is not a permanenet thing.
the 25 limit meant to expire in March, and I've asked for increase and they have extended till end of the year. No point been there. I've read some other comment on here with other contributor leaving them too.
The iStock upload limit is the same for everyone, or was years ago:
Bronze (500+ DLs): 25
Silver (2,500+ DLs): 30
Gold (10,000+ DLs): 35
Diamond (25,000+ DLs): 50
Where can you see your own status, Pete? I didn't even know that it existed or exists there.
That could be history. Back years ago, when they were overloaded with new images, IS came up with the upload limits and all that levels, seems to be old, before the ESP version. Plus, for non-exclusive, levels don't matter? I can add that when they brought in ESP, our history vanished as well, except for a summary, that doesn't go back to the start. We might not have levels and uploads could be open again, unless someone starts to spam images, in which case, they will get restricted and watched. https://microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-upload-limit/
119
« on: February 18, 2024, 15:10 »
It's all speculation until it's proven of course. One of the reasons I'm (slightly) leaning towards believing the accusation is, I see about 150 downloads every month and that number hasn't gone up or gone down for over two years now. My port has grown by over 50 percent during the period. I find that sort of consistency a little difficult to believe unless there's some algorithmic/human control over how shutterstock distributes sales.
Of course, these are serious accusations and would need more than mere personal/anecdotal evidence to prove. But judging by how normalized sales on my port have been and how long I've been thinking about how it, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusations were indeed proven to be true.
Why haven't my sales stayed the same? I've been doing this since 2008. I added files last year. I'm making now, in three months, what I used to make in 1 month. Maybe less. How come only some people are normalized? "It's all speculation until it's proven of course." That would be something to help us all decide. Cooking the books is something entirely different than pocketing money from stock sales. Enron used shady constructions with hundreds of daughter companies to pull up a smoke curtain. But anyone who carries out a properly conducted test purchase can check if SS actually steals sales. It would lead to million-dollar court claims if this was found to be true. No giant company would be THAT stupid.
Well aside from the stupid or not part, because we've seen people like Holmes with Theranos technology, defraud some pretty smart investors and faked the whole company documentation on the device. Worldcom, Bernie Maddof, Tyco, frauds are not uncommon. But that has nothing to do, or associate with ShutterStock sales or commissions. Not the same at all. Why doesn't someone or the group of + people here and all over, that just know, without any proof, that the claims are true, get together and run a documented, independent test? The truth is out there...On the side for dessert: Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting, and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure. In other terms like the rest of us use, if there's something wrong or illegal, it's not just the top heads that will roll. The accountants, the auditors, and many others are liable. There will be some explaining to do that will be very uncomfortable, and end with jail time. And they would do all of that, and the risk, so they could steal dimes from the poor artists? Really?
120
« on: February 18, 2024, 14:49 »
Sales were lower than average in January which is expected for that time of the year. February though has been completely abysmal so far. It's like they flipped off the switch for big sales. So you're not alone
Could there be delays in reporting sales?
With a different thread I was going to mention the history, but I thought it wasn't worth the contradictions and allegations. There used to be people here who watched very carefully. They could see the differences when the businesses is time zones would close an open. Just like we do on weekends, which is days, people could see what hours, by what's on the map. Some saw it as sales blackouts and accused SS of blocking their accounts. Others saw it as the work periods when buyers would be downloading vs when business was closed. There is not supposed to be delayed reporting. The times that showed in the past, were the real times of the download, even if it took overnight for some that were stuck in batch or processing. For example, a new reported download would pop in the report, ahead of one that was already reported earlier, but it would be in the proper time sequence. I don't claim to know, as a matter of fact, but all evidence leads to the conclusion, SS reports almost all sales within 24 hours of the actual download. More like, overnight, one night. I wouldn't expect that one of us was held, or that many of us have sales that are being delayed and suddenly we'll get credit in a different month. Some months are less profitable than others. That's been the way things have worked since the start.
121
« on: February 18, 2024, 14:20 »
I had 3000 files and around 600 videos. The limit was 25 files every week. But doesn't suit my needs. In order for me to submit new files, I have to finish old ones. Just takes more time and decided to ditch IS.
So you didn't have 3,000 and 600 on IS, you had that many files to upload and be processed? We all have to decide on our own, what we want and how we want to work. I'm not saying that IS is a good place, at all. Just that, to cut yourself off, because of their reviews or limits, isn't going to make a bit of difference to them, but it could cost you money. So, who's hurt the most? I don't know about keyword and data restrictions on IS, I don't do big sets of anything, but, back to the drone footage, you should do well with that, and the stills that you saved as single frame photos. There are people who cash often on DT. I haven't in about four years. I used to make more on SS and now I'm making much more on AS, while SS deteriorates. Someone else finds that his collections on both are staying about the same. IS when it has things, can bring slow but steady returns. I don't think there are many "good" agencies anymore. Do you contribute to Alamy? First beware and be aware is, batch rejections, it's all there, but people seem to get upset when they do, what they promise to do, at Alamy. One fail all fail, all uploads, all waiting batches, everything! Start with small batches until you are sure that you won't be rejected for unsuitable camera, or something else. Otherwise you'll be angry, like the rest, who discovered, Alamy does what they say they will. One Fail ALL fail, means ALL. All means ALL. AFter that, they start everyone at Gold = 40% for the first year, and all you need to do is earn NET $250 in a year, to stay at that 40% level. I find it worth the potentially strict review policy, but self review, don't send them Crapstock or marginal images, and your golden. Also unless something changes, Alamy policy is, they do not review based on content, just quality. If the image is big enough, sharp enough fine enough and whatever else, it passes. None of that, not suitable for stock stuff. I don't know their policy on similar because I don't do those. If many of yours are alike and that's why IS got upset, then you might want to spread them out and make diverse sets. 40%
122
« on: February 18, 2024, 13:57 »
I think every iStock contributors should read this.
I think you are correct and did a public service by quoting the original.
123
« on: February 18, 2024, 13:56 »
The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft
A big thing you might remember is, that's a personal opinion, the courts and laws haven't decided that, yet.
124
« on: February 18, 2024, 13:53 »
I can already see some weird glitches in their homepage video examples: legs/feet that switch position in passing pose, horses walking funny, cars that pass shadows on the ground but the shade doesn't translate well to the top of the vehicle...
It looks good at first glance, but upon closer inspection, lots of things are 'off'. Of course it's just a matter of time before those errors are ironed out, but currently it wouldn't be usable in commercial projects. Besides, some projects require very specific setups, car types, clothing, accessories and authentic settings, and you can't get away with AI that inaccurately makes things up on the fly.
I saw the same, and if it's like the arms, legs, goofy eyes and other flaws of photos, I don't expect it to be solved as fast as photos, still haven't got it right. The shoes on the girl walking across the street changed heights, the soles, and yes, the feet did some interesting overlapping.
125
« on: February 16, 2024, 14:25 »
$$$$ sale, 2 years ago
Wouldn't you like to find that one in use? Seems like an installation on a business/commercial property or public site.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 179
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
