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 - Uncle Pete

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 178
51
Shutterstock.com / Re: Is Shutterstock dead?
« on: February 27, 2024, 12:28 »

I would'nt want some Amateurs sending me millions of non authentical images, which can't be reviewed correctly because I would first have to teach my review team.


Ah Ha, but that's what SS has done and their business plan has been. We don't understand why, but they just keep going the same direction. Millions and millions of everyday, ordinary, repeating subjects and snapshots, and SS accepts them.

Difficult to understand why they don't "get serious".

52
Got 3 of 0.37 "custom" royalties yesterday..  :-\

Yeah, me too, and five of the $1.03 custom downloads at the same time. "The royalty rate remains at 33% of the price paid by the customer. The rate paid by the customer varies based on the plan."

Much less complicated than being concerned if I just got a 36 sub or a 37, 38 or 39 custom. I also get $.99 and $1 custom, and $.99 subs. It's a mix.

53
Adobe Stock / Re: What's your weekly ranking and how many images?
« on: February 27, 2024, 12:10 »
At the moment I keep bouncing between 3100 and 5200. 4000 files.

Hope to move further up again soon, this is frustrating. But for a port this size it is probably ok.

I hate to ask, because someone will think the rank numbers actually matter.

But, why do you hope to move further up? Rank means nothing, except for your own personal information, how you are doing, compared to others. If you are making money, and happy with what you do and earn, it doesn't matter what some irrelevant number says.

My rank goes up during the holiday season, down in January, back up in April. My earnings, as in money that goes into the bank, is all that counts.

Rank is apparently, number of downloads, not earnings.

54
I wouldn't doubt that any of them could be gone in 3-5 years, except Alamy. AL is not the same as the Microstock, they have news business, they have clients and contracts. Also a big reason why Alamy will still be around, and not sold off, is it was just sold to PA media.

Copied from the easiest source, if someone had looked. But I'll save everyone the trouble: Wikipedia

PA Media (formerly the Press Association) is a multimedia news agency, and the national news agency of the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is part of PA Media Group Limited, a private company with 26 shareholders, most of whom are national and regional newspaper publishers. The biggest shareholders include the Daily Mail and General Trust, News UK, and Informa. The group's photography arm, PA Images, has a portfolio comprising more than 20 million photographs online and around 10 million in physical archives dating back 150 years.

Much like Getty, this is a photo archive and news agency.

When the cost of running the business, exceeds the profits, places like DP will bow out. They came in strong, devised a plan to rise to the top, when the initial boom was already over. They will take their profits on the investment and shut down, when it serves their best interest. Some of the other smaller ones, will hang on, until the last money can be earned and shut down.

When stock agencies disappear, they often disappear without paying the amount they owe you.  So, be careful.

Well stated warning. If anyone wants to hang on to the end, that's the risk they will take. Just a gamble, the last payment might never be sent. Never leave more than the minimum in any agency account.

Alamy is a very old and specialized agency with a lot of editorial and great client connections. They will still be around as they are not really microstock.

👍

55
Shutterstock.com / Re: Is Shutterstock dead?
« on: February 26, 2024, 15:01 »
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.

What kind of business do they have that is not dependend on the stock photo business?

When they shut down the stock photo business, the AI licencing business goes away as well. They may survive stagnation or even decline in the stock photo business, but without stock images (and videos etc.), they have no AI business.

They have all kinds of divisions, and I don't really think they would shut down the stock photo business, just a far out idea that, if the rest of "Shutterstock" the corporation was making money and the Microstock division was losing money, they could close it down. I don't think that's likely. But if Microstock as an industry becomes obsolete?

You hardly see anyone making bottle openers anymore. Can openers for beverages are obsolete. Who's still in the buggy whip business, and the demand for horse shoes is really down. Hey here's a good one... KODAK film?

Yamaha doesn't just make pianos and musical instruments. Ever notice the logo is a tuning fork? Companies adapt and change as the market changes. The Gap started as a record shop. KOSS Corporation, made record players, but the headset they created to sell along with them was such a hit, that they went into the headset business. Olympus has spun off the camera division, but still makes other electronics and optical devices.

You're right. Without the new photos from real photographers, or drawings and more materials, the licensing for AI wouldn't be very profitable anymore.

56
In fact, Adobe has managed to speed up the review to a maximum of 20 days.
The rejection rate is directly related to the acceptance rate (actually a no brainer).

I am sure that Adobe has an AI automated process as a first step. Every bigger artifact will lead to a rejection.
The second step will include human, manual reviewers. Here every reviewer will absolutely certain look at the acceptance rate first. If this is high, he will be much less strict in order to save time.

My acceptance rate is currently over 99%. The last 800 images have all been accepted since I switched to motives, which create less artifacts.

My acceptance rate, affects my acceptance rate? Sounds like a death spiral. I don't know where to see my acceptance rate. I'm not sure I want to?  :)

Maybe this is useful also?  https://stock.adobe.com/pages/artisthub/pdf/generative-ai-guide.pdf

10 tips for getting your generative AI images approved for sale on Adobe Stock.

Yes, I'd be surprised if any agency now, didn't have a submission review for standards, the intake of files, before a person sees them. Size, file type, and could easily be some checks on obvious quality issues. Now, it could be more sophisticated like focus. But still Adobe or SS, the software used in the review process, is to assist the person doing the review.

57
...

There's still space for real and editorial, that AI can't make...

depends what you mean by editorial - for AS it's anything that needs a model release, even if it's not newsworthy - eg generic people in an office - here AI is an easy alternative

Editorial images are images that can only used for editorial uses, like for example to illustrate a newspaper article and must not be used for advertisment. They also should NOT be altered in a way that compromises their editorial value

Generic people in an office with model releases are not editorial content. Where did you get the notion that for Adobe every image with people that need a model release is editorial?

I bet that's what you meant?  ;)  Yes, Editorial, news, real subjects, not Illustrative Editorial which is something entirely different. And no, to the other half, anything with a person or needing a model release is NOT editorial on AS. I'll just quote what AS says:

For illustrative editorial, we dont accept:

    Images that feature recognizable people
    Images of restricted events such as conventions and sports games
    Images that feature tight crops of copyrighted or trademarked material, such as stamps, fine art, or other content that may violate privacy rights
    Digitally created or manipulated versions of trademarked logos or other brand content other than social media icons


And lets not forget, that for AI, since the subject has become AS, we cannot include recognizable people.

So I'm going to repeat myself. For real and Editorial, such as news and current events, public figures, real people, AI will not fulfill the need for real images or truthful photos of something.

58
General Stock Discussion / Re: Canstock did not pay, thief..
« on: February 26, 2024, 13:17 »
Reminds me of Revostock.com some years ago.  Many stock video/photo agencies are small privately owned companies.  It's safe to upload only to bigger agencies.

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/revostock-closed-the-store-with-no-payments-to-contributors/

👍  GLstock did that too. I think we'll see more of this kind of problem as the trend and hot new business of Microstock is sorting out, and smaller agencies will be forced out.

59
Shutterstock.com / Re: Is Shutterstock dead?
« 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.



60
Adobe Stock / Re: Request for Clarification: Account Termination
« 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?

61

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.


62
Shutterstock.com / Re: Is Shutterstock dead?
« 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?


63
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?  8)

64


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?

65
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.

66
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.

67
"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.

68
Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.

Because YOU say so.  ;D   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?  ;D

69
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.

70
Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.

Because YOU say so.  ;D   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.

71
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.

72
Image Sleuth / Re: Stolen videos on Shutterstock
« 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.

73
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.

74
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)  :D



75
General Stock Discussion / Re: Best stock sites
« 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/


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 178

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors