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.


Topics - SuperPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
I know people mentioned the price change @ adobe for 4k video becoming "subscriptions" - adobe making the assets cheap...
Didn't realize they were making the 4k assets "exactly" the same price as the HD assets, thus significantly devaluing contributors works...
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/01/24/adobe-stock-now-offers-4kvideo-hd-prices-every-subscription

I guess from now on, will only upload HD video to adobe, because no point in giving them the 4K version...

Wow...

Bonus I guess is it will save me on bandwidth, plus can downsize vids too...

2
Saw a few posts about the "4k" videos going 'subscription' model - and it's even a bit worse than one things - so you should push back to have "on demand" clips - or request that adobe allow you to decide which clips are "subscription" based and which are "on-demand". (Of course, the unlimited models are very poor too - just commenting right now on the "shift" from on-demand to credit subscriptions for companies doing credit subscriptions, and right now Adobe is one of the ones being discussed).

It's basically a sleight of hand method of stealing revenue from the contributor, without them really realizing it - with the 'promise' of 'maybe' they can make more, when they don't (in most cases).

Adobe in both models (for simplicity) keeps 67%, gives contributor 33%. But in reality - in the 2nd model, if a buyer only downloads 1 clip - Adobe is actually keeping 97%, and only giving the contributor 3%. Many times buyers don't actually use 'all the credits' in a subscription pack, and may only use 1-2. And in fact - many times they may be purchasing the "clip pack" simply because they want "your" clip.

a) In model (a) if you sold a $100 clip, you get $33. Adobe gets $67.

b) If you have "$100 plan" instead - where someone gets "10 clips". The buyer still pays $100. However, since most buyers don't use the full "clip" - and as I mentioned they may have only signed up to get "your" clip (with the "promise" of more if they wish, which many don't use)  - now you only get 33% of "$10" aka $3, and adobe keeps the rest ($97). (As an aside - obviously the subscription model has an added bonus for Adobe & other companeis - in that people forget to cancel/don't cancel/etc - as well as not using their membership - so in reality that $100 sale became a $300 sale, and you get 1% ($3) while Adobe (& other similar companies) keep the remaining $297).

It is a 'sleight of hand' way of moving more revenue into Adobe's (and other companies that do the same) into their pockets. Effectively stealing revenue from you.

Of course - there are some people who will use the full amount of their pack - i.e., if they buy 10, they will make sure they download 10, but for most customer habits on a subscription plan, (educated guess based on experience) they 'maybe' use 20%.

Let's write and see how we can opt-out of their subscription plans, and make certain clips 'on-demand' only.


3
So, if you have an amazon account, you might want to drop them a line, because if you've taken any kind of landscape photography in the past, there's a good chance your images might be in this "authors books". Feel free to cut & paste the content below if you wish...

He (collectively) seems to have about 1500+ "amazon books" across all of his pen names/accounts... simply takes about 40 landscape photos from "free sites" like pexels/unsplash/pixabay, as well as it appears paid sites like adobe + shutterstock, and then puts it in a "book". Part of the "get-rich-quick" scheme going on for KDP publishing. (While you can get rich quick from good content, and putting together excellent books, and doing things honestly and ethically - this is not the right way. It is incredibly dishonest & deceptive).

While pexels/unsplash/etc do permit "free" commercial use for products/services, they explicitly state that derivative works must be significantly different than simply repackaging content, as well as not trying to pass other people's work off as his own... which, of course his violating both...

These are the account names with publications (aka landscape "books", seems to either be an east indian or arabic name, not sure):
(645 publications) - HMZ MASHA: https://www.amazon.ca/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AHMZ+MASHA
(181 publications) - Hamza Almashaqbeh https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0C4W7FN49/
(248 publications) - ALMASH SABA https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0CK4VWCPS/
(268 publications) - "Taylor Reevis": https://www.amazon.ca/Taylor-Reevis/e/B0B4GHMXQF/
(251 publications) - Lamar Mayar: https://www.amazon.com/stores/LAMAR-MAYAR/author/B0CK4SHFD1/
(seems only 1 active at the moment) Emma Mirwid: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0BX147TQ7/

Basically, if you look @ the preview page of the book (i.e., look inside of the book preview) - you'll find the images that he passes of as his own for "his books", are actually compilation from all sorts of different photographers, without any kind of attribution whatsoever, nor any modification other then slapping them altogether, from those different sites I mentioned. A number of images also seem to come from adobestock/shutterstock too when you scroll down to other pictures.

And as I said, while unsplash/pexels/etc do allow "free commercial use" - they explicitly forbid the type of activity he is engaging it.

a) I.e., for unsplash  - it explicitly states in section 8(g) that derivative works must be 'first significantly or meaningfully' updated.
It explicity states against "simple retouches, resizing, or other minimal changes". The content in this individuals books simply seems to be cut & paste copies
of other people's images, which of course is not a significant change. The Unsplash license is located here: https://unsplash.com/terms

b) For pixabay/pexels, while Pixabay.com does permit commercial use as well, in section (4) it explicitly states again using content in misleading or deceptive ways, specifically: "by giving the impression that Content was created by you, or a person other than the intellectual property rights holder of the Content (including without limitation, by claiming or giving the impression that you hold ownership of, or exclusive rights to, the Content)." No attribution appears to be present in any of the publications, thereby violating these terms as well. The terms are available here: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/, as well as here https://www.pexels.com/terms-of-service/.

c) And then of course - adobe/shutterstock don't permit unlicensed use.

Here are some of his sample "books", with the corresponding unsplash/pexel/adobe/shutterstock/etc pictures. You can pretty much pick anyone of his "books", and find a corresponding image on one of those sites.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample "HMZ MASHA" publications (645 publications):

Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Stavanger-NORWAY-Mind-Blowing-Photography-Paperback-July/dp/B0C9S9CGVS/
Photographer Victro Malyushev -> Sample Source Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/white-and-yellow-houses-SjAxwFjQyck

Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/BRITISH-COLUMBIA-Photography-Tourists-Attractions/dp/B0C2S71C99/
Photographer Andrew Darlington -> Sample Source Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/a-lake-surrounded-by-trees-and-mountains-R8fc76MvD4c

Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/YORKSHIRE-ENGLAND-Photography-Tourists-Attractions/dp/B0C5YZLT96/ref=sr_1_11
Photographer Samuel Girven -> Source Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/gray-rocky-mountain-during-daytime-QNhK70HEL6w

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample "Taylor Reevis" publications (268 publications):
Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Calabria-Beautiful-Photography-Meditation-Collection/dp/B0B5KXB7R2
Photographer: Walkerssk: https://pixabay.com/photos/scilla-calabria-italy-1185547/
Photographer: Valtercirillo: https://pixabay.com/photos/san-nicola-arcella-sea-calabria-1979085/

Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Newfoundland-Canada-Photography-Coffee-Table/dp/B0BPGGF5M6
Photographer: Ritche Perez -> https://www.pexels.com/photo/assorted-color-buildings-near-body-of-water-58691/

Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Iguazu-Falls-Photography-Meditation-Landscapes/dp/B0B3S26Z12
Photographer: Thomaslkiefer -> https://pixabay.com/photos/iguazu-water-falls-flow-1839165/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample "Hamza Almashaqbeh" publication (181 publications)

Publication: https://www.amazon.com/ITALY-Photography-Coffee-Tourists-Attractions/dp/B0BZF78S6X
Photographer: Rory Hennessey -> https://unsplash.com/photos/a-city-with-a-crane-V08FBNIWShw

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample ALMASH SABA (248 publications)

Publication: https://www.amazon.com/ISLE-SKYE-Mind-Blowing-Tour-SCOTLAND/dp/B0CN3DH5MB/
Photographer: Jack White -> https://unsplash.com/photos/a-high-angle-view-of-a-river-EYRjEAr5mgI

Publication: https://www.amazon.com/most-beautiful-churches-world-Buildings/dp/B0CSTGNYVN/
Photographer: Dimitrisvetsikas1969: https://pixabay.com/photos/russian-church-dome-golden-5504400/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lamar Mayar (251 publications): 
Publication: https://www.amazon.com/HEIDELBERG-Mind-Blowing-Tour-GERMANY/dp/B0CL6BPTHK/
Photographer: Leonhard Niederwimmer -> https://unsplash.com/photos/a-city-with-a-castle-on-top-of-a-hill-OrEprg4nJAI
Photographer: Gaertringen -> https://pixabay.com/photos/heidelberg-bridge-germany-river-274220/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doing things honestly I think is fine, but the way he is doing it (deceptive/dishonest) is very wrong.

If you have an amazon account, I might drop them a line and let them know, because he is simply repackaging other people's content & passing it off as his own to "get rich quick" is wrong, and there is probably a good chance some of your work might be in one of his "books".


4
General Stock Discussion / pond5 sales jumped off a cliff?
« on: December 23, 2023, 08:04 »
just wondering if anyone else had this happen... I've usually seen consistent performance (sales) in december - looking at my historical amount, it's been roughly the same last 3-4 years... this year, about an 80% drop in sales, may be temporary. just surprised. anyone else seen the same?

5
So...

a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...

b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?

Thanks very much!

6
DepositPhotos / How is DP for sales? (photos & vids)
« on: October 24, 2023, 09:22 »
I realize it is a bit of a subjective question (obviously depends on content/etc) - but if you have a deposit photos port, could you share rough figures, and whether you focus on videos, photos, or both?

I'm considering joining them (haven't yet) - just wondering whether there is some good potential to get additional sales from there, or whether it would just be a time consuming task for a few dollars, etc...

And how would they compare say to your port on AS/SS/etc? (just for reference, like is it (DP) a relatively 'big' agency/customer base?)

Thanks!

7
For "ai training" - obviously companies are basically trying to make more $$$, by essentially stealing other's people work to do so.

A new system should set up (and contributors very vocal about this, that means YOU, the person reading this) in which:

a) Obviously opt-in/opt-out - including RETROACTIVE opting in/opting out. (YES, it IS possible. Might be "inconvenient" for a company to do so and/or recode certain algorithms - but VERY easy to do - basically if one say "opted-out" - the company would simply "re-train" their entire dataset MINUS the individuals who chose to opt out. It has been done before, can be done again). Could be done in batch (say 1x/day for any new opt-in/opt-out requests). (This ALSO includes "ai generation" tools like midjourney/dall-e/etc).

b) For data that is trained on - it IS in fact EASY to "tag" datasets to attributed specific data to individuals. In otherwords - if someone "creates an AI" image that references your work AT ALL - you CAN actually be compensated for that. So if 1000 artists "data" is used to compose an image - each individual artist CAN in fact be attributed and compensated for that with fractional payments. It DOES require some programming/re-doing of current algorithms - but DEFINITELY 100% doable (despite what any company 'claims'. They may not want to do it - but it in fact, is very easy and possible to do. It is simply a matter of doing it).

IN OTHER WORDS - let's say 1000 artists data is used to "compose" an "AI" image. Each artists could get fractional income from that asset that was produced.
It may seem "tiny" at first (which it would be) - but obviously with the millions of images being created daily - that quickly adds up.

Contributors should - then could - be attributed/compensated for their work fairly. AND - 100% up to the contributor WHEN/IF they choose to have their data used - AND - it is possible to do it retroactively as well.

And then obviously contributors would be able to share in the benefit of perpetual recurring income - which, after all - is one of the big reasons various companies are stealing people's data and 'repackaging it' in an "AI" tool - because they want "perpetual recurring income" for basically doing nothing. Contributors should benefit from this as well, and again - at ANY point in time - be able to choose to opt-out/opt-in, as well as CHOOSE WHICH ASSETS can be trained/etc.

c) The dishonest tactic some companies have employed (i.e., say "oh, we took your data <ahem>, but um, yeah, here's a payout and now we'll 'let' you opt out") does not take them 'off the hook' for their actions. They are still fully responsible for their actions, as well as fully responsible for compensating contributors fairly. The above CAN and SHOULD be done. (And again, includes companies like midjourney/dalle/etc which haven't even yet compensated contributors. It's funny when the people running those companies talk about 'pesky little things like watermarks'... hmm, why would there EVER be a watermark? so strange!).

Just an FYI of what is possible. Get vocal about it, and make it happen.

8
This is how you create an ethical/responsible "ai" system that COMPENSATES contributors as long as their images are used...

------------

Basically -
(a) Opt-in/opt-out system. Contributors CHOOSE whether they want to participate. Works are added/removed from the training set, depending on the setting.
(b) For a 'fair' system (where you'd most likely get contributors WANTING to participate) - contributors benefit for EVERY SINGLE "AI" IMAGE generated.

How do you do that? It's quite simple, really.
- When the neural networks are set up - the ID # of the images is recorded for the data inputted - i.e., a "data point".
- When a customer "generates" an "AI" image - it "pulls" from sometimes tens, or hundreds or thousands of "data points" to create that image. All the ID#'s of images used in composing that "AI image" is recorded.
- Each contributor - image ID - is given a fractional portion of that generated sale. Which, obviously adds up the more images created.

Doing it this way is certainly much more ethical, AND equitable/fair - and most likely you'd have people WANTING to make images when they know they will be compensated for, not with a tool that is designed to "replace" them.

It also CAN (and SHOULD be) done retroactively - and is very easy to do so.

Going forward it is also very easy to do so.

So for example, let's say:

a) A customer pays $50 for an "AI" tool, and makes 500 images. So each "image" is worth $0.10.
b) Let's say one of those random images "used" 100 contributor files to do so in their neural network.
c) Using the current arrangement (33%), payment would work out as follows. (As an aside, the % should be upped significantly for contributors, because once the tool is in place, adobe doesn't really have to do much 'maintenance'. The 'work' is image creation. I'd suggest a 90% contributor/10% split, or at least 80% contributor-20% adobe. But a different topic).

But for now - using the 33% idea... $0.067 to adobe, $0.033 to the "contributor pool" for the image created.
100 'images' used to create the "ai" image, so $0.033/100 = $0.0033/contributor.

Obviously, for a single image that is not much - BUT - it also obviously quickly adds up, as 1000's of images are created with the "AI" tools.

Certainly much fairer, and equitable.

And OPT-IN/OPT-OUT respected. if a contributor chose to "opt-out" - then their data points would ALSO BE REMOVED from the dataset for future "AI" image generation. "OPTING IN" is likewise very easy - it simply 're-adds' the datapoints to the training set for "ai" image generation.

Programatically VERY EASY to do - although it requires a bit of work to set up. And doing it this way more likely to have contributors WANTING to participate, as opposed to getting very upset/annoyed because it was simply "taken" from them.

THAT is much more along the lines of "responsible AI", with creators in mind at the "center". Not the "pay once to you, we benefit forever on your works" model which creates resentment, and actually discourages future image creation (which long term, will make a useless "AI" tool, as it quickly becomes outdated).

It also makes Adobe a HUGE amount of money going forward, with nice consistent revenue for very little effort or work, and happy contributors that benefit too.

9
Really don't like the way these companies basically say:

"Oh yah, we stole, erm, 'trained' our AI tool on your images... Here's what we figure it's worth, now don't bother us".

It's theft. Plain & simple. Doesn't matter how "they" justify it - if you did not explicitly give permission to do so, it's theft. Some "justify" it saying "well we have rights in our license agreement" - eh, no. BECAUSE of the way they've "approached" it - they KNOW it is wrong. (I.e., why would you have to 'hide' what you are doing, and after the fact say 'oh, here's some random money, now don't bother us' if you didn't feel it was wrong - because they KNOW - or rather - pretty strongly suspect - if they said to contributors 'Hey guys! We want to make a tool that will make US more money in the long term, and you less - so we basically want to rip of your images so we can do that, but we'll pay you a couple bucks so you don't feel bad, how does that sound?" MOST contributors would MOST LIKELY say, em, no.

Obviously dall-e/midjourney/etc were the first to just simply STEAL images... and one of the "pesky" little "problems" they have is getting rid of "watermarks"... hmm... how EVER could WATER marks have GOTTEN there? OH the mystery!

(While I have used the tools - and I do admit they are 'cool' - I think the approach to creating them is wrong and they should compensate artists for the hard work they did creating them - PLUS - future compensation for every single images generated based on those. Programatically - it IS VERY EASY to set up such a system. RETROACTIVELY - it is ALSO POSSIBLE. More work - but definitely doable).

Then shutterstock basically ripped things off, then said 'oh haha, yah, here's some money, SOOOOOOOreee! we already ripped it off, so you can't get it back, but here's what we randomly decided to pay you!"...

Sad to see what I would have considered better companies now following suit.

BY THE WAY...

CONTRARY to what these "AI" companies say (i.e., midjourney/dall-e/etc) - it actually IS possible to "backwards compensate"/"retroactively" pay/compensate contributors for the images they took IF they chose to do so...
(a) They "tracked" which images they fed into their training set.
(b) People who generated images used certain 'neural nodes' to create that image.
(c) They keep EXTENSIVE track of EVERY SINGLE THING created with the software.

So it IS possible to to write an algorithm "AI" to do super micropayments (like fractional cents) for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE created, THEN it IS possible to find those contributors (i.e., those images that had the 'pesky little watermarks') - and compensate them - and then it IS POSSIBLE to PAY OUT for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE going forward based on those BASE IMAGES...

It may be a little bit of work - but just an FYI - it IS possible. Contrary to what "they" might say. You'd just have to write a computer algorithm to do so.

So going forward - for EVERY single "AI" image created - you could be compensated fractional cents for 'neural node' inputs to create an image (i.e., $0.0001, because components of your image were used in making a new composite) - which - with the hundreds of thousands (more likely millions) being created every day... would quickly add up. AND - give you a nice future consistent revenue stream.



10
General Stock Discussion / Funny shutterstock "ethics".
« on: September 01, 2023, 15:02 »
Just a commentary, I find it quite amusing how shutterstock "announced" this:
https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Content-Policy-Updates-AI-generated-Content?language=en_US
and is pretending to be taking the "high road" to "AI" generated images, when:

a) The basically STOLE the datasets from EVERY contributor on their platform, QUICKLY "licensed" it (to I am assuming it to either a sister, or subsiduary company)
b) Then, to "compensate" contributors - picked a number out of their a__ (most likely SEVERELY undervalued) to "pay" contributors...

And now is pretending to have the "moral highground" with "AI" (which is not true AI, its simply pattern re-arrangement) generated images...

It's really funny what their "announcement" says, lol "responsible AI" <cough cough bullsh_t>:
"Our mission at Shutterstock is to be every storytellers superpower by providing world-class content, tools, and services to effortlessly turn any idea into something amazing. With over 20 years of experience in the creative industry, were uniquely positioned to bring AI-generated content to the commercial market responsibly and are excited to lead this space by partnering with other industry leaders such as OpenAI.

As AI-powered tools open up opportunities in this exciting space, this partnership enables the generation of content in an ethically responsible way that properly compensates artists for their contributions to this service while assuring customers with protections and coverage issued under Shutterstock licenses. Our AI-generator tool was trained on datasets licensed from Shutterstock, ensuring copyright protection and proper compensation for artists whose IP was used to develop this technology.  Learn more about responsible AI and how we compensate contributors here."


Stopped uploading to them a LONG time ago, just because:
a) they don't value contributors (for existing sales, i.e., literally pennies for both images & videos)
b) nonsense like the above gobblygook
c) how the previous CEO basically trashed the company so he could cash out a billionaire...

11
So the AI thing is interesting - if done ethically... (And, also - its not true "AI" of course, but rather doing mashups with computer algorithms from actual contributor creators)... But anyways...

Yes, "everyone" knows shutterstock is "bad" - but I didn't realize just HOW bad...! So... shutterstock has no problem stealing from contributors - and saying 'oh no! they can't use/submit AI'... BUT... if it is THEM doing it, then apparently 100% okay? And - "they" (shutterstock) wants to make sure that SHUTTERSTOCK gets paid, for using people's "trained" (stolen) content? See below...

And, if contributors have the option of opting in/or out of the 'training data', are told up front what they would be compensated for their work - and then have the CHOICE... that is one thing... But... the way SS is doing things, very bad. (And - it CAN be done retroactively too - despite what they may "claim" - programatically it is very easy to 'remove' contributors who don't wish to be included in the "training data" - and retrain based on the remaining data set...)

So here: http://shutterstock.com/generate

In the "All your AI-generated image questions answered." near the bottom, it says:

Does the main Shutterstock library of images contain AI-generated content?

We do not have AI-generated images in our core library today. AI-generated content may not be uploaded to Shutterstock because, per our Contributor Terms of Service (Section 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual and must instead compensate all artists who were involved in the creation of each new piece of content. (cough cough bullsh_t, first of all not an effective way of checking that without a little bit of work, secondly, probably a lot of contributors that used it weren't aware of this clause, no really even read it/etc)... But let's assume that is the case..

Anyways...

I then find it super amusing (and evil too, of course) that shutterstock then expects someone using their "free ai" tool - to signup/subscribe to their service?
https://www.shutterstock.com/signup?site=image&landing_page=%2Fgenerate

Shutterstock:
(a) Misleads. Says "oh get a free image!"...
(b) You try and get so called free image - then they prompt you to sign up for a subscription if you click on download (apparently you need to click 'try' to access it - but psychologically most people with be expecting the highlighted red 'download' button to be the one they use)... AND - it seems they only give you one "watermark free" image (it seems every image after that has a BIG 'ol shutterstock watermark, and you need to "pay" to get rid of it)...
(and if you generate one - they want you to pay for it - big watermarks with any "free" versions - so no "free trial" there)...
to pay for "free images" from "ai content", and/or "enhanced" images that go $1000's of dollars... which - I'm pretty sure contributors see "0" from...

And charges anywhere from $2 all the way up to $1000's of dollars, depending on your license... Pretty sure the way SS has structured it, the contributors don't see any of that...

Also - it turns out their "free tool" - they only let you use once or twice before being prompted to pay $50/month to continue using - and they proudly say "you can use OUR AI"... - no... it's based off of contributors work that they are trying to not pay at all...

Then, as I was reading their terms, I found this peculiar/interesting - never noticed this on their website before:
https://www.shutterstock.com/modern-slavery-statement

"Modern Slavery Statement"? Basically - that shutterstock is "committed" to not supporting slavery? haha <erm> with the "prices" they pay contributors and the amount the "investors" keep to themselves... not sure how on track they are to this "goal"... just pretty funny an "image" website has that on their main page... Bottom right hand corner, small print. I also find this very funny in that statement too: "Our internal Code of Conduct and Business Ethics reflects our commitment to acting ethically and with integrity in all our business relationships and to implementing" Mmm hmm... "good news! we take more of your money, and give you less, but try and repackage a good thing and hope you are desperate enough to accept the crumbs will throw your way!"

Anyways. Interesting. Your thoughts?

I think there is a very strong case for contributors to go after SS, because they are not being fairly compensated (and in some cases, not compensated at all)...

12
Just funny/wanted to share... It's funny observing that the the "exciting news" isn't just restricted to stock agencies...

Near where I live, there are signs posted about "Exciting News" from an apartment complex... Basically it reads "Exciting News! We are going to be making CRAPLOADS of more money from jamming MORE apartment buildings in your area! Just wanted to let you know that you may have traffic congestions while we bring in TONS of construction equipment that inconvenience you, so please just be patient... but EXCITING news  because WE are making more money!"

Was funny. Sounds like a stock agency notice too :)

13
so, what's the deal with shutterstock? decided I might try using them again, and the people (or algorithm) they have doing the "review" reject 100% of the items submitted? thought I'd get enough sales to cash out - so submitted a bunch of items - and 100% "rejection" rate with b.s. reasons... are they really just trying to p_ss off contributors?

14
General Stock Discussion / recommended video sites?
« on: May 22, 2021, 10:11 »
hi, I know of pond5/adobestock, & "used" to use shutterstock - but - what other video sites would you recommend that have at least some chance of making sales?
thx!

15
General Stock Discussion / adobe creative cloud subscription?
« on: January 25, 2021, 10:49 »
Hi,

It was nice Adobe offering a 1 year subscription to its service for people with approved video/photo portfolios (I forgot what the # was, but I think it was 250+ videos or something like that).

Is Adobe doing that again this year? I didn't hear anything from them, but am an active contributor and would be interested in getting an extension on my subscription. Thanks!

16
Curious - is shutterstock now just 'punishing' contributors with $0.30 VIDEO downloads?

No idea how they could get it down that low, unless they are keeping the majority of the commission...

Obviously seems everyone is making a difference for them to decide to make it a super low comission...

17
General Stock Discussion / new site/top post/etc
« on: June 13, 2020, 08:30 »
Hi - Yes I know there are a lot of posts (now and past) talking about a new site. But they seem to be a bit disorganized, so I want this one to be a bit different in that I'll update the main thread (this first post) with good ideas/useful feedback/etc to help formulate a plan.

New/Self Hosted Site Requests
- Easy upload, supports pictures & videos, meta tags, descriptions, etc
- Easy payment system integration (whether paypal, or custom payment provider)
- Fast (i.e., no wp plugin)
- Cheap/inexpensive

Challenges:
- If a 'co-operative', Verifying quality (i.e., preventing nude pics from being uploaded, "sensitive"/"gore", actual crap, etc).
- Marketing (cost effective way of getting buyers to the site). Do you do massive self promotion (time consuming), or pay for traffic (costly and requires work to make a profit on it?)

Possible Solutions?

a) Self hosted (you pay for domain, hosting + cost of software package to manage/upload/etc). Pricing (I've looked @ getting the lowest, but most reasonable prices for all of that) - you'd probably be looking at $30/month. (Which includes about 2,000 high quality images (5MB each) or 300 large 4k videos. Of course - there are better/cheaper solutions once you get higher images/volumes, but that requires more coding/a different software package).

Would you personally pay $30/month for that? (And about $50-$75/month if you went to 10,000 high quality images + 1500 large 4k videos?)

b) Marketing - while it would be 'nice' to market things as a co-operative - the main issue is quality. It would just take one person to say upload nude pics, etc that would ruin it for everyone else. So - you actually would either need (trained) curators & a system to ensure they do their job - OR... separate marketing...

So - if it WAS run as a co-operative - how could images/etc be reviewed 'cheaply' so you could market everything together?

OR - if it was separate marketing, there's 2 main option, paid & non-paid traffic. Someone going the "organic" route would have to do a lot of self promotion (youtube videos, instagram, writing articles, etc) - and there is no 'instant' results (you could work for 3-4 months without seeing anything significant) - and no guarantee your efforts would even produce results. (Most likely it would, but there is no guarantee).

Paid traffic challenge is - how to make more money than you spend. LOTS of people spending $ on that, few people actually making $. (And nowadays, because you are competing with 'smart' people - you need things like recurring revenue, sales funnels, etc to cover the cost of the traffic).

I think marketing is the big big challenge here... which sites like shutterstock currently benefit from (i.e., 'relationships' with google to position their content first)...

So... how do you market yourself effectively? I think that is the main challenge... Ideas?

18
Okay, everyone knows shutterstock gave the middle finger to the majority of its contributors, knowing full well most individual contributors would be scared to leave, thinking 'something' is better than 'nothing'. Problem with that thinking is you continue to get screwed, until you actually get nothing, and it's too late to do anything.

Money, or what affects their income source/money is pretty much the only thing that a company like shutterstock will listen to.

So. Here's some specific things that can be done.

1. How to effectively reach & band contributors together.
2. Effective negative publicity
3. Promote other 'good' sites (i.e., dreamstime right now), moving customers to better paying sites

1. How to effectively reach & band contributors together.

a) https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/videos-rank is a fantastic resource to get the list of contributors that you can contact one by one.
If you could get the top 100 contributors (which is about 10% of the total assets on shutterstock) to agree to do something (i.e., turn portfolio off), that would send a very strong message. Chances are though - they benefit from the new scheme, so may or may not be willing to participate. You'd need to use a different approach (i.e., they'd like the idea of bargaining power to INCREASE revenue further).
b) You simply look @ the contributor name, go to google, type "contributor name + shutterstock" look @ their about tab, and some have contact information. Not everyone does. But this is one way of getting individual contact information. (They may also have contact info on another site, as most ppl have more than one agency they submit to).
c) (While I don't care for google's lack of privacy protection in general) - at the moment - google docs can be useful for people sharing/updating who has been contacted/agrees/etc. Alternatively, if someone wanted to use their website, or be a bookkeeper, could do that too.

Not sure how many ppl it would take turning off their portfolio, whether its 10, 100, or 1000, but at some point, shuttertstock would pay attention.

2. Negative publicity

a) Review sites. Posting negative reviews does to some degree have an effect (tends to be the #, the site posted on, and so forth). Be truthful (don't just bash/namecall, but specific about what wrong they are doing).
b) Contacting actual print publications. I.e., https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/153708/the-100-most-important-online-publishers.html
Journalists love a good story. Basically you find a journalist who would be sympathetic to what you have to say. So you might google something like "publication name + rotten companies" or "publication name + companies abusing power", etc, etc.

One possible approach would be something like "In the midst of a crisis for the general population, when most businesses are bending over backwards to provide better service and help people, not only does shutterstock - a 654 MILLION revenue a year company not do that -  but they decide to shave more money off the top from 95% of struggling contributors that their business is based on". (The 95% is a guess, but probably accurate - as I am guessing it would only be the top 5%, or less, that have the bulk of assets & subsequent sales that would see either the same or an increased commission).

If enough people contact enough journalists, there are likely to be stories to be printed.

Print publications are also good. Just google something like 'top print publications'.

3. Promote other 'good' sites, moving customers to better paying sites

Dreamstime (long time ago) was upset because they losrt google rank (and actually I think I remeber reading google struck a deal with shutterstock, to promote their assets over sites like dreamstime).

Companies need good publicity/advertising, and people love "causes". (I.e., look at "hashtag" anything, and you'll find "hashtag-movement" "hashtag-stop-the-opression", etc, etc).

So companies that are doing right by people (i.e., at the moment dreamstime seems to be one of them) - promote them. Help drive sales to sites that are doing RIGHT by contributors (i.e., right now dreamstime).

Consumers do tend to "stick" with something when they are used to it, but - they still do read twitter, facebook posts, etc - and if "everyone" is saying "go check out this site" - they'll most likely follow their peers, and check out that site.

Don't underestimate just how powerful, effective, & quick this can be. (I read somewhere someone said 161 people responded to the poll - if 161 people ALL posted on facebook/twitter/etc to say go to dreamstime), you'd be surprised how fast that can catch on with a good hashtag name, cause & powerful reason.

These are some very specific, effective strategies you can employ today.

Once shutterstock starts seeing a difference (whether its customers migrating to other platforms, or contributors stop uploading/cancelling their accounts), they will be more inclined to listen.

19
Fun facts about shutterstock, in case anyone is wondering 'how well' they are doing.

$654 MILLION  IN REVENUE in 2018-2019. After ALL expenses (i.e., jet planes, hotels, bonuses for execs, salaries, etc) - $54 MILLION in profit. Extra money. That they couldn't figure out how to reduce lower to lower their taxes. (Envato btw, also apparently $113 MILLION in 2019 according to a forbes article, but since they are private & apparently have some interesting accounting, not sure if the figure is accurate, understated, etc), after trying to minimize contributors money as much as possible).

Financial reports for public companies are fun to read, I highly recommend it. Here is the 2018 financial report for shutterstock.
https://investor.shutterstock.com/static-files/8b795c10-8df0-403b-811d-1f39f8f34393

HIGHLY recommend reading it. Highly doubt they are 'hurting' at the moment (as they did transition to subscriptions, which actually take more money out of a contributors pocket than straight commission sale the way it is structured) - but rather a price gouge from their contributor base. Obviously I haven't seen their 2020 financials, but based on experience I'd say it's a) a boost for the execs to give themselves a bit more money, b) positioning for shareholders to say 'hey look, ain't we doing great!'.

Also - for someone who thinks they might be getting a 'great deal' with the new structure (whether videos or images) - you have to look at the 'average' sale you make. For the first six months let say you are at 15%. If the next six months you are at 30% (or even say 40%) assuming you sell the same # of clips consistently (which btw are incredibly HIGH thresholds) - you are still worse off than without it. Because the 'average' clip comission is lower overall.

Read the report. Fun read.

Wrong, very wrong.

20
So. Obviously b.s..

a) Rejection rates climbing to 80-90% for submissions
b) Now a HUGE money grab. Most people (80-90%) will NEVER exceed the video download count or image download count to get to the "original" 30% level they are at now. (You need 250 video sales to get "back" to 30%, and 500 image sales to get back to 30%).

So the e-mail SHOULD read "Hi, we've decided we want more money from you. So effectively immediately, in 5 days - your commission is going for 30% to 15% for EVERYTHING YOU SELL".

Shutterstock knows that, they aren't stupid. They have the data. So they know they are STEALING from most contributors. But it's funny how they pretend to be upbeat and say "Stay tuned for even more posts that include tips to help contributors quickly climb to higher levels and increase their opportunities to earn money." and the crap comment "This creates fair opportunities for all our contributors, rewarding performance with greater earnings potential.".

No, it's a way for them to steal more contributor earnings, padding their own pockets and paying out less.

c) That coupled with the recent cut to their new "subscription" model - which again sees THEM see a huge BOOST in revenue, but nothing to contributors.

Kinda crap, seems they are trying to compete with envato for shady dishonest tactics.

21
General Stock Discussion / new pond5 licensing?
« on: May 12, 2020, 10:24 »
not sure exactly what this means as a contributor (not exactly sure how it differs before what was set up, and/or if it affects longterms sales... my feeling is shortterms sales may increase (people like 'broad' licenses) - but not sure what it means for you as a contributor long term? just received an e-mail that said...

================================================================================================================
We've made licensing easier! Starting today, everything sold on Pond5 - including Commercial and Editorial Video & Images, Music, Sound Effects, After Effects Templates, and 3D Models - is available with the broadest rights in the industry. Included in the list price, our Individual License provides worldwide distribution, across all media, forever. On top of that, youll also get $15,000 in legal coverage free-of-charge for a completely worry-free experience.
================================================================================================================


22
Newbie Discussion / alamy keywording?
« on: April 23, 2020, 06:30 »
is there any easy way (like uploading a .csv file) to keyword items at alamy? or does it have to be done individually for every single photo?

thanks!

23
very frustrated with some of the reviewers who appear to just do an auto "100%" rejection because they are too lazy to do their job.

seems some of the reviewers shutterstock employs have figured out how to game the system, so are doing zero work, to get paid. (to be clear, not all of them - some do their job - I like those reviewers - it's the ones that don't do their jobs that I don't like).

seems the game is for those ones is - they wait as long as possible to review the items (i.e., say a week) - so it gives the "appearance" of being reviewed to the (semi-automated) metrics shutterstock uses - so they can paid for doing nothing. I'm all for reviewing & approving 'good quality' images & videos, and rejecting poor quality. But when you happen to land one of these reviewers who just wants money for nothing, so autorejects 100%, it's very frustrating.

Would be a great time now shutterstock to either weed out these poor quality reviewers - OR - a different company to do a better job than shutterstock.

24
anyone know where?

that's really devaluaing the content, especially as now it prices videos at $3/video for people who purchase.

also - if say someone doesn't use their full subscription (i.e., lets say they only use 5/10 items) - that means shutterstock pockets the rest of the money?
(so in reality, they are giving you an even LOWER commission than the 30%, more like 10-15%/video)...

25
seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.

Pages: [1] 2 3

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors