|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 33
401
« on: March 30, 2020, 00:17 »
I think so - I think it is the 'partner' agreement (where Pond5 is selling assets on other sites).
402
« on: March 26, 2020, 07:38 »
No I don't think the agencies should have more money. And as much as it would be nice for agencies to increase their royalty rates... it's never going to happen. Well, it might in very rare instances and for specific reasons, but if you think the agencies are going to reduce their profits just so that you can earn more... you might be waiting quite some time.
That's the point of my reply though... surely you can see the irony in a post about agencies only caring how much money they make, when the whole point of your post was due to you caring about how much money you make.
rare instances and specific reasons, that's it!
Why is adobe giving away 2 months of CC for everyone instead of charging double/triple in this times?
or, why is USA gov sending 1000 usd checks to everyone instead of sending billions of usd to few corporations?
Think about it.
lol re: gov'ts giving checks - it's kind of like a casino giving you a "free" $20 credit. because they know they'll get it back  (aka taxes). (in reality - it is "your" money "they" are giving back to you, but people don't seem to get that).
adobe - it's a goodwill gesture that will probably help them in the longrun - because people remember companies that helped them in times of need, and tend to reciprocate in times of abundance.
403
« on: March 26, 2020, 07:36 »
No I don't think the agencies should have more money. And as much as it would be nice for agencies to increase their royalty rates... it's never going to happen. Well, it might in very rare instances and for specific reasons, but if you think the agencies are going to reduce their profits just so that you can earn more... you might be waiting quite some time.
That's the point of my reply though... surely you can see the irony in a post about agencies only caring how much money they make, when the whole point of your post was due to you caring about how much money you make.
rare instances and specific reasons, that's it!
Why is adobe giving away 2 months of CC for everyone instead of charging double/triple in this times?
or, why is USA gov sending 1000 usd checks to everyone instead of sending billions of usd to few corporations?
Think about it.
lol re: gov'ts giving checks - it's kind of like a casino giving you a "free" $20 credit. because they know they'll get it back (aka taxes). adobe - it's a goodwill gesture that will probably help them in the longrun - because people remember companies that helped them in times of need, and tend to reciprocate in times of abundance.
404
« on: March 22, 2020, 21:47 »
haha, now that's funny - I never thought someone would have their kid do it - but who knows, you could be 100% correct!
While just speculation, I don't think it's AI. I think they've outsourced it to somewhere like India, where a guy gets paid for how many videos he "reviews".
So out of laziness, periodically just skips a bunch so he/she can say they were "reviewed", so he/she gets paid.
I know for a fact some of them do exactly that with deliveries. (I.e., some DHL drivers will just mark "attempted delivery" several times so it "appears" they are working, when in fact they just skip the delivery route). Some of them are very creative with ways to 'scam' the system, aka get paid without doing any work.
Good theories, I'd agree. If there's a way for someone to cheat the system and get paid for pretending to be working, they will often do that.
"Here honey, Daddy is busy watching the soccer match, play this reviewer game for me..."
405
« on: March 21, 2020, 19:20 »
and to top it of they reject videos of good quality for the moronic reason of noise .i bought the app neat video for premiere pro and i tested it and trust me once you use it you cant find one single piece of noise in the video
so what the heck are they seeing? ? but yea its not humans its the bloody AI
While just speculation, I don't think it's AI. I think they've outsourced it to somewhere like India, where a guy gets paid for how many videos he "reviews". So out of laziness, periodically just skips a bunch so he/she can say they were "reviewed", so he/she gets paid. I know for a fact some of them do exactly that with deliveries. (I.e., some DHL drivers will just mark "attempted delivery" several times so it "appears" they are working, when in fact they just skip the delivery route). Some of them are very creative with ways to 'scam' the system, aka get paid without doing any work.
406
« on: March 20, 2020, 07:56 »
Yes, it is pronounced "j"iff, although some people like to be different and say "g"iff with a soft g.
& haha, I thought "everyone" knew gif meant graphics interchange format, I probably learned that about 25 years ago when gifs started first becoming popular in Netscape - and the fact you could animate an image was "magic".
407
« on: March 18, 2020, 00:32 »
what does that mean? "dis" and "$$" +50%? and "rpd"?
408
« on: March 16, 2020, 17:16 »
I like it - just came back from flying it now.
It's a good 'quick' portable drone - but main issues is the smaller sensor - and you really have to check wind conditions - AND from what some people have said (haven't tried it myself) can't do heavy braking (i.e., flying forward, then stop) - otherwise it could break it. (Phantom you can do super hard braking, which actually in a way is fun).
I get a bit nervous when I get all the "strong wind" warnings with the mini + it says "maximum power output" when you aren't flying very high or very far - even with a slight wind.
So - portablity, awesome. Picture - decent.
409
« on: March 10, 2020, 23:47 »
Thanks!
And wow - impressed he was able to generate that income from a *single image*! (Although, of course, it is a very cool looking image!)
410
« on: March 10, 2020, 23:39 »
Not really a good idea, unless you have one person assign all copyright/ownership of photos/images/etc to you, and you pay them a royalty - based on an agreement in writing. If it's not in writing:
- Friendships break up (sad but true), in which case your friend might retailiate (i.e., contact all the agencies telling them you are selling his/her 'stolen' content, etc without a written agreement).
- Almost always a disagreement about how much work/compensation someone should be getting
- Interests change. Maybe your friend will get married/have kids/travel/get a job/etc. Or maybe you will.
Not really a good idea - unless you take the proper steps (i.e., outlining EVERYTHING in writing) - so BOTH of you have a CRYSTAL clear understanding of the expectations of each person. Then - if anything DID happen - and it had to go to court/etc - you have a clear document which makes it easy to decide who gets what. But it probably wouldn't - because you could just show your friend that document - and both of you would save a lot of time, stress, etc because it was clear, and you could part ways on amicable terms.
411
« on: February 17, 2020, 22:36 »
I own my dream car
412
« on: February 17, 2020, 08:14 »
If someone is 'truly' exclusive (and doesn't cheat hoping pond5 doesn't notice there clips elsewhere), from what I've seen I do not believe the slight increase in sales compensates for lost sales at other agencies...
413
« on: February 08, 2020, 23:11 »
As many people have said before (and I agree from personal experience) - it seems shutterstock, no matter how perfect your video is - will at a bare minimum, *always* reject at least 30% of the footage, if not more.
And if you happen to get one batch they love (say 50 videos of footage) - and got a 100% approval rating, then to "balance" the minium 30% rejection ratio, the next 50 clips would have at least 30 of those rejected.
You could have the most exclusive clips in the world (say of the last 20 presidents over the last 100 years in the usa doing private interviews), perfectly keyworded, perfect denoising/etc - and you'll get comments like "clip too similar to last clip submitted, rejected", or "Noise / Artifacts / Pixelation / Posterization: Clip contains noise, compression artifacts, pixelation and/or posterization that is prominent and/or affects the main subject/focus of the clip.", or "Keywords: Keywords are either not relevant to the clip, not in English, or trademarked. Keywords must be specific and must directly relate to the clip.".
I wouldn't worry about it.
BTW - which other agencies do you submit to?
414
« on: February 05, 2020, 18:22 »
seems shutterstock 'just' released new terms... does anyone know the difference between this and the previous tos?
I took a quick look - 'seems' to be reasonable everything there - not sure... I have a copy of the old contract if anyone is interested to look over it with a fine tooth comb...
415
« on: February 04, 2020, 09:18 »
thanks for sharing! interesting/different assortment of images! do you travel a lot?
416
« on: February 04, 2020, 09:16 »
Why not simply cut/paste all the releases just into one big .pdf file?
417
« on: December 28, 2019, 09:29 »
I now offically have the worst earnings since 2014.
It's collapsed by 20% and SS and Alamy are the worst followed by the debacle at Envato
what happened at envato?
419
« on: September 25, 2019, 08:47 »
Lol, why would microsoft acquire adobe?
It would be like Kentucky Fried Chicken deciding they wanted to purchase GM, and start making cars.
Makes no sense.
420
« on: September 21, 2019, 10:30 »
Are they truly "computer generated" if they were trained on real faces? My camera could be looked at as a computer that "computer generates" a face when I point it at someone and press the shutter button.
Yes, this is not true AI. This is simply morphing images. In some ways an academic discussion though - as the result is still 100,000 images to 'flood' the market. (And copycats coming soon, so more likely 30-40 million images). But still - for the time being - still a demand for regular photography.
421
« on: September 21, 2019, 10:15 »
Also wonder what this means for agencies. This Icons8 company is giving images away for now. Once it's improved they will start monetizing it. So these AI companies could replace agencies. Or agencies will adopt AI and make their own images so there could be a mix of images created by AI where the agency keeps 100% and types of photos that only a person could create.
Interesting times.
This kind of thing already exists. (Look at any of the on demand video services). Basically what I see happening is this. a) Icons8 isn't the first company to do this. But as more of these 'types' of companies get free publicity (= free advertising =sales for products/services they sell) - more and more companies will start releasing these 'image' packs. b) There will be a HUGE oversupply of these types of images. Literally hundreds of millions. c) Yes, consumers will 'initially' flock to these 'free' images. But then because 'everyone' is using them, it will look stale/repetitive/etc, and companies/agencies/etc will want a more 'natural' look (aka photographers taking pictures). So then you'll see a spike in 'real' photographers pictures. d) The cycle will be iterative (i.e., the "ai" companies will then tweek their algorithms to look more 'natural' and the whole cycle repeats itself). Spike again, repeat, spike again, repeat, etc, etc. Eventually a bit of an equilibrium will be achieved, with very inexpensive photos (same with videos). BUT - there will still be artists (photographers) that flourish - because this will evolve more into an 'artists' type of world. I.e., photographers who use a combination of both their own photography and "ai" items (i.e., landscapes/backdrops/some generated content) - and people will purchase from them just because they like the look/feel of that artist. And yes - eventually - algorithsm will then start to steal/replicate/artists 'look & feel' - but that is a little bit of a ways down the road.
422
« on: September 21, 2019, 10:06 »
Also - one thing that is funny - is: a) this is not true AI. It's an algorithm yes - but people should stop calling anything/everything "ai". True AI is when the machine can take the initiative to learn itself and create something new. This is a programming algorithm created by programmers. b) This is also not true 'random' generation/creation. It is essentially morphing two images (the software existed in the 1990's to morph images, look at michael jackson's "black or white" video in the 1990's (published 1991, about 30 years ago) at the end of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2AitTPI5U0c) While it's cool to have an image pack of 100,000 "unique" images - it's not (yet) true AI, it's more gimmicky than anything. (I.e., they can't make the model's head sideways, or make it look down, or look up - unless they took two images of two actors both looking up then 'blended' them together). I believe of course that is coming (to the masses) in the near future (people have already done that with 3D modelling, photo realism) - but it's not 'yet' readily available.
423
« on: September 21, 2019, 09:56 »
I think there will still be a demand for stock photography, just the 'way' it is done will evolve/change.
I think stock photographers will start to become more like 'artists' - so, whether they use an AI generated image, or actual models - the scenery, backlighting, composition/etc will attract 'followers' that like the 'artwork'.
You'll probably start to get more 'on-demand' service, so while computer algorithms can't 'yet' say make a family picnic pose in 10 different shots, the photographers will do custom work for clients.
When the market gets 100,000 images like that in 2 seconds, it will become 'too much' for the regular/average person to sort through. So they'll probably start hiring curators - or graphic designers to 'pick' the right images for the composition.
So it's a shift, yes.
424
« on: September 10, 2019, 21:38 »
if the majority of producers chose not to opt-in to their $0.03/download video program, then yes.
425
« on: September 07, 2019, 23:07 »
Interesting.
While I will get less 'expensive' content if it is worth it and I can 'easily' find it (i.e., simply comparing two sites for the same asset)... If I have to 'hunt' for it - I value my time more than trying to hunt around to save a few bucks. So at a certain point, if I can't find what I want inexpensively - I will pay a higher price for the asset content if it is what I need and what I want.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
