|
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 - alan b traehern
52
« on: February 28, 2023, 07:57 »
But it is a forum with many longtime users who have a lot of experience, this is true.
This place is a treasure trove of historical microstock information. After reading some of these really old posts, I can see how much the business has changed over the years. Gives a good idea of how competitive it has become, and also how the marketplaces have dramatically driven down the prices :/
Yes this is a treasure trove of information. Wisdom too which would tell new members to find some other way to make money, but they don't listen.
53
« on: February 28, 2023, 07:52 »
Did anyone mention here that now its possibile to opt out of data deals in shutterstock account settings
Yes
54
« on: February 18, 2023, 09:48 »
"I joined to see what all the fuss was about. The amount of pay is estimated. But still the worst part is the proof of residence form, for the US, that costs $85 and has to be renewed every two years. Otherwise Freepik, by law in Spain will take 24%."
I am from EU and they also want it from me, but it looks kind of complicated to get, so I have not filed it. At this rate I will make my first payout in about 3 years  .
I actually have exclusive content there because I want to see how it turns out. But only 253 photos. At these prices, I don't want to be unfair to other agencies.
But your photos aren't free on Freepik?
55
« on: February 08, 2023, 05:42 »
Slide all of them to the left.
56
« on: January 24, 2023, 07:50 »
In my case, it looks like this:
I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.
I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.
Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.
I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.
However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.
What I have written here is wrong!
I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.
The correct way is like this:
Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.
None of your stats matter, you deleted images.
58
« on: January 19, 2023, 12:03 »
we human make the same (in a smaller scale... ) but we call it inspiration or learning or whatever 
No, we humans do not make the same and we do not call it inspiration.
In your constant defense of AI (understandable, because you never took the time and effort to learn and master an artistic skill yourself. All you ever did was vectorize other people's illustrations from old book, so you always just leeched off other people's work, without understanding what it really takes to create artwork. Now you see an easy way to make money, still without having to learn the skill of creating art yourself) you are again misunderstanding how human art and AI art works.
Inspiration means that we humans see, read or hear someone else's work and then we are mentally stimulated by what we see or hear.
We then might take influence from someone else's work, but we add a significant portion of our own creativity to it. AI can't do that. AI has no own creativity. 100% of what it has learned is based off human work.
Never confuse what an AI does with "inspiration". An AI is not capable of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_inspiration
It's not nice to personally attack others on the forum and insult their work as leeching or unskilled.
59
« on: January 19, 2023, 12:00 »
They are doing the right thing.
Isnt stable the one where you keep getting results with visible watermarks from getty and dreamstime?
They should properly license the images used to train their ai.
Nothing is free in life.
If images have Getty watermarks I'd agree they should sue. Getty is sue happy to start with.
61
« on: January 09, 2023, 07:27 »
The problem of Dimaximus is that his portfolio lost a good ranking in search algorithm.
If the images/footage are not found they won't sale. One strategy maybe could be to upload consistently every week so that images/footage are found in new images/footage search.
Without uploading it probably would be hard to recover a good ranking in search algorithm.
Can you explain for us how a portfolio ranking works? Adobe says the images get ranked in the first 30 days they are active, nothing about portfolio or artist.
63
« on: December 14, 2022, 08:50 »
just got "upgraded". This is totally unreadable.
Useless and ugly are two more U's that come to mind.
64
« on: November 27, 2022, 14:06 »
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
How is that a Christmas image?
65
« on: November 19, 2022, 11:46 »
Published today in a pro-Dalle-E online news article
Quote
Bad news for stock photo businesses
If youre a stock photo business, DALL-E 2 might be your worst enemy. Stock photos already have a reputation as cheesy and inauthentic, but have been a necessary evil for content creators. That changes the moment DALL-E 2 becomes available for commercial use.
What justification would there be to pay for a stock photo license in a world where DALL-E 2 can create any image you want?
DALL-E is available now for commercial use. All those illustrations and creations, are allowed to be licensed. What's going to be interesting in the future is, right for images that use portions of people or protected property, designs or specifics. Open AI Users get full usage rights to commercialise the images they create with DALL-E, including the right to reprint, sell and merchandise,
What is Fair use? I hope that sometime in the near future the courts will decide.
There are real concerns with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and unaddressed rights issues with respect to the imagery, the image metadata and those individuals contained within the imagery, Getty Images CEO Craig Peters https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/21/23364696/getty-images-ai-ban-generated-artwork-illustration-copyright#:~:text=The%20creators%20of%20AI%20image%20generators%20say%20the,sites%2C%20and%20stock%20photo%20sites%20like%20Getty%20Images.
Read this article which is looking at both sides. I see people on both sides of this extremely confident in their positions, but the reality is nobody knows, https://www.theverge.com/23444685/generative-ai-copyright-infringement-legal-fair-use-training-data
What's interesting is that, lets say I create an image, using AI from one of the online services. If I don't have enough creative input and, the image is not created by a human's work, then it's not going to be protected. In the article they use Cat by Van Gogh as an example of what couldn't be protected. In the US, there is no copyright protection for works generated solely by a machine. However, it seems that copyright may be possible in cases where the creator can prove there was substantial human input.
What is substantial human input? What is a derivative, of substantial new design to change the image "enough" to make it a new work. Very subjective questions.
This is why I posted the Warhol case which is in progress now, that's examining what is fair use. They are both related.
None of this has to do with what's right or fair for artists, creatives or our interests, it's all about the legal side and could someone get sued for using something that AI created by scraping the web or using copyrighted images to train the AI?
With many players coming into AI, the companies are now shifting their licenses to commercial.
This is dangerous and I don't see good future of image industry.
Well said in many less words.
66
« on: November 19, 2022, 11:44 »
Very weird response to a post that is actually informative and relevant to our industry?
Which makes Microstockphoto what he is most often after 1200 posts. Irrelevant and uninformed.
67
« on: November 18, 2022, 17:44 »
still the most boring poster on this forum. no one cares what you have to say mate. give it up,
Why on earth would you attack Uncle Pete? He is maybe the only likeable person on this forum.
So many people to choose from and then you choose him?
What? Why? And what are you on?
troll friend or 2nd account for stoker2014, hasn't been on in a year, then shows when stoker is posting his nonsense. Sound familiar? you will find that you will get your account suspended instead. agencies have lurkers on here and they just kill your port if they have the slightest idea who you are. ask a few on here, fotolia was notorious for that, in particular matt, who now works for adobe. istock does the same. rinder had his istock account deleted when they found him boasting on here. jo ann and others were banned from fotolia. i am sure there are more examples, people who were rioting against istock with the google deal, fotolia with dollar club. etc. best take this as advice or a warning
68
« on: November 13, 2022, 06:53 »
Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless.
Good advise that you should follow.
69
« on: November 09, 2022, 10:17 »
Uncle Pete, I have the right to know something, but not to know something, to forget something, but to remember something. What are your claims to me? I see you are satisfied that they began to pay you less, I am happy for you. 
Thanks for being happy for me.
Speaking of remembering, I seem to remember someone else who's been banned from here, who used to make all kinds of claims and draw conclusions and ignored logic and reasoning. When they were asked a direct question, the answer would turn into no answer and twisted evasion. Can I try again?
I admit that shutterstock may promote authors from certain countries, or is afraid that they will sue it. In general, I think that either the algorithms have changed, or the buyers have left, or shutterstock is hiding my money from me.
People from countries will sue SSTK?  And you say, SSTK is "hiding money" from you?
What countries? How is SSTK hiding money from you?
No I'm not happy or satisfied, making less on any agency, where did you find anything to come to that wrong conclusion?
No answer from stoker2014?
70
« on: November 07, 2022, 09:21 »
cascoly, read my posts in this thread, and not just one post, I described in detail why shutterstock went down, gave my personal examples, statistics. If you continue to make accusations against me, I will put you on ignore. I don't owe you anything. And I'm not a parrot to repeat and copy my posts. Who wanted to hear me, he heard. And I don't owe you anything.
Please ignore me and I'll do the same, you are nothing but a lost troll who has no clue that writes nonsense.
71
« on: October 31, 2022, 11:35 »
To me, Bigstock is just useless. A waste of time.
Easy to agree.
72
« on: October 31, 2022, 11:34 »
Justanotherphotographer, so write right away that you have stocks and more than 100 thousand dollars a year and no one will argue with you. I don't think there are many people on this forum with that kind of income. But the rest have to earn some money. Not everyone here is in the professional league.
If that's true? Anonymous can make up anything he wants. He's in Indonesia and 0.0053 Indian Rupee to a pound. 6 figures doesn't include the 2 to the right of the decimal point. Do you have more than $100,000 per month?
Why are you wasting your time on this forum then.
That's the most dumb reply. If someone makes six fig earning, one should appreciate his guts to come out and tell the positive side when everyone talks about the negative.
And he is not wasting his time on this forum, Forum is for everyone.
If he is and do you believe anything that anyone says. I'm the ruler of a small country, you need to listen to me and believe.
73
« on: October 12, 2022, 09:33 »
Feels more like january than october. Obvious decline all across the board in what is usually the best selling month of the year
Me too
74
« on: October 12, 2022, 09:29 »
The copyright law changes in favor of physical artwork because artist organizations are lobbing and advocating for the changes.
If stock artists always accept whatever pittance without doing anything about it, the status quo will always be the same.
Given the number of stock artists in the world, it is sad that we are so weak. The basic problem is that there is no leaders among us.
Stock Coalition, how did that go? This is not about leaders it's about power over the agencies. What will you do to demand better pay that would force them to pay more?
75
« on: October 12, 2022, 09:25 »
Didn't receive any letters. I don't think this is true.
cretino would say that inside only their own head.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
