i was on WS from  the start, dealing w their terrible review process & multiple bugs in submitting process (they'd keep playing whack-la-bug with interface w/o bothering to test what its effects were on the rest of the interface.

so i never considered paying more for a 'premium' service so i stopped uploading - and now they ONLY have a premium & NO free submissions

What I find on their contributor portal:

You can get 300 free monthly marketplace submissions only if your approval rate is 85% or above.
Any new creator joining the platform will get 20 free marketplace submissions until their approval rate is calculated.

Not sure though how many smaller contributors are still uploading there. From what I hear, free submissions take months to get reviewed.

Quote from: Annie on July 14, 2023, 20:02

Quote from: stoker2014 on July 14, 2023, 12:53

Democrats have been in power in the United States now and for the past 30 years.

Hi Stoker. Not ganging up on you, just want to set the record straight. USA Democrats were not in power for the past 30 years. Here is the timeline:

President Clinton (Democrat).
2000. Putin becomes president of Russia. Clinton immediately senses that putin is not to be trusted but his presidency is coming to an end.

President George W Bush (Republican) 2001-2008
- Bush likes Putin and says he can be trusted. His famous line: "I looked into his eyes and could see his soul".
- The first long-range nuclear bombers by Russia
- Russia's devasting cyberattack on Estonia
- Putin attacks Georgia
- Bush does nothing.

President Obama (Democrat)2009-2016
- Obama puts Vice President Joe Biden in charge of foreign affairs in Russia.
- Joe Biden can see through putin and says to him, "I'm looking into your eyes and I don't think you have a soul".
- There is a political uprising of hundreds of thousands of people in Russia against Putin's recent actions. Putin squashes rebellion. Opposition leaders, journalists and anti-corruption campaigners are arrested, disappear, or die mysteriously.
- Putin seizes Crimea.
- Vice President Biden is furious and insists that putin must be stopped. But Biden loses and Obama does nothing.

President Trump (Republican)2017-2020
- Trump sides with putin, says that USA should pull out of Nato, and takes putin's side on Ukrainian issues.

President Joe Biden (Democrat)2021-
- Putin's war on Ukraine.
- Biden sends 76+ billion dollars of financial, humanitarian, military, and weapons aid to Ukraine - despite also having to deal with a post-pandemic economy in USA.



More info here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview-collection/putin-and-the-presidents/

This one is interesting:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/timothy-snyder/




Looks like Biden has been all along Ukraine's best defense against Putin.

Forgot to add:

2000 Clinton (Democrat) but with a Republican Majority Congress

George W Bush - Republican Congress

Barack Obama - First 2 years Democrat congress, then Republican majority in the House

Trump - First 2 years Republican congress, then Democrats in the House

Biden - Republican majority in the House second two years. (Current)

Very nice post Annie. Using facts to settle different opinions.
And let's be very clear, without NATO (and mainly USA) support, Ukraine was Russian territory by now.
They give Ukrainians the weapons, some controversial ones included, teach them how to use them, and tell them where to aim them at by providing intelligence.


Whether that would have been the same with someone like Trump in charge is only speculation.
My 2 cents: Trump had a "different" relationship with Putin and was less convinced that a strong collaboration and partnership with the EU would be beneficial for the US. 
His claims that there would be no war in Ukraine with him in charge could actually be true. He might as well choose to not intervene at all, and allow Putin to take Ukraine, or let the EU deal with it on their own, which would severely weaken them as well.

Looks like Bigstock is shut down for good now, no more uploading from 1st July.

Still some sales though, every now and then.
I guess it's a matter of reaching payout, cashing out and pulling out.

If they let it die, which looks like their strategy, sales will completely dry up over time and you might not even reach the next payout.

Quote from: Reimar on December 20, 2022, 11:41

The latest e-mail from SS has: "The Contributor Fund will release earnings every 6 months"
If that's all we get for 6 months of usage, it is very underwhelming.

Well, since a payment in December 2022, now June 2023 has past and still no additional Contributor funds.  Are they late?  Did SS change their minds?

I got a payment in May 2023, and a lot of others did so too if I'm not mistaken.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 06, 2023, 06:58

It's the degenerate nationalistic propaganda and constant brainwashing, from kindergarten onwards, flourishing on a religious and cultural foundation.

...

Other countries are not immune to this cultural-religious essence ready to embrace nationalistic propaganda.

...

These European an US citizens "left behind" are the ones who also caused Brexit and MAGA and the relaunch of fascism inside the EU and the US.  Because putin/russia simply tells them what they want to hear, and they have the (false) sense that they understand putin better than their own children.

That pretty much sums it up.  I've met many Russians who are good people and don't support what their government does, but can't do much about it or they will be put in jail or worse.  Not all Russians are willing mass murderers!  That would be like saying everyone in the US was a Christo-fascist bigot based on the previous person in the White House.  Unfortunately, too many people are easily influenced by propaganda and get hyped up on nationalistic nonsense to do things they ordinarily would not.  I am not defending them, it is just a sad commentary on our species.

Look at the influence and damage that MAGA, Brexit or other very nationalistic propaganda in other countries can do in a few years to well established democracies, and stretch that out over generations. This is what most Russians and their ancestors had to encounter and this is what you have to keep in mind when judging them. Most Russians have a history of living as peasants, living under very oppressive regimes and corruption-driven governments that just tells them what to do, how to think, how to act, with very harsh measures taken against opposing voices and movements. Many historians trying to understand what's currently going on refer to that history, and point out that most Russians are very apathic and negative towards their leaders and governments, but at the same time, just go along because they don't know any better, the ones who know better still go along because there is no way to fight the system, they just try to get by for themselves.

Throw in the nostalgia some older generations feel for communism and the influence on the world Russia had back in those days and you get a better understanding why most Russians voice support for everything that Putin pulling of the last decade or so. It's business as usual for most of them, and a revival of the great Russia for others.

Small personal anecdote: I remember traveling Russia a 15 years ago or so, when the political situation was way more relaxed, and of all my travels I found Russia to be the most hostile, uninviting, unfriendly and distant towards tourists or foreigners. The only way to really connect with Russians was to start drinking with them (which I don't recommend by the way, it's a game you can't win) and start talking about hard-work-misery, how great things could have been but are not, and about unaccomplishments and never realized greatness.
These are of course personal and individual anecdotes, but I always thought it said a lot about how many Russians really feel.

Whatever the outcome of the invasion and war in Ukraine will be, it will not fix the issues mentioned above. But it is a reminder for the rest of the world, and for the ones who live in more democratic regions. Vote whatever you want, but don't vote too authoritarian, it's very hard to get rid of and will finally lead to all of the above.

The buyer will want this image, not your real photograph which will be considered less expressive... the references change and this (d)evolution will make the real tasteless, insipid, hard to sell.
Welcome to the brave fantastic/exciting new world.

https://stock.adobe.com/images/LetStandAgainstAI/611567956

This is true, but I currently find it hard to predict the impact of tech on society. I think it will reach a tipping point, where people will come to the conclusion that they are being fooled by artificial imagery. Stock agencies were already calling out for authenticity long before AI came to market, and they will continue to do so.

Another example: shooting film is severely on the rise again. Ever wondered why?
Why do people love classic cars?
Why do travel agencies struggle in selling their all inclusive resorts?
Why do many people remove social apps on their phone, sometimes even abandon them, or at least start using them very responsible?

People embrace tech, but there is always room for the real deal.
It's what defines our identity, makes us human, is what's life is all about I guess.
Mastering and owning authenticity is extremely valuable.
But maybe not for stock. I honestly don't know. 

The way I understood it, the content that's only part of the Data Catalog will be compensated via the already existing contributor fund. Content accepted for the regular stock database will be compensated via the regular and also already existing commissions.

Contributors should be able to filter out the assets which are only accepted for the data catalog soon.

Needlessly to say that contributor fund compensations are neglectable for individual images.

Shutterstock will soon begin to make modifications to Bigstock�s front end and back end technologies in an attempt to stabilize, and hopefully revitalize, the site.

Looks like they don't have high hopes themselves in improving business there.
Feels a bit odd to invest time and money then.

Quote from: stoker2014 on June 01, 2023, 02:26

Quote from: Injustice for all on May 31, 2023, 20:30

In my opinion,Russians are not fascists and Crimea should be free and independent from Russia and Ukraine,but I think we need an official referendum for this managed by Europe,United States,Russia and Ukraine,because it is a territory thrown into total chaos for too long.

Who are you going to give the Ukrainian Crimea to? Maybe also separate Sicily from Italy?

I think Crimea has to decide for Crimea,with all due respect of course,we don't know each other,maybe I'm wrong I don't know,but in my opinion you take too many things for granted,often things are not as they seem.
And to answer your question,yes of course,if Sicily ever wanted to separate from Italy,who are we Italians to oppose the will of the Sicilians?

How is it even possible to truly know what Crimea wants, or say to whom Crimea truly belongs to after a history of changing hands for so many times?

It's a good example of how one-sided imaginary nationalism and made up borders will never able to provide a sustainable and stable solution for any region in the world that's subject of territory claims.

Many countries and regions in the more civilized part of the world found a solution for that: federal states with high degrees of self-government.
Is it perfect? No. Does it bring peace? Political turmoil aside: yes it does.

Plenty of examples to be found on the European continent where regions who feel they don't really fit in the country that claims their territory have gotten a fair amount of self-government through a democratic process. Many of those regions have had violent struggles, but they were all somehow able to leave it all behind because both sides came to the conclusion they couldn't win, and decided to continue their battle politically. Still a lot of crap going on, but at least, regular innocent people minding their own business won't get shot or bombed anymore, and many of those regions thrive and increased their general welfare.

 

Quote from: Thomas Vogel on May 30, 2023, 07:15

... I particularly refer to images of artists that have been used as training material without their consent or licensing, essentially representing the brain of the AI. Technically, parts of these artists' images are processed with each new prompt during image generation. Personally, I would only make my images available under an extended license for generative AIs....

like many othersd, you fail to learn how genAI works before criticizing..

 'parts of images' are NOT used in creation of new art.

That's true. And let me also add that a lot of people don't understand copyright in general. Both can be a complicated matter.

But the fact is: without the unsolicited use of images and text, which are both subject of copyright protection, there would be no AI as we know it now. A company as Shutterstock wouldn't be inventing a thing like the contributor fund if they didn't feel they had to do that in order to avoid legal trouble. iStock/Getty and Adobe are considering the same if I'm not mistaken. And all three of them have the financial power to pay for premium legal consultancy and lobbying. Some agencies even don't accept AI generated content, for various reasons probably (you also need to be able to handle the extra influx of content for instance).

I'm no expert in both AI tech and copyright regulations, but as I understand it, it shows that there is a potential issue with using AI generated content for commercial purposes.

Yes, they definitely changed their policy. Barely rejections nowadays.
Feels like they're very hungry for content (to sell as datasets for AI training I assume).

... And so it begins ... Adobe this means you.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urged lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence during a Senate panel hearing Tuesday, describing the technology's current boom as a potential "printing press moment" but one that required safeguards.

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

Quickly followed by agreement and expression of laws in the making to do just that.

He's obviously right, but that's a weird thing of him to say. Right? He used people's data to train his ChatGPT.
It's already there, and it sounds like he want's to prevent competitors from getting access to the amount of data he had.
Or is he gonna shut down ChatGPT and start all over again the "moral" way?

We were speaking of Fox News earlier on this thread. This has been in the news:

"Canadian regulator launches public consultation on banning Fox News from cable packages"

https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/canadian-regulator-launches-public-consultation-on-banning-fox-news-from-cable-packages-1.6386988

Quote

Canadian regulators have launched a public consultation on calls to ban Fox News from cable packages after receiving complaints saying the network has aired hateful content about LGBTQ2S+ people.

The public consultation, which began earlier this month, was triggered by an open letter from advocacy group Egale Canada.

"People in Canada deserve to know that the news broadcast on Canadian airwaves is reliable and objective, and marginalized groups must be protected from malicious propaganda," the group's executive director Helen Kennedy wrote.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

When your key objective is providing reliable and objective news outlets, Fox news has no place on your network, that's clear.

But. It's a very slippery slope, and no matter how much I dislike media outlets as Fox, I really wonder a ban is the right thing to do.
It will put them in their favorite position: a gagged victim. It will give them the power to say: your government doesn't want you to hear what we have to say. Your government only feeds you what they want you to eat. It also gives them more power to attack the mistakes other non-banned media make. And people will keep on consuming fox over the internet anyhow, getting even more tangled up in their spiderweb because they don't trust their own media regulator anymore.

The examples I've seen from (from my point of view justified) banning extreme voices in my country only made them more popular. We did that. We banned a far-right political party. We got them convicted for racism. Mainstream media banned them from interviews and tv-shows for a very long time. Yet. They are now the biggest political party in my country up to a point where they can't be ignored anymore. The same is happening with communists. Banned from mainstream media for a very long time, banned from taking part in governments, yet, they keep on growing election after election, up to a point where they can't be ignored anymore.

We started a war against illegal drugs. Yet, finding a dealer never was easier than today, one of our cities is a major drug trafficking hub in the world, and we have weekly incidents with explosions, drive by shootings and brutal murders organized by drug organizations.

I believe that hard repression against opposing or rather extreme voices has no place in a democracy. It will end in a highly polarized culture war with the winner installing a dictatorial leadership applying harsh repression tactics against opposition and allowing very little freedom, even for the ones who are rather supportive for the leadership. Nobody truly enjoys living in a society like that. At the same time, I strongly believe in a society setting boundaries to what is acceptable and what not, with consequences on freedom and freedom of speech.

Two quotes whom I hold in high esteem:
- I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
- Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid crap.