|
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 - kuriouskat
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 25
26
« on: January 05, 2024, 04:42 »
Can someone please advise me how I can disable my portfolio in SS? Thanks.
In your profile settings.
Thanks. I went to the profile page, and disabled "data licensing", but still kept the "video licensing" for the time being.
I am going to see if deleting "data licensing" can stop those 0.25 per clip sales. If they continue, I will disable "video licensing" as well.
It won't stop the .25c sales, which are customer downloads, and not related to Data Licensing.
27
« on: December 27, 2023, 11:43 »
28
« on: December 15, 2023, 04:06 »
ETA 1: I see what was wrong. Where you could previously accept keywords it identified as spelling error (such as a real and actual place / location name) you can seemingly accept this is correct but it won't allow you to save, so the workaround is to remove the keyword from the list. Otherwise you can still copy and paste the keywords. - you just press the plus sign at right. Just need to keep the place name in the title but not in the keywords. Hopefully it is still searchable. Other update is descriptions have a 150 character limit down from 200 characters.
I tested this, and was able to mark the perceived misspelt word by clicking on it and marking it as 'this is correct'. I was then able to save and submit.
29
« on: December 13, 2023, 14:24 »
Some 1400 of my images are there via Canstock. I have emailed and ask for their immediate removal.
Do we know of any other Canstock partners? If this agency still has the content, the images could be on many other sites.
30
« on: December 09, 2023, 11:44 »
31
« on: December 09, 2023, 04:28 »
I also received my final payment.
Thank you, Canstock, for dealing with this closure in a professional manner. So many sites have just disappeared over the years, taking our hard earned cash with them. The final payment is appreciated.
32
« on: November 30, 2023, 08:55 »
It's all OK for me.
It sounds like a local display problem, so best to clear cache/cookies or try with a different browser.
After doing the above, try this link:
https://submit.shutterstock.com/en/dashboard
If it doesn't work, then you can email Shutterstock support, rather than using the web contact page.
[email protected]
Thanks! I'll give this a try.
c h e e r s
fred
Hope you get things resolved OK.
33
« on: November 29, 2023, 11:09 »
It's all OK for me. It sounds like a local display problem, so best to clear cache/cookies or try with a different browser. After doing the above, try this link: https://submit.shutterstock.com/en/dashboardIf it doesn't work, then you can email Shutterstock support, rather than using the web contact page. [email protected]
34
« on: November 16, 2023, 03:40 »
Yes, I got paid on the 10th of November.
35
« on: November 09, 2023, 03:48 »
I've also experienced similar inconsistencies. I've had times where I've submitted two images of the same subject from a different angle and/or crop, and one is approved but the other doesn't meet the requirements. There is no rhyme or reason to it.
36
« on: November 08, 2023, 12:25 »
I tested it and it did very well, so I signed up.
However, now I have 400 images a month, or so I thought. However, each time I make a change and generate the keywords again, it uses another credit. One image has cost me 4 credits because I wanted to tweak the results.
It's very misleading to say that you have credits to keyword 400 images a month, when that isn't really the case.
37
« on: October 06, 2023, 09:43 »
@Jo Ann, DepositPhoto don't accept AI content. Initially they did accept it, but then it was all removed.
38
« on: September 28, 2023, 01:50 »
How do you know that anything has changed and that data has been erased? Do you mean a search of your own portfolio or a search of the whole collection?
39
« on: September 20, 2023, 02:19 »
Had this a few weeks ago. Also changed mine. Make sure you go via the site just in case
Agreed - I got the email last week, but changed via the site and not the link.
40
« on: September 18, 2023, 09:56 »
I can get an image on Canva and then spend 3 hours doing a template with it. Creates a lot of traffic, doesn't mean anyone gets extra sales. So that Canva has more traffic than Shutterstock does really not say much about how sucessfull it is for contributors comapare dto other agencies.
You can do the same on Shutterstock these days, but I appreciate your point about them being essentially different entities. My point is that earnings are suddenly dropping like a stone. I don't fully understand how pay is calculated for 'applies' and 'exports' but, looking at the exports for last month, and dividing the earnings I received by the number of times an image was exported, I earned 0.5c per image. When I started with them, I earned 35c per image. The company is valued at $46 billion, which is hardly surprising if they are giving away our assets for less than a cent.
41
« on: September 18, 2023, 05:47 »
Yes, Canva gets several times the web traffic of Shutterstock. 5x as much according to sites like "similarweb".
I am not sure whether web traffic is what you can compare to each other, because Shutterstock is only a microstock agency, while Canva is also a graphic design tool, so part of the traffic is not generated by customers buying images, but using the tools.
I know there are some people who say Canva was their best earner, but if you look at the poll, Canva does not even make it into the top 10 in terms of revenue. I know if you have the right graphics you can probably make a lot of money.
When I signed up with Canva, they told me that they would not accept my images on white background, but that I should make them transparent pngs, because these were the images that would get sold the most on Canva. So, for example, if you have a lot of transparent pngs you will probably do much better there than someone doing travel photos. That's why I think Canva is one of the top earners for some contributors, but not for most. It's just not your typical microstock agency.
I agree that it's not your typical agency, but the design tool drives traffic that requires images/graphics, and these are almost all licensed from the images available in the database. The tool has proved to be so successful, that Shutterstock and other agencies now have similar integrated tools, because the model works. I don't have any images on white and I've been with Canva since day one. At the beginning, you could submit such images and they had staff who were cutting them out from the background before publishing them. The reality was that such submission sat in the review queue for months on end, so it quickly became clear that you either needed to submit ready prepared png cutouts or not bother, (but I don't even think png submissions were even an option at the start). I had very few images on white, so I didn't bother to submit those, and just uploaded my standard stock images - a mixture of food and drink, backgrounds, travel, wildlife, and a very small collections of people and lifestyle. However, from an earnings point of view, I've always done pretty well, with Canva being somewhere in my top 4 each month since 2014 - they've never topped Shutterstock, but often beat Istock or Adobe, and were way higher than other mid-tear sites, such as Dreamstime, 123RF, Depositphotos, etc. Now my year to date earnings for this year are only 25% of the same period last year. That's a huge drop.
42
« on: September 17, 2023, 16:45 »
All these small agencies will eventually go out of business because greed and AI
Canva is a very long way from being a 'small agency'.
43
« on: September 12, 2023, 04:11 »
Dreadful numbers, and down to just above 20% of my monthly average in 2022. Is AI now just making us totally expendable, or is this just another example of corporate greed? All these companies got rich off the back of us, and now just throw us peanuts. Meanwhile, Melanie Perkins, co-founder of Canva is estimated to be worth $3.6 billion, and Canva has a value of $40 billion. https://www.forbes.com/profile/melanie-perkins/I have no issue with people getting rich from a good idea, and she and her co-founder have pledged a large chunk of their Canva share to charitable causes, which is commendable, but what about us?? Don't we deserve to be paid a living wage for our contribution? Don't we need help during a global economic crisis, or do we have to wait until we've bankrupted ourselves and become homeless to maybe get assistance from 'charitable causes'?
44
« on: September 01, 2023, 15:16 »
There is a notice on their website saying "They will cease operations on October 1st".
So I guess this clears up all your confusions..
Sad to see them go. We had a good ride while it lasted.
Yes, I'm sorry to see them go, but I'm grateful that they aren't just shutting up shop and leaving the contributors high and dry. Hopefully they will make final payments as promised. I have a feeling they won't be the only smaller site to close down.
45
« on: September 01, 2023, 02:42 »
Same for me. When I saw that the uploads weren't going through, and that the forum was down, I requested a payout. That came through within a couple of days, which was reassuring, but I got charged a fee, which I don't think has happened in the past.
I opened a support ticket regarding the upload problem several days ago, which is still unanswered.
46
« on: August 31, 2023, 13:47 »
You have submitted files that refer to famous artists, people, characters from popular culture, and/or other existing subjects such as video games in the image, title or keywords. We take intellectual property rights very seriously and your uploads are a violation of these rights and thus violate the upload guidelines.
I think you are making assumptions about misused keywords and filenames. I think you likely have a bigger problem with images such as these:
47
« on: August 30, 2023, 13:02 »
I had this rejection reason before AI times with photos of the Sacre Coeur in Paris.
Despite several attempts, always this reason for refusal. I had explained it to myself that the topic was simply saturated.
It's on Shutterstock's restricted list.
Sacr-Cr
Located in Paris, France
Interiors and exteriors are unacceptable for both commercial and editorial use
Thanks, but I don't quite understand that.
When I search on Shutterstock, I come up with 134 pages.
For 2023 also a few new editorials, but quite few.
Mine were removed, and I was notified of the policy change by email. I guess any that are still there will be taken down eventually.
48
« on: August 30, 2023, 06:13 »
I had this rejection reason before AI times with photos of the Sacre Coeur in Paris.
Despite several attempts, always this reason for refusal. I had explained it to myself that the topic was simply saturated.
It's on Shutterstock's restricted list. Sacr-Cr
Located in Paris, France
Interiors and exteriors are unacceptable for both commercial and editorial use
49
« on: August 25, 2023, 11:38 »
I was going to upload 1 non-AI photo now, but saw the new disclaimer that scared me and decided not to upload. I don't want to risk myself losing my monthly royalty just because of 1 photo Adobe Stock may think they see recognizable faces or trademark I don't see and am not aware of.
It's Adobe Stock's job to find recognizable faces or trademark/logo and reject photos/clips imo. And in the past, Adobe Stock and all other agencies just rejected those with model release/trademark issues, not ban you and close your account. If they say they'll close your account just because you uploaded photo/clip that contains recognizable face without model release or brand logo/trademark, I can't upload anymore. They got to clarify this. One strike and you lose your account with thousands of photos generating steady revenue?
I also saw this last night, and held off submitting one of the images I'd uploaded, (non-AI). Like you, I felt I couldn't take the risk. I submitted it to all my other sites, and the images has been approved commercially elsewhere, but there was a niggling voice in the back of my head that said I'm 99% sure this is OK for a commercial submission, but the 1% won out. In the past, I would have just uploaded and relied on the review to inform me of any potential problems.
50
« on: August 25, 2023, 03:47 »
I had a brief look at the portfolio on Dreamstime, and did come across a few 'Aperol spritz' images. I didn't know if 'Aperol' was the generic name of a type of drink, or a brand name. It turns out it is a brand name, but I had to look it up to check. The OP here has clearly made some mistakes, I'm sure we all have, but isn't the point of the review to filter out those mistakes? We've all had images rejected for missing a hidden logo, or using a brand name that we thought was a generic term, but those submissions weren't done with an intent to deceive, and I don't believe that accounts should be closed for honest and unintentional mistakes. That said, there are a few areas where potential problems, such as the Caddilac and the Aperol brand names, and the Caddilac design and logo are pretty obvious. However, from the Dreamstime portfolio, I'd also add 'grumpy cat, Pennywise from It and Freddy Kruger to that list, along with the house being raised by balloons from the film Up. There is also a vehicle that is very close in shape to a VW Beetle. Less close, but still sufficiently alike to draw comparison, there is Godzilla, (also keyworded as Godzilla), ET, and the Devil character from the film Legend. Is AI just being fed too much on film stills to mean that even generic prompts return potentially infringing images? https://www.dreamstime.com/evil-clown-doll-dirty-look-created-generative-ai-technology-evil-clown-doll-dirty-look-created-image276424759https://www.dreamstime.com/surreal-grumpy-cat-created-generative-ai-technology-surreal-grumpy-cat-created-generative-ai-technology-image283222237Don't get me wrong, I'm am sympathetic to the contributor concerned, as the degree of 'closeness' should be picked up during review and rejected accordingly, as it would be for non-AI submissions. But I'm also trying to look at this from Adobe's perspective, as we have a joint responsibility as contributors to not submit these problematic images in the first place. Mistakes can happen, and something that resembles a film can be glaringly obvious to some people, whilst others are totally oblivious, but to be oblivious to all of these iconic characters and subjects is unusual - Caddilac, Grumpy Cat, Pennywise, Freddy Kruger, VW Beetle, Godzilla? I'm sure all of us hope that this case is fully investigated and brought to the right conclusion, whatever that may be.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
