Agency Based Discussion > Shutterstock.com
So they do use AI to review then...
Mantis:
--- Quote from: Snow on July 31, 2020, 07:19 ---
--- Quote from: trabuco on July 31, 2020, 05:27 ---We all knew that.
--- End quote ---
Since when?
Does this explain all the stolen images and similars (spamfolio's with almost exact copies) that got in while some of us get tight reviews with rejection for similar even if it's a totally different angle or concept? Not to mention all the other ridiculous rejections?
So that would mean some get a free pass (no reviews) while others get the bots?
I think if it was AI they would scan the library for exact copies (or flipped horizontally/vertically) and reject, all in a matter of seconds, no?
Again this only makes sense to me if some would get a free pass while others get AI reviews and after complaining human reviews.
--- End quote ---
It's been known because they buried that language into their (I believe) SEC filing. I myself have found it multiple times and it is probably buried in the MSG threads somewhere. Calling them out back then, they denied it. Now it turns out to be true after all. So they did, in fact, lie to us all along. Since when? I think it was around 2012 or 2013 or thereabouts. When images that were perfectly sharp, professional prepared and rejected for being out of focus, that started raising red flags. And that is about the time we dug into their reporting to find the phrase automated inspection, or something like that.
DianeLambert:
Or they could have AI review to ingest new, but a human reviews everything that passed, nobody looks at the fails. AI can't review photos, we know that, they know that. Maybe finding similar or focus, lighting and some other, but there's no AI that can review a photo.
Shelma1:
They used AI, plus they got hit with a class action lawsuit from their human reviewers for allegedly not following U.S. employment law. So the solution for that was to get rid of the pesky humans altogether.
Jo Ann Snover:
--- Quote from: DianeLambert on July 31, 2020, 08:26 ---... but there's no AI that can review a photo.
--- End quote ---
Sure there is - if you don't care about what ends up in the collection.
Have you seen the badly lit garbage they've been accepting over the last couple of months?
It should be an embarrassment to any agency to show that type of work, but Shutterstock is happily doing that. In the illustration department, there's misspelled garbage and endlessly repetitive flag combinations or simple patterns
I've been tweeting about this for weeks. Some examples:
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288187977311481856
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288153643045158915
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1287887730462973952
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1286739227300880384
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1284252477575979010
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288683434852798464
There are many more examples (@joannsnover and #BoycottShutterstock) but you get the idea
m:
All the agencies will never get AI to work completely to review. Too many edge cases. One mistake with the wrong trademark or restriction and all cost save will be wiped out.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version