Jump to content

Adobe wants to use your photo free for 1 year in exchange for $5... thoughts?


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Clupeidae said:

Only photos can be selected for review for the free collection.

No vectors

No, Clupeidae, as I have written before the selection includes many of my illustrations and 3D renderings.

And romi49 wrote: "they also take  vectors into consideration, I have 1400 and tell me that only 1 is  eligible"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Maybe, maybe not. One thing is pretty clear by now though, the more free images made available by others that are similar to the ones making you money now, the less likely you will be to sell your own

I believe that here lies a very crucial question about the raison d'être of microstock. There were these images that were talked about here. The images were really good. And because they were rea

It’s an interesting incentive which I fully support. If I can squeeze anything out of this dying industry (for microstock photos) I’m happy!

Posted Images

I would like to add the following to the topic:

Adobe writes that you don't get any information about the download amount of the images included in the free section. And, that templates, derivatives or modified images created from the images can continue to be used without restriction even after one year.

So, from my point of view, it can happen that such an image gets hundreds of thousands of uses. And we can't control that - Adobe probably can't either.

So from my point of view Adobe should have paid each contributor for such an image at least an extended license. Otherwise, from my point of view, there is a danger that Adobe will undermine its own licensing terms. $5 or €5 for a whole year and possibly an infinite period after that is a joke!

No one believes that Adobe is not giving us a gift, do they? This deal is most definitely for the benefit of the agency and definitely not for the benefit of the contributor. That should be clear to everyone.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Right now one of those images – suggested by Adobe – has sold for €3,96 and the same image yesterday for €0,99. There we are: €4,95 in two days instead of €5 in one year (or longer).

As I already wrote Wilm. If all 42 photos are chosen with me, I earn $210 in one year on these photos. The chance that I will earn that otherwise is minimal. However, if they pick 2 photos it's $10. Then there is a chance that otherwise I would earn more.
Your photos sell more often and I suspect often at a better price. Then the chances of it being a bad deal are even greater.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, another image from a series of which two pictures were proposed for free selection sold. The images are quite similar. The probability that someone would have chosen the free image is very high. Okay, it was only €0.38, but still.

Thijs, I think these high sums that are mentioned there are eyewash. It's done to pick the best out of a huge mass of images. Personally, I'm pretty sure that nobody gets more than $5 to $25 for one to five pictures.
Because, as already written: They don't want to cannibalise themselves with the free selection. They are simply looking for good material for internal use in their software products. At least that's what I assume.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thijs de Graaf said:

Yes that's the problem.
The problem is... if I don't do it, others will. Stopping downloading to Shutterstock in protest didn't help, because there are 1000 others in your place.
Not participating in this promotion from Adobe will not change anything. So I'll have to see what's best for me. The other side... If they end up choosing just a few photos. Does that small profit outweigh the unpleasant feeling it produces. 🤔

I understand completely. Ultimately it's up to each of us to decide what is best for us. Judging by the amount of positive contributor reaction to this though I can't see how that unpleasant feeling can ever get any better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

And another one of the suggested images just sold für €0,66. It seems that Adobe wants to help me concerning my decision.

Wilm - yes it’s funny that images that you haven’t sold before - or maybe one or two times suddently pop up for a good price ..! 😜

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oleschwander said:

Wilm - yes it’s funny that images that you haven’t sold before - or maybe two or three times suddently pop up for a good price ..! 😜

Ole, those images that Adobe has suggested, have made nearly 1500 downloads. Some of them hat 1 download. None of them has 0 downloads. Those, that have just sold, had 67, 13, and 4 downloads. The last one for €0,66 was the one with 67 downloads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Just now, another image from a series of which two pictures were proposed for free selection sold. The images are quite similar. The probability that someone would have chosen the free image is very high. Okay, it was only €0.38, but still.

Thijs, I think these high sums that are mentioned there are eyewash. It's done to pick the best out of a huge mass of images. Personally, I'm pretty sure that nobody gets more than $5 to $25 for one to five pictures.
Because, as already written: They don't want to cannibalise themselves with the free selection. They are simply looking for good material for internal use in their software products. At least that's what I assume.

Wilm, I agree that the sums referred to in the contributor emails are nothing more than a carrot meant to entice participation, but I'm curious why you think this is anything other than what it looks like at face value? Surely if Ad were only looking for internal use content specifically for their software products then why not just promote it as such? I think it's certainly part of the equation in being able to market their products with a built in library of free content, but keep in mind that Ad does some heavy promotion on one particularly popular free site, and they have been doing so for a long time now. I think they have learned a lot in that time, and see the value in lead generation and conversion to paying content by this utilizing this loss leader approach. One of the biggest concerns I have is that Ad is not a microstock agency, and in the grand scheme of things they don't really need As to be a profitable stand alone entity. Their agenda is to sell software subscriptions, not the end product. Ultimately I don't think they give a rats rectum if this scheme is utterly disruptive to the microstock market at all. I think as the free library grows in popularity Ad will be looking for new and innovative ways to grow it even further with more and more appealing content. They have already shown that their search algorithm is actually designed to penalize overly popular content, so what's to stop them from taking it a step further for example and intentionally demoting content to the point where it qualifies for the free library. It's a win win for them either way. Meantime though as competitors search for ways to answer Ad's strategy, contributors everywhere as usual will be paying for every penny of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this any different than SS dropping our share of the sale to a fraction of what it was before? Everyone got mad last year, now people are happy to get scalped. Why? Because you get to choose which images they rob from you for free use?

 

I just don't get it.

 

I also agree with Foodio, re: AS controls what gets shown to customers (just like SS and others), so they can manipulate it in any way they want to, and that's usually not to the benefit of the contributor.

 

Bottom line - this scheme is NOT a gift to contributors in any way, but the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sari ONeal said:

How is this any different than SS dropping our share of the sale to a fraction of what it was before?

The difference is that the images selected (<4 sold in last year) will for probably 95% not make above the $5 they’re offering in the next 12 months.
 

Not thrilled but I’ll take the $ to invest in some toys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex - What does it matter how many times an image sold at AS last year?

If they offer an image in their free collection, a buyer will pick the one that's cheapest.

Now they can go get an image for free from AS, as they should have paid $$ at one of the others.

For example - I sold a pic here for $80 something yesterday. That same pic is in the "selection" at AS. Should I include it in their scheme? HELL NO, because it will always bring me money here, even if it has never been an earner at AS. Now, if a buyer sees it available for free over there, why would they pay big bucks over here?

Every good image has potential for those bigger sales, and I'm NOT going to give that up for FIVE DOLLARS.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sari ONeal said:

How is this any different than SS dropping our share of the sale to a fraction of what it was before? Everyone got mad last year, now people are happy to get scalped. Why? Because you get to choose which images they rob from you for free use?

 

Because some people get way more than just scraps from SS.

And I am certainly not going to compromise the sale potential of images that sell well and regularly for me on SS and earn me good money by giving  them to Adobe for 5$, so they can ruin them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sari ONeal said:

Alex - What does it matter how many times an image sold at AS last year?

If they offer an image in their free collection, a buyer will pick the one that's cheapest.

Now they can go get an image for free from AS, as they should have paid $$ at one of the others.

For example - I sold a pic here for $80 something yesterday. That same pic is in the "selection" at AS. Should I include it in their scheme? HELL NO, because it will always bring me money here, even if it has never been an earner at AS. Now, if a buyer sees it available for free over there, why would they pay big bucks over here?

Every good image has potential for those bigger sales, and I'm NOT going to give that up for FIVE DOLLARS.

 

 

I understand what you’re saying but you overestimate buyers’ motivations to shop around. 

In other words, even if it’s available for free so doubt that most would take the time to research, login, download etc...that is even assuming that they have an account on AS. Mixture of laziness / apathy and ignorance. This isn’t like shopping for lowest plane fares.

I encounter a similar situation on Alamy vs micros. I have the same image licensed at Alamy for $120 while here for 10cents. Wtf?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Ole, those images that Adobe has suggested, have made nearly 1500 downloads. Some of them hat 1 download. None of them has 0 downloads. Those, that have just sold, had 67, 13, and 4 downloads. The last one for €0,66 was the one with 67 downloads.

But it would be crazy to accept an image with continous downloads! You’re free to choose which ones and not all the suggested images ... (but I’m sure you know that ...😝).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

The difference is that the images selected (<4 sold in last year) will for probably 95% not make above the $5 they’re offering in the next 12 months.
 

Not thrilled but I’ll take the $ to invest in some toys.

Exactly my point. With that amount, my wild guess would be that both you and me want a drone.

Regards,

Rudra

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

In other words, even if it’s available for free so where doubt that most would take the time to research, login, download etc

I have a family member that works in an industry where they continually need images to use. They go to ridiculous amounts of trouble and time to find FREE images. IMO they would be better off buying a subscription to a large stock site and find suitable images immediately, save all that time searching, and they'd still be able to forward the cost to their clients, as the image price would not really affect the price of the final product.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might sell 20 images a week on Adobe where as I sell more than that in a day on ShutterStock. And one of the images they want to include in their free selection has only sold about 10 times on Adobe but has sold over 1000 times on ShutterStock (including several times in the past week). I can’t see shooting myself in the foot like that. I did click ok on a few images but they were cell phone shots for the most part and rarely if ever sell on any of the platforms I submit to

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few more comments. 

1. Just because AS says that your photo is eligible does not mean that you have to make it eligible. You can always opt out. I have opted out photos that sell well on SS. The photos I'm opting in are the ones that haven't sold all that well and haven't come near making me $5 on SS and AS combined.

2. AS is providing the photo 'free' but you are still getting paid $5. It's a business decision for you. Do you think that photo will make more than $5 over the next 12 months if you opt out?

3. Most of my shots are editorials which is why I get more sales on SS than on AS. Around 3% of my total portfolio are getting opted in. The impact on my total sales will be minimal.

4. Just because it is 'free' on Adobe doesn't mean that it will not still be bought on SS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

I understand what you’re saying but you overestimate buyers’ motivations to shop around. 

In other words, even if it’s available for free so doubt that most would take the time to research, login, download etc...that is even assuming that they have an account on AS. Mixture of laziness / apathy and ignorance. This isn’t like shopping for lowest plane fares.

I encounter a similar situation on Alamy vs micros. I have the same image licensed at Alamy for $120 while here for 10cents. Wtf?!

Alex, what do you think why Adobe is doing this in the first place? They say they want to attract new customers and at least according to Mat from Adobe it is working (Can't see it working on my Adobe port at all, rather the opposite). The very purpose of this is for Adobe to get a bigger cut of the pie, to attract new customers and since people in need of images aren't generated out of thin air, to snatch them away from other microstock agencies. So, if this is indeed working like Mat claims, then, yes, of course this is exactly what is happening and some customers might not be as lazy as you think.

Big companies with a 750 images per month subscription probably won't search for free alternatives as many might not even use up all their images and they have a large budget to begin with. But these are the 0.10$ customers I don't really care about anyways.
What I care about are the smaller customers who have a 10 image subscription plan or even buy images on demand because they actually earn me dollar amounts instead of cents per sale. And someone who is on a tight budget and  has only 5 or 10 images he can download within a month might very likely look for free alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...