Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Sari ONeal said:

In other words, they changed the algorithm so much that a previously well selling image got literally almost no sales in a year, and thus could be placed in the "not a good seller" category, and into the "free image eligible" pool.

 

What does THAT tell you? (You as everyone in here, not Firn specifically)

 

So, they essentially killed the sales of great images to sneak them into the free images and then they make an offer that's supposed to look good to the contributor, because "look, your image is not selling anyway, might as well give it away".

 

I think there are two sides to this medal: If a bestseller stayed a bestseller forever, there would be no point to upload new content at all. There is only so little room at the top of search results for keywords. If the same images take up the top for years, no other images ever get a chance to shine, even if it is better. Of course it's good for the owner of the bestseller, but not so much for basically everyone else. I see this actually as a bit of a problem in microstock, the dominant position some photos get to keep for years. When an image has many downloads, it gets a a better position and a better position leads to more downloads and from there it's hard to break the circle. When I started about 2,5 half years ago I uploaded some  older photos, that, compared to what I do now, weren't really good. The quality isn't good, technical- ,composition- and motive-wise. Still some somehow made it into regular sellers. So after a while I tried to recreate the motives. I am 100% sure that they are much better in every aspect, but I didn't manage to get a better search result ranking with these images, so my older images of poorer quality sell better than the newer and better ones.

Also, see what was discussed above about the photo that was all over the internet for a while: At some point an image gets sold so much, that the demand for it declines. People don't want to use the same image over and over again. So I think it's a bit a good thing and probably also a bit of self-regulation from the market that there is some fluctuation and an image that sold hundreds of times in the past doesn't do so anymore in the present.

The problem with Adobe is that I am not seeing new content sell, so if old bestsellers don't sell well anymore (though I must say that for me the old photos are the only photos that sell somewhat regularly) and new content doesn't sell, then I really don't know what does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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 went through the list and selected those photos which had never sold on Shutterstock. Until recently, AS was never a big seller for me so If I can make $5 for shots that haven't really been selling

Posted Images

6 hours ago, MrSorbias said:

I know this is unpopular opinion among contributors, but they might have "killed" some images, because the images become too popular.

Using AI and Machine Learning to Overcome Position Bias within Adobe Stock Search | by Fengbin Chen | Adobe Tech Blog | Medium

@MrSorbias Popular or not, it's not a question of "might have" at all. The above has been implemented and refined.

The thing is though that every MS agency has to weigh the pros and cons of how to navigate this problem without inadvertently killing the golden goose so to speak. High quality, relevant and popular content more often than not takes a lot of time and money to produce. Subsequently that kind of content absolutely needs to sell in a healthy mix of volume and price points in order for its creators to be able to keep on producing it. If you read the article I think you'll see both the dilemma and the opportunity this creates for any agency dabbling in a bilateral "free collection and paid library" model based on sales. It's clear to me that the free collection is where AS would ultimately like to send content to die a premature death. 

Does anyone know if AS has addressed the question of where content goes after one year? Does it rotate back into your portfolio? What happens if they can't even give it away?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Foodio said:

Using AI and Machine Learning to Overcome Position Bias within Adobe Stock Search | by Fengbin Chen | Adobe Tech Blog | Medium

@MrSorbias Popular or not, it's not a question of "might have" at all. The above has been implemented and refined.

The thing is though that every MS agency has to weigh the pros and cons of how to navigate this problem without inadvertently killing the golden goose so to speak. High quality, relevant and popular content more often than not takes a lot of time and money to produce. Subsequently that kind of content absolutely needs to sell in a healthy mix of volume and price points in order for its creators to be able to keep on producing it. If you read the article I think you'll see both the dilemma and the opportunity this creates for any agency dabbling in a bilateral "free collection and paid library" model based on sales. It's clear to me that the free collection is where AS would ultimately like to send content to die a premature death. 

Does anyone know if AS has addressed the question of where content goes after one year? Does it rotate back into your portfolio? What happens if they can't even give it away?

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 really good, they sold so often. Maybe thousands of times.

Why were they so good? Maybe simply because the photographer took everything into account in a professional way to make the photo so good.

That's where models were paid. There was studio rent paid. And a photographer. And the camera equipment. Storage media, heating, etc.

That is the content of microstock. That's what it's all about!

If a client doesn't want an image that has already been circulated hundreds or thousands of times, he has to hire a photographer for the appropriate money. If that is too expensive for him, he has to look for a microstock agency.

But to say: "I want something completely extraordinary but unique  - for €3.30 or $0.10" - that's not possible.

That's why the algorithm of every agency must reward a photographer's work with long-term revenue opportunities - if not, the microstock model is absurd. This must be clear to every contributor!

And we are inexorably approaching this point. I want a new picture. That no one has used yet. And it should be really good. But it must not cost anything.

That's not a future model for this industry, is it?

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

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 really good, they sold so often. Maybe thousands of times.

Why were they so good? Maybe simply because the photographer took everything into account in a professional way to make the photo so good.

That's where models were paid. There was studio rent paid. And a photographer. And the camera equipment. Storage media, heating, etc.

That is the content of microstock. That's what it's all about!

If a client doesn't want an image that has already been circulated hundreds or thousands of times, he has to hire a photographer for the appropriate money. If that is too expensive for him, he has to look for a microstock agency.

But to say: "I want something completely extraordinary but unique  - for €3.30 or $0.10" - that's not possible.

That's why the algorithm of every agency must reward a photographer's work with long-term revenue opportunities - if not, the microstock model is absurd. This must be clear to every contributor!

And we are inexorably approaching this point. I want a new picture. That no one has used yet. And it should be really good. But it must not cost anything.

That's not a future model for this industry, is it?

Yeah, I agree. And there is something very worrying in this idea you came up with. 

If we compare the Shutterstock model to Adobe model. Out of all the millions of photos, what precent of those assets is doing the "heavy lifting"?  And what's the purpose of all the "other photos"?

There is small portion of those photos where you have the paid model to do the acting for the image. The photographer have done some investments to get top tier good gear, they made sure that they have the model release done properly -and all that. There is no question, that those photos should be visible, because they are the flag ship of this business.

But as someone also said, when they tried to make a better version of some of their own photos, the new better versions were never bought. So in my opinion, that's not working correctly. The "flagships" are actually a product of the algorithm that doesn't care what you invested to your gear or how hard it was to find the model.

We also have, let's say a 10 000, quite much equally good photos of a "cat". Or some similar topic. Why should one of those "cat photos" be on top, for years and be sold thousands of times when there is 9 999 quite much equally good photos of the same topic. Shouldn't someone also pet those cats? Or some search word, such as "bird". Why some specific bird has to be on top all the time?

This is actually the question what made me at one point stop photography almost completely. At one point it seemed that literally "everyone" started photographing. And they started "competing" of who has the most expensive gear. Then camera phones happened and suddenly photography was not valued as an art form at all. It become ordinary.

But I was shooting for over 10 years with Nikon d80 and didn't join that "battle", because I felt that I never can pay back the price of expensive gear with the photos. I saw how much other photographers came up with similar and more expensive and better gear doing exactly the same as I did. So that's one of the reasons why I started doing 3d-modeling instead. Now it looks like that 3d-modeling also is becoming too easy (I am partly the reason of that, because I've done so much tutorials about 3d-modeling and I am thinking to still keep doing those) and all the time more people are joining into that frontier also. They are now compiting of who has the best computers to render faster and create materials, have more polygons etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny but FT (where I was exclusive) was the reason I came to SS in 2012. Somehow, I never thought I was good enough for SS then but when I was with FT I was doing well with a couple of really good sellers...........until they suddenly (and I mean suddenly) stopped selling.  I had a couple of images that sold really well and within 2 weeks, they never sold again. So, I deleted them from FT and came to SS where the one image had sold 500X on FT and suddenly stopped whereas it has sold here 4,000+ times which only tells me that it was a good commercial image and that whatever happened in 2012 at FT was a tad bent! I get the impression that they changed their algo to favour certain other players/portfolios at the time and that there was no longer a 'level' playing field. With AS that is not the case.

Basically, I have the same port there as here and whilst I earn half there what I earn here, I don't have to suffer the ultra low subs there as I do here.....and I get free PS CC for 2 years running (which I think is a great promo)! There are quite a few images at AS that they have singled out for their (possibly) free prog but there are quite a few of those that I won't submit because they still make me more money here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Foodio said:

Does anyone know if AS has addressed the question of where content goes after one year? Does it rotate back into your portfolio? What happens if they can't even give it away?

Yes, after 12 months the images go back into our port.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sari ONeal said:

In other words, they changed the algorithm so much that a previously well selling image got literally almost no sales in a year, and thus could be placed in the "not a good seller" category, and into the "free image eligible" pool.

So they are killing their best sellers (or good sellers) in order to give them away for free ..?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 3:11 AM, MrSorbias said:

I found out that they are asking only photos. Not graphical designs or renders. I didn't go into it, because I think it was smarter to stay of from that free collection at this moment. But I see that there is all the time growing "market" for free photos. I am thinking that Adobe is trying to get customers from Pixabay -kind of places with this trick.

Photos only for me too. @Wilm Ihlenfeld won't believe us. I selected under 100 with no sales.

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

Photos only for me too. @Wilm Ihlenfeld won't believe us. I selected under 100 with no sales.

You are right, Clupeidae.

It is because I obviously had not marked my illustrations as illustrations when I uploaded them, but apparently as photos. I have checked that now. You can clearly see that they are illustrations, but that doesn't seem to play a role in the selection process. What is in the category photos is selected.
And that is also the case with the alleged vector of Romi49. It is a jpg, not an eps, and she had probably accidentally marked it as a photo when uploading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, paula french said:

Is this a ploy to get you to agree to allowing XX photo's in the 'free' downloads - i.e 500, but actually they only decide to pay you for i.e 10 - will those 490 others still be freebies??  Or will it just be the ones they have paid you for - sorry if I'm being a bit thick here?

Just the ones you pick yourself and they pay for - as I understand it ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paula french said:

Is this a ploy to get you to agree to allowing XX photo's in the 'free' downloads - i.e 500, but actually they only decide to pay you for i.e 10 - will those 490 others still be freebies??  Or will it just be the ones they have paid you for - sorry if I'm being a bit thick here?

Only the ones they've paid you for. Between now and the end of September they will have three rounds of selection for the free collection. If they don't choose your images they remain in your portfolio. There's a long and detailed discussion over at Micro Stock Group .com

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

Rudy - how did you figure that out ..?

Well "regular" RF licensing is already pretty liberal and virtually uncontrollable in my book. Free images is like a free for all global distribution. Sooner or later those free images will lead their own life on the WWW. So, it seems more efficient just to skip the agency step.

Nothing is "free" It all depends what price we are willing to pay for "free"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got finished lurking around the other forum and noticed a link to three contributors As is highlighting on the free collection. Pretty amazing stuff, and a glaring indication of the direction I think As really wants to take this. It's exactly the kind of content As needs to push in order for this to gain the traction they want it to, with everything else being subordinate filler. By the way if your own work measures up in comparison to these folks then no doubt you too will have a very bright future to look forward to giving your work away for free. The new microstock brought to you by your friends at Ad. FFS. 

On the other hand though I've been thinking more and more that long term this might actually be a good thing for professional/commercial creatives. As access to ubiquitous high quality content slowly dries up (it has to) then perhaps some former avenues for custom content creators will begin to open back up. One can hope.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

Well "regular" RF licensing is already pretty liberal and virtually uncontrollable in my book. Free images is like a free for all global distribution. Sooner or later those free images will lead their own life on the WWW. So, it seems more efficient just to skip the agency step.

Nothing is "free" It all depends what price we are willing to pay for "free"

Rudy - frankly I don’t understand your answer. Are you talking money wise or altruistic? Adobe is paying for using your image for one year ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2021 at 6:14 AM, Pascale Gueret said:

Hello, on 1757 eligible files, 88 have never been sold. And the images that sell the most have not been chosen. How do they make their choice? I don’t know...

MSG forum the Adobe rep has stated that although he doesn't know the full criteria if definitely excludes images sold over 4 times in the last 12 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2021 at 3:37 AM, oleschwander said:

Rudy - frankly I don’t understand your answer. Are you talking money wise or altruistic? Adobe is paying for using your image for one year ...

I am just saying, AS wants to pay you a few bucks to throw your images out there  and in my opinion, those "free" images become instantly unsellable thereon after for the reasons I stated. We all should be more expensive than that.

I could be wrong (it happened before)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my view, those images once out there are effectively free for ever more so they'll likely never sell again.

They're also unlikely to sell on any other site (who is going to buy an image when they get can it free elsewhere).

It also might have a knock-on effect for better selling similar images you have in your paid portfolio - if the free is "good enough" why pay for another related one?

Its not a case of getting a 1 off payment for 1 image that's never sold.  It doesn't operate in isolation.

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...