Unsplash is a terrible deal for creatives

The creative industries being riddled with manipulative practices is nothing new, unfortunately. But as the world progresses into the more digital era and subscription services become the norm, creatives are getting fuck over more than ever. Whether it's photography or graphic design and illustration, even music, every service is going out of its way to kill off the creative that has for decades produced the very wealth these platforms now thrive on. Take the media giant Adobe for example, a massive share price with a huge platform, a very expensive monthly and yearly package that encourages piracy, recently injected AI generative models into the platforms. Aspects of technology that make the creative field supposedly easier, while effectively replacing the creator and allowing the consumer of that content to jump ahead. The ethical practices of these generative models is another topic, particularly in the copyright area, though that's not the point. Suddenly, platforms are now rinsing the creator of their money while promising the assumption of increased revenue possibilities going forward. Pay a monthly fee, and who knows, maybe you'll get a new sale next month and they'll split the gains with you at a rate of 30% to you, 70% to them (monthly fee not included).

I have been getting into the stock photography and videography game a little in these last few months after seeing a post from @macchiata on Unsplash. I was curious as to how this platform worked and whether there was any potential in getting my endless folders uploaded to the platform. My goal: make money from it. To no surprise, a creative offering their creations to a platform would expect some sort of reward for it, though in this case, Unsplash has managed to convince its entire creator user base that it can be paid purely in views and statistics. Not too long ago this platform also introduced a monthly/yearly subscription fee. By joining, you get access to their exclusive library of images from those they actually do commission from a very select few. Though the platform claims that anyone can apply to this initiative and get paid fixed amounts per image, being given a set of briefs that one can choose from upon being accepted, given access to a dashboard of ideas that Unsplash believes its customers need. But who are these customers? Are they paying anyone? The whole system feels rigged for the creator.

I uploaded about 50 photographs to Unsplash, reaching a 500k view mark within a month, and getting my photography listed on numerous categories. Every day I'd be reaching new milestones, and I was quite surprised at how well I was doing. But there's the trap: what am I doing well? What are Unsplash's generous statistics telling me in actuality? Nothing. It's all to keep you hooked. Wow! Views! I tried to apply for the paid program out of cursioty at this point, the endless features and views had me under the assumption that I was doing something well. Perhaps Unsplash genuinely liked my stuff! I heard nothing back the first time, though their page claims you should stick to the platform and keep uploading and apply at a later date. I did so. I received nothing back. At this point I had the question of who I am uploading for. The statistics showed uses across various platforms: Figma, BuzzFeed even, as well as a ton of other graphic design and free website builders. Unsplash's profile offers the option to request donations for your works, though who is really using Unsplash? It definitely isn't clients looking to pay for photography, it's a platform aimed at replacing the microstock industry by getting users to upload everything for free and hand over the rights.

Take any other microstock platform, for example: their rates vary quite significantly per download (license) but your uploads mean that any downloads will generate some revenue to you. While they also boast their trash AI generation platforms, the user still can upload as many images as they like and earn in the event their images or videos are used. Of course, some of their requirements over footage and images are a bit more strict, but this is to be expected when the creator is being bridged with the consumer holding their cards at the ready. So when these options exist, what is the point of using Unsplash for a creator? Especially upon the epiphany that all those statistics they're given are merely a display of how much demand there is for their creations, while getting absolutely nothing for it. With Unsplash disappointing me, and seeing the sheer number of other people uploading their images for free, I decided to do what was best: delete it all. My account no longer exists, and my library removed from their circulation.

I'm testing the waters with various microstock platforms next, uploading different types of images and videos to see what works. But here's the benefit: if anyone does take a liking to it, I actually get paid for my efforts. Which is injected back into the creative process with new gear. If you're also on Unsplash, I'd suggest deleting too. It's such a terrible deal for creatives that only makes this industry worse. Parasitic practices that create the idea of reward for its users while they reap the income. Anyway, this is one of my rare rants. I've been generally more at peace as of late, but I couldn't help but want to write out these annoyances over my experience with Unsplash. Hopefully, somehow, this post reaches beyond Hive and fellow creatives see this and realise what they're doing. To not fall for the tricks and to take their efforts elsewhere where it's actually appreciated. Or hey, join Hive! At least you get paid something without the subscription nonsense, without the verification process, and without the unfair rates in which you get little in return while the big man takes the real cut.

Makes me question how Hive is still managing to slack behind in the industry. Somehow not replacing all of this stuff.