It's not really news that agencies are accepting content that violates their published rules, but given the recent WAG strike and ongoing SAG-AFTRA strike where AI use by companies is a key issue, I can see how this became a subject of discussion.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/9/23909529/disney-marvel-loki-generative-ai-poster-backlash-season-2

Some interesting points of view in the comments. For example how designers under pressure to keep their jobs feel

"It's an integrated tool in Photoshop at this point as well. If you're not using all the tools available to you, you're simply going to be seen as slow to employers. This pixel-measuring is just as ridiculous as when people tried to determine if filters were used in the 2000s. Having consumers breathing down creatives backs for the tools they pick is just an unnecessary pressure in an otherwise high-tension position to begin with."

"As a senior graphic designer who often does highly visible work for a myriad of household names, I can only shrug. Generative AI tools are an entrenched part of my workflow now, albeit at conceptual stage rather than finished artwork, or client internal communications use otherwise � and the line has become blurred even further with the release of Photoshop's Generative Fill tools. The expected pace of design turnaround is faster than ever and I need to stay ahead of the hack account managers armed with Canva and MidJourney taking evening design courses, or its my job on the line."

"I mean, as a designer I understand very well that I have to keep up at this point. Pandora's box is open. It's out there. It won't go away. I'm also using it. But I do see the injustice in how big tech companies profit off of the labor of millions of artists and then selling the computer made remix back to me as a service. I feel if there's still a window where open outrage can sway some policies to better integrate artists and designers into the value chain it is probably now. If not now - it will be never."

Slightly different angle on the same topic - about how key Adobe's finance head is in making AI product decisions...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adobe-cfo-helping-steer-company-110806766.html

My experience is that the understanding finance people have of the guts of the business behind the numbers is very shallow

Do not apologize for the "wall of text" - that was very helpful. It spurred a lot of thoughts about a real tangle for agencies in evaluating what they will and won't accept in the future.

It also highlighted that I need to do a little reading - I am starting with this Google overview and will see if I can educate myself on this topic

https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/gan

I don't use Topaz's tools, but all my uploaded images have been massaged by RAW processors and Photoshop tools. I don't consider those changes to be generated, but clearly we're a long way from processing film in a darkroom

When Photoshop was a baby, it was viewed as suspect by some, but the message from those of using these tools was that it was just doing what you could always have done in the darkroom but without the chemicals and mess. Even if you just stuck with Capture One or Lightroom and Photoshop, we're way beyond that now.

Clearly agencies need to scale back on trying to cut costs by using inadequate tools to evaluate contributor's content, but it does raise the question of what the appropriate yardstick should be.

Firefly 2 (beta) is now like a brain that's three times larger!!

"Alexandru Costin, Adobe�s VP for generative AI and Sensei, told me that the new model wasn�t just trained on more recent images from Adobe Stock and other commercially safe sources, but also that it is significantly larger. �Firefly is an ensemble of multiple models and I think we�ve increased their sizes by a factor of three,� he told me. �So it�s like a brain that�s three times larger and that will know how to make these connections and render more beautiful pixels, more beautiful details for the user.� The company also increased the dataset by almost a factor of two, which in turn should give the model a better understanding of what users are asking for."

https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/10/adobe-firefly-can-now-generate-more-realistic-images/

I didn't do much testing, but with what I did with photos, I can't really see any improvement - and it's not ready for prime time use, IMO. I did not try the match feature - where you upload your own photo to match the style. I'd want to look very carefully at what rights I'm giving Adobe over anything I upload.

I had already decided I need to avoid the generative tools in Photoshop 25 if I want to submit work to stock agencies, but the warning popup in Firefly 2 pointed me at terms and conditions that made it clear no contributor can use these tools if they upload to any agency that trains AI on their own collections.

https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

1. No AI/ML Training
 
When using our generative AI features, you agree you will use them only for your creative work product and not to train AI/ML models.

This means you must not, and must not allow third parties to, use any content, data, output or other information received or derived from any generative AI features, including any Firefly outputs, to directly or indirectly create, train, test, or otherwise improve any machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence systems, including any architectures, models, or weights.


Later on it mentions that they might introduce some beta features that wouldn't be OK for commercial use in any context but is very vague about how you're supposed to know (emphasis mine):

"However, if Adobe designates in the product or elsewhere that a beta version of a generative AI feature cannot be used commercially..."

https://www.engadget.com/adobes-next-gen-firefly-2-offers-vector-graphics-more-control-and-photorealistic-renders-160030349.html
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2100888/photoshops-ai-powers-land-on-chromebooks-as-adobe-debuts-firefly-2.html

This describes the illustrator genAI features (beta):
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/10/23911114/adobe-max-firefly-generative-ai-model-photoshop-illustrator-express

There's something here about Adobe's approach to safety and content credentials:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/10/10/adobe-firefly-new-features

The stored thumbnail of a reference image used in genAI will supposedly be used to deal with claims that an inappropriate image was used (and not for training Firefly)

https://www.pcmag.com/news/adobe-unveils-firefly-image-2-ai-at-max-conference
https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/10/adobe-firefly-ai-model-updates/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/adobe-unveils-three-new-generative-ai-models-including-the-next-generation-of-its-firefly-text-to-image-generator/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johanmoreno/2023/10/10/adobes-all-in-on-ai-debuts-new-firefly-ai-models-for-creatives/

https://www.adweek.com/programmatic/adobe-firefly-generative-ai-offerings/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90964791/adobe-ai-is-coming-for-your-branding

"Adobe also made improvements to its image generation engine, which is trained on its own stock image library. While the model allows Adobe to avoid messy copyright issues faced by other text-to-image generators trained more broadly, the downside is images look like stock photos. Under the Firefly Image 2 Model, though, generative images look less stock-like thanks to additional inputs including human feedback and the company�s �own private data set,� Costin says."

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/10/adobes-ai-image-generators-get-beefy-updates-including-vector-graphics/

"While Adobe claims that the Firefly Vector Model is "the world�s first generative AI model for vector graphics," a quick Google search disproves this claim, showing earlier vector-based AI models that range from commercial offerings to older experimental research. However, it's safe to say that this is the first vector-generating AI model from a company that is currently considered a major player in the image synthesis space."

I don't have any similar experiences, but I wonder if you might understand more about how this mistake occurred by looking at the metadata in your uploaded file.

When I was experimenting with Photoshop 25 and generative fill, I used an online metadata tool to look at and compare what was in the new file versus one created with PS 24.x. As far as I can tell from the limited tests I did, if you stay away from the AI-powered features, your Photoshop edited files should be fine.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_2dnk-QdSpAU47AQZSXgwwPYRhIsa9A/view?usp=sharing

It's possible it's the Gigapixel tool that's embedding something that triggered SS's automatic screening, so possibly you need to clean the metadata out after that step and before editing in Photoshop?

Let us know what you find out.

Once Firefly was out of beta, it was available for commercial use - also the generative fill in Photoshop 25

However, most stock agencies do not accept AI generated content, and the content credentials in your Firefly/generative fill from Photoshop will show that AI was used.

Dreamstime, Deposit Photos and I think 123rf accept gen AI content, but not Getty/iStock, Shutterstock or Alamy

Thank you for letting us know - and it�s outrageous you�ve been treated this way.

Adobe Stock has lost the plot on so many issues. Shameful.

This is sad for the real models. All the AI people are starting to look the same.

Two different contributors. These creations could be twins if they were real people

 

The "problem" (from my perspective, and I suspect in short order from a buyer's perspective too) is that there are huge volumes of nicely lit images of not-quite-real look-alike humans. Impossibly fit and beautiful seniors, shiny trendy young adults, very spooky children who look adult but smaller.

I have samples from "Find Similar" searches and it's really spooky.

Sometimes, the hotter the fad, the faster it fades, so possibly this won't last and human models will still find work?

https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/30/how-much-can-artists-make-from-generative-ai-vendors-wont-say/

"So vendors including Adobe, Getty Images, Stability AI and YouTube have introduced � or promised to introduce � ways creators can share in their generative AI profits. The trouble is, the companies haven�t been clear about how much, exactly, creators can expect to earn. And for creators considering allowing a vendor to train a model on their works, it doesn�t make the decision easy."

"Tough luck, creators
Tellingly, none of the generative AI vendors we spoke with would give a dollar amount the average creator can expect to see after forking over their creations for model training.

Some vendors blamed the absence of data on the newness of the tech and business model. Others said that the range would vary too widely to give a useful figure.

But for creators � particularly those dependent on contract income to make ends meet � those are arguments that are likely to ring hollow.

... At best, they�re offering hazy promises of future riches � and hazy promises don�t pay the rent."

Looking at new approvals in the genAI collection this morning (bad habit, I know...), #11 out of 17,943,949 is this clunker.

Businessman's Energetic Leap Across Stairs and Spaces, White Shirt Contrast



HOW does this get approved?

Harping on about the rules for AI content being "anything goes" with respect to similars...

93 "blue jay" images . Never mind that  other than being blue and a bird, they're far from an actual blue jay. How do you get to have 93 with minimal variations?

https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=211160654?&order=creation&k=%22blue%20jay%22

Back in the Spring, I had two photos of a particular species of plant - the second one was rejected as being similar. Mine were actual photos of actual plants

Nice touch to add the beads in the bird's feathers, but there's nothing in the title or keywords to call attention to this, so I assume this is accidental - just what Midjourney or whoever decided to add.

What is the point of bulking up the Adobe Stock collection with so much stuff when it can't possibly all sell? Even with the current buzziness of anything AI. There aren't more buyers than before and they don't need more images/illustrations than before.

The regular collection already has 26,336 blue jay photos (none of them mine; I'm ranting in principle, not because my images are threatened).

Accept the two or three genAI blue jays with beads in their feathers and then the collection is improved. What possible value is there in 90+ fake blue jays with useless keywords?

I didn't notice that I have been invited until today - they must be really desperate to have invited me

That's part snark, but also, I'm not a high-volume supplier.

I did review the details and as Mat was asking for feedback...

Not a prayer.

Even if you just shoot JPEG, it's a hard no to be asked to shoot work most of which has no value to me with no guaranteed pay.

There's not even an offer to do it for free for the exposure

Even if I were willing to risk it for inanimate objects, two of the missions require another person plus lots of time to pose, switch foods, settings, holding, etc. Even more time for at least two people and no guaranteed pay.

If any of the missions sounded like (a) good material for my portfolio, and (b) the setup didn't sound like something that's already flooded with genAI images, I might consider doing the work for me with some "extras" for the mission.  But I'm not even sure that would be worth it.

I'm not seeing AI vectors (there might be some, but there are lots that are just SVG/JPEG/PNG; interestingly I didn't see any Illustrator (AI) offerings), but I am seeing masses of look-alike similars

I don't know how many accounts, but there are "28,968 results for "japan web" in all".

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=%22japan+web%22

What is odd is that many of these portfolios appear to have recent work that's all look-alike "japan web" although their earlier work is much more varied. For example:

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211464333/oleksandr?order=creation

Go to page 5 to see the changeover. It's odd that the above portfolio does have masses of genAI vectors as well as others not tagged that way.

It's all recent stuff though.

A google search for japan web just produced sites that help with tourist visas for visitors to Japan. I thought it was worth checking to see if this was some new art style

Adobe Stock says there are 117,634 genAI vectors - that's down about 2,000 from a couple of weeks ago, but still a lot for something supposed to be disallowed.

I am so happy to see that all these images are now gone - just 404 pages remain.

The deluge of fake city shots from all over the world - how many towers in tower bridge?  How many Big Bens? - is still there, but one step at a time :

real people doing real things in real places...