I have no doubt that at the rate artificial intelligence is advancing, stock photography has a maximum of two years left to live. Right now the smart thing to do is to sell all the lenses, equipment and cameras on ebay before it is too late and they become worthless junk.

Producing 100 images with AI takes just two or three hours?

do you mean to generate unfinished images,just prompts?yes,you can do even more in 2-3 hours,but the work is just started.

I just sent 10 AI images to Adobe and it took me 2 days!

I hope that the AI ​​upload limits on Adobe Stock are limited to a maximum of 10,000 in a year,or even less,and that they clean up all these images with logos,or with bad generation that escape review.

I think that 10,000 AI contents maximum per account per year it would be better for everyone and also to have quality content in the Adobe Stock collection and also to not overload the reviewers and have shorter review times.

We all stand to gain if Adobe places a limit and communicates it officially,on the number of AI content that each contributor can have each year on sale.

Quote from: Injustice for all on November 10, 2023, 11:10

I hope that the AI ​​upload limits on Adobe Stock are limited to a maximum of 10,000 in a year,or even less,and that they clean up all these images with logos,or with bad generation that escape review.

I think that 10,000 AI contents maximum per account per year it would be better for everyone and also to have quality content in the Adobe Stock collection and also to not overload the reviewers and have shorter review times.

We all stand to gain if Adobe places a limit and communicates it officially,on the number of AI content that each contributor can have each year on sale.

It will not work as people are so clever that they will create multiple accounts to increase their upload limit.
Everyone wants to earn and they don't care how they earn or what spamming they are doing.

Agencies needs to take action to control these stuffs to promote more authentic work and real artists.

Sometimes I feel there is a huge requirement for a Microstock Organization and all RF and RM companies should come under them. Through this they can control pricing and authenticity both. Moreover can also organize a annual microstock meet to reward and also motivate people to work for such field.

Quote from: Injustice for all on October 23, 2023, 10:19

Another thing to consider is that Adobe Stock subscribers will have 500 credits to generate,this is not good news for me,it would have been better if the credits were only available to Adobe software subscribers,or less credits for Adobe Stock customers,500 for a month are more than enough for a customer I think.

in any case we'll see,in a year or less,we'll all have clearer answers,I believe and hope that Adobe has considered all this,we'll see!

But surely Shutterstock isn't accepting AI-images ..?
But Adobe users also need these credits for generative fill or other generative uses within Photoshop.

https://helpx.adobe.com/firefly/using/generative-credits.html

So I wouldn't worry too much about losing sales to image generation. As we all know that is still very time consuming.

Quote from: ADH on November 08, 2023, 09:45

I have no doubt that at the rate artificial intelligence is advancing, stock photography has a maximum of two years left to live. Right now the smart thing to do is to sell all the lenses, equipment and cameras on ebay before it is too late and they become worthless junk.

I haven't sent any AI images, and don't think I ever will.

I get help from AI for my post-production, but I'm not interested in generative AI.

I agree. But anyway there is lots of complicated post production involved in creating good AI-images.

It's boring, and the images are all the same, all with the same style.

Producing 100 images with AI takes just two or three hours, so photography and illustration categories will soon be saturated with millions of images uploaded in no time.

I think eventually, people will get bored, and the majority of AI users will create their own images.

I hope in the future, there will always be a niche of customers who prefer real images captured with authentic landscapes, models, and objects. And I continue to work for that niche.

We'll see in a few years.

Quote from: Injustice for all on November 11, 2023, 07:12

I agree 100%,but that's another question,those who create multiple accounts to circumvent the rules pay the consequences,you can be sure of that,the fact is that sometimes it takes a while to catch them.

I firmly believe that to reduce AI content spam,and don't create this crazy rush of 100 contents in 2 hours,favor review,favor real content,lighten the load,increase the quality produced... for many reasons I firmly believe that Adobe should place a limit and announce it officially.

let this limit be 1000 per month or whatever they want,but there must be an officially communicated limit, so that people get their act together, and try to create more original and quality things instead of starting an "assembly line"

I'm sure Adobe has already thought about it.

Mat,if you read me,try to raise this issue with the team if is possible and if you can.

See if it's possible to have an officially announced limit of AI content per month or per year per account,I think 1000/1500 per month is more than enough,otherwise we'll all go crazy here,including you!

Limits on new accounts are ok, limits on legacy accounts from contributors who know what they're doing - nah

Why implement this limit only on genAI? You can take your smartphone, take literally 10,000 photos in an hour, and send them all for review. That's a lot more than you can create with AI. Yet, nobody is advocating for upload limits for traditional photos.

It's the job of the reviewer to reject all images that don't satisfy criteria. You can't expect the contributors to "self censor" when it's not in their best interest. If they have a 1% more chance of selling by uploading an extra 10 images, they will do it. If someone can generate 10,000 good images per month - this means, good subject, inpainted faces and hands, upscaled with SD ultimate upscale - then great, let them! The issue doesn't come from those contributors. It comes from those who buy a Midjourney subscription, generate 1000 images, upload them all after upscaling in Topaz, and they pass review. The underlined part is the issue. Adobe doesn't have enough skilled reviewers to distinguish between good and bad upscales. They talk a lot about "educating contributors" but they should educate their reviewers.

If it were up to me, I'd delete over 90% of their current genAI collection - it's crap, mostly midjourney output upscaled in Topaz or something similar, no realistic skin textures, and it all looks samey.

There are a few contributors (and I count myself among them not because of an inflated ego but because of the skills I needed to learn to get where I am) who submit proper content, proper technically, proper theme, proper upscale and inpaint. With consumer hardware, it would be very hard to reach 10k images per month like that. Not impossible, but hard, and your machine would need to be generating and upscaling almost 24/7.

Once Adobe recognizes that it's not those contributors who are the problems, but the mass from a certain low-COL geographic region (no racism, just go on youtube and search for adobe stock ai earnings and see who's uploading) who spam their system with their crappy midjourney upscales, and the reviewers who, for whatever reason, allow this type of content in the adobe stock library.

Me personally - I am waiting for an AI-only "high end" stock agency, where such stuff will not be allowed. I've given up hope that Adobe will ever clean shop.

Quote from: Injustice for all on November 11, 2023, 07:12

I agree 100%,but that's another question,those who create multiple accounts to circumvent the rules pay the consequences,you can be sure of that,the fact is that sometimes it takes a while to catch them.

I firmly believe that to reduce AI content spam,and don't create this crazy rush of 100 contents in 2 hours,favor review,favor real content,lighten the load,increase the quality produced... for many reasons I firmly believe that Adobe should place a limit and announce it officially.

let this limit be 1000 per month or whatever they want,but there must be an officially communicated limit, so that people get their act together, and try to create more original and quality things instead of starting an "assembly line"

I'm sure Adobe has already thought about it.

Mat,if you read me,try to raise this issue with the team if is possible and if you can.

See if it's possible to have an officially announced limit of AI content per month or per year per account,I think 1000/1500 per month is more than enough,otherwise we'll all go crazy here,including you!

Limits on new accounts are ok, limits on legacy accounts from contributors who know what they're doing - nah

Why implement this limit only on genAI? You can take your smartphone, take literally 10,000 photos in an hour, and send them all for review. That's a lot more than you can create with AI. Yet, nobody is advocating for upload limits for traditional photos.

It's the job of the reviewer to reject all images that don't satisfy criteria. You can't expect the contributors to "self censor" when it's not in their best interest. If they have a 1% more chance of selling by uploading an extra 10 images, they will do it. If someone can generate 10,000 good images per month - this means, good subject, inpainted faces and hands, upscaled with SD ultimate upscale - then great, let them! The issue doesn't come from those contributors. It comes from those who buy a Midjourney subscription, generate 1000 images, upload them all after upscaling in Topaz, and they pass review. The underlined part is the issue. Adobe doesn't have enough skilled reviewers to distinguish between good and bad upscales. They talk a lot about "educating contributors" but they should educate their reviewers.

If it were up to me, I'd delete over 90% of their current genAI collection - it's crap, mostly midjourney output upscaled in Topaz or something similar, no realistic skin textures, and it all looks samey.

There are a few contributors (and I count myself among them not because of an inflated ego but because of the skills I needed to learn to get where I am) who submit proper content, proper technically, proper theme, proper upscale and inpaint. With consumer hardware, it would be very hard to reach 10k images per month like that. Not impossible, but hard, and your machine would need to be generating and upscaling almost 24/7.

Once Adobe recognizes that it's not those contributors who are the problems, but the mass from a certain low-COL geographic region (no racism, just go on youtube and search for adobe stock ai earnings and see who's uploading) who spam their system with their crappy midjourney upscales, and the reviewers who, for whatever reason, allow this type of content in the adobe stock library.

Me personally - I am waiting for an AI-only "high end" stock agency, where such stuff will not be allowed. I've given up hope that Adobe will ever clean shop.

the limit for AI content already exists,we just don't know what it is,and I think it's better to know for many reasons.

in the contributor terms:

"We don�t permit multiple account creations to submit similar or identical content to inflate sales,or to bypass upload limits for generative AI content".

as you can see,if this rule exists,it means that there is already a limit for AI content.

if it is not possible to know this limit ok,but I think it is better for everyone to know it.

For those who haven't been following the collection sizes, Adobe Stock's genAI collection is almost at 23 million; Freepik's is over 30 million; Dreamstime's is a hair over 7 million.

Shutterstock's is such dreck it doesn't matter, but it's approaching 1.5 million

The "oops" images continue to be everywhere...



 

At least no one will be fighting over the drumstick on Thanksgiving