People are doing the first two and the site is flooded with images with three hands etc.
Isn't the review process supposed to control this...

I wonder if this is connected to a large drop in the size of the genAI collection at Adobe Stock between Friday evening and Saturday morning. On Friday evening the collection was over 14.7 million and on Saturday morning 14.19 million - were a number of infringing images removed?

Edited 23 Aug to note that the numbers had climbed back to about 14.5 million by Tuesday evening but were at 14.04 million Wednesday morning. Another large chunk of content gone

Late afternoon 23 Aug - 13,799,741. More removals (although there are new items at the beginning of the most recent sort order, so new content is still getting approved

I'm considering using AI-generated images as a reference for colors and composition, and then redrawing them using Adobe Illustrator with additional elements. Will upload it as Vector illustration. Do I still need to show that it is AI generated? Thanks

Could be something to do with Midjourney slapping an Apple logo on almost every computer in an image. Given the sloppy attitude by both a large number of contributors and reviewers I can imagine a few hundred thousand made it through! (not just AS on this one, found another blatantly AI port on SS today, where AI isn't even allowed)

Hi everyone,

We want to remind you that any generative AI assets submitted to Adobe Stock must adhere to the Generative AI Guidelines. Violations to these guidelines lead to content rejections or account termination.

I hope a similar reminder went out to reviewers. Too many assets that fail Adobe's own guidelines somehow pass inspection, and this is not solely the contributors fault. Maybe there should be a popup when a contributor logs in where they have to acknowledge these rules/guidelines and then if they still violate guidelines, just ban them after a few transgressions.

Here's a few examples for the search "wes anderson" in genAI:

https://stock.adobe.com/images/surreal-girl-sits-on-sofa-among-bright-pumpkins-halloween-of-bright-colors-in-the-style-of-wes-anderson-films-festive-background-in-cinematic-style-generative-ai-content/605807641?prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/images/blonde-elegance-amidst-floral-splendor-wes-anderson-inspired-photography-with-a-touch-of-fanciful-dreaminess-generative-ai/603435603?prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/images/beautiful-vintage-interior-in-pastel-colors-having-a-strong-wes-anderson-aesthetic-high-end-materials-beautiful-textures-and-lighting-generative-ai/575738076?prev_url=detail

Ansel Adams:

https://stock.adobe.com/images/nature-s-symphony-ansel-adams-style-landscape-photography-ai-generated/616912725?prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/images/monochrome-mountain-scenery-reminiscent-of-ansel-adams-generative-ai/597227285?prev_url=detail

etc.

There's also a huge issue of a bunch of genAI stuff with weird faces, deformed hands and objects appearing out of thin air. Many assets are also just upscaled from Midjourney's 1024*1024, making them plastic looking and deficient in detail, especially for people. IMO these should not pass inspection as well, if they are submitted as photos. There are other ways of upscaling which generate detail (not Topaz or stuff like that) which are time and processing-power intensive, but spammers just download the 1mp image from Midjourney, upsize it on bigjpg and call it a day. Until Adobe puts a stop on this kind of spam, the producers actually making high quality imagery willl get buried because for every 1 genAI asset they make, spammers can just overwhelm the database with hundreds of their own, which look superficially similar as a thumbnail, but are nowhere near the same level of quality in full size 1:1.

Someone mentioned Apple logos on approved genAI images??

From recently approved, page 4:

And what's with the black border on the image?

There's another in their portfolio: https://stock.adobe.com/images/man-in-suit-black/611734148?prev_url=detail

How does this pass inspection?

Hi everyone,

We want to remind you that any generative AI assets submitted to Adobe Stock must adhere to the Generative AI Guidelines. Violations to these guidelines lead to content rejections or account termination.

Very important:

-Do not submit any assets created with prompts in the style of other artists or referring to famous people or brands.

-Content created by prompts that refer to artists, styles, or works that no longer have copyright protection may be acceptable so long as you verify that no other rights apply to the prompt (e.g., publicity rights, cultural heritage rights, etc.).  If you are unsure if you have the necessary rights, do not submit content made using that prompt.

-All generative AI images should be identified by checking the box �Created using generative AI tools�.

-Only check the box �People and Property are fictional� if the asset includes people or property. For example, if you generated a landscape or food DO NOT check this box.

-If you used a real person or property to generate your AI image, you need to submit a model release or property release with your image.

Thank you!

Mat Hayward

I thought longer about whether I should write this or not.

But if I am to be completely honest, I would like to judge your lines as follows:

The agencies are absolutely aware that the AI software of the different manufacturers searches for "inspiration" in the pool of all photographers and microstockers on the Internet worldwide. Without the legal basis for this being even remotely clarified and defined. I have seen them en masse, the AI images in Romolo Tavani or Leonid Tit style - just to name two examples.

It is absolutely clear to the agencies that the companies producing AI generated images are faster than the legislation and jurisprudence on the subject.

And this is now resulting in the shifting of copyright concerns to the contributors uploading AI-generated images. In case of doubt, these companies and the agencies that accept the images want to hold themselves harmless from claims for damages. I find this cowardly and immoral in the highest degree!

The agencies know very well that the AI generates an infinite number of "similars" and now they stand up and say: finding out and filtering this is not our problem, but the problem of those who generate and upload these images.

This is for me an absolute absurdity!!! The manufacturers of AI software and the agencies that accept these images have a single goal: maximum profit skimming.

...
Very important:

-Do not submit any assets created with prompts in the style of other artists or referring to famous people or brands.

...

what about historical people with no reference image supplied? I recently created images of Charles Darwin writing in his garden for a blog post on creationist fallacies.  the result was a reasonable portrait (although it showed the industrious Chuck writing on opposing pages with a pen in each hand)

would this type of image qualify?

I get a message at times that flashes: not all of your images can be submitted for a review. How can I find the images that can�t be submitted and delete them? Nothing been accepted since July 26 and before that I was getting acceptance emails every 3 days on average. I didn�t get any emails what images can�t be accepted and there is no explanation or red flag or rejection on any of the images in queue. I have 3 pages of submissions waiting for review. My account is not blocked and I�m still getting sales daily.

Only 1 of my hand drawn illustrations wasn�t accepted for quality and about dozen of actual photos from my Sony α7 III . I mostly create png with transparency and submit them one by one. (I have BFA and been a working artist for 25+ years in CA) I also started to submit AI jpg. No vectors. I�ve been previously featured as a �top seller�

I read all of the requirements for AI and correct file submissions and try very hard to follow them. I emailed for answers with no reply.  How can I solve this puzzle of what files can�t be accepted?

I'm not a fan of the (by now very large) collection of genAI images that claim to be of specific places - they aren't and shouldn't be labeled as if they are (as Adobe's rules say)

One set of images I saw today seemed especially heinous - images supposedly of the Maui wildfires and evacuation. They are marked as genAI, but should have no reference to a specific place - they can just be generic forest fire/wildfire content.

It's one thing to have news gatherers collect images from a devastating event like this, but turning out fake images of the fires seems more wrong than all the other touristy-wrong content supposedly of a specific place

https://stock.adobe.com/images/maui-forest-fire/633907384
https://stock.adobe.com/images/maui-fire-drone-shot/633907380
https://stock.adobe.com/images/hawaii-on-fire/633907373
https://stock.adobe.com/images/maui-coast-on-fire/633907372
https://stock.adobe.com/images/maui-in-flames/633907379
https://stock.adobe.com/images/island-of-maui-on-fire/633907381
https://stock.adobe.com/images/maui-evacuation/633907374

Maybe there should be a popup when a contributor logs in where they have to acknowledge these rules/guidelines and then if they still violate guidelines, just ban them after a few transgressions.

I just noticed this new popup today, thanks Mat and Adobe for listening and incorporating this

I still hope the reviewers got the memo as well, since I believe that a bunch of poeople who submit AI-generated stuff don't actually care about this popup - they just want easy money, and if you block them, they'll make another account. The reviewers should be the barrier. And upload limits, maybe even stricter.

In general, what I've seen in looking at the genAI collection is that descriptions and keywords are very, very poor. I know that Christmas has for decades been a problem keyword - remember all the battles at iStock over what exactly had to be in an image for it to qualify for the Christmas keyword?

I just did a search and found tons of 100% inappropriate images - here's just a few. I suspect that part of the problem is many of these contributors are brand new, drawn in by the AI gold rush, and with no concern about rules.

It's not better with the "Relevance" sort - the pink doll's house and "sweet world" are right up there on the first page

https://stock.adobe.com/images/easter-poster-background-template-with-easter-eggs-in-the-nest-on-light-blue-background/621781626
https://stock.adobe.com/images/popcorn-at-the-movies/617125948
https://stock.adobe.com/images/different-types-of-necklaces-from-around-the-world-collection-photorealistic-isolated-on-transparent-background-generative-ai/618867157?asset_id=618867157
https://stock.adobe.com/images/unicorn-style-of-disney-pixar-movie-pets-movie-cute-character-frting-rainbowfunny-white-background-high-quality-cute/613335371
https://stock.adobe.com/images/sweet-world-illustration-generative-ai/600355601
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/toy-villa/625172609
https://stock.adobe.com/images/squirrel-in-the-park/631229331
https://stock.adobe.com/images/splatter-art-a-captivating-splatter-art-composition-featuring-a-majestic-dog-surrounded-by-colorful-splashes-of-paint-the-splatters-form-musical-notes-and-symbols-representing-the-harmonious/631351443
https://stock.adobe.com/images/living-room-with-fireplace/631542104
https://stock.adobe.com/images/living-room-interior-room-night-home-table-light-lights-architecture-chair-house-design/631386494
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-group-of-monks-in-deep-prayer/631336090
https://stock.adobe.com/images/flowers-in-the-forest/626328020
https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-brunette-woman-pink-ribbon-held-in-hand-on-pink-background-reference-to-breast-cancer-women-s-health-female-care/631308757

Edited to add one more item - willow-pattern donuts with both Christmas and Easter as keywords!!!

Just so we'll have the picture if/when they take these down...



I don't know how these could be used - and if you put these in an ad for a donut shop and then couldn't produce donuts like this for customers, there'd be a riot!

There's also some odd numbers on the front top - perhaps a remnant from wherever the generating tool scraped the image from?