Author Topic: Adobe Stock generative AI reminders (Read 22791 times)

spike · « **Reply #100 on:** August 30, 2023, 19:08 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 30, 2023, 19:04

What I find so strange - doesn't Adobe have interns, students, trainees?

If they just set up a few people to monitor the fresh ai content coming in and to flag everything with logos, wrong titles...why would they even need the contributors to point out the very obvious logos?

I am sure many people would love to have a job like, especially if they can do it online.

"A few people" isn't enough.

There's roughly over 200k images coming in per day for review. Time yourself and see how many you can inspect in an hour.

cobalt · « **Reply #101 on:** August 31, 2023, 03:05 »

Even if it is a few thousand, from countries with lower income...wouldn't that still be cheaper than just one potential US lawsuit with Tesla or Apple?

But I am sure they have done the math and who knows maybe they are in the process of training 3000 more "checking on the reviewers" reviewers.

As for too many files coming in, upload limits solve that very easily.

I just read that apparently there is a limit around having 700 files in the queue...they could lower that and encourage people to really select the best images and not endless series. Even if they all look lovely, it bogs down searches.

They will figure it out eventually. Adobe is huge, but introducing ai software and stock images must be the biggest challenge they ever had.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #102 on:** August 31, 2023, 04:16 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2023, 03:05

I just read that apparently there is a limit around having 700 files in the queue...

I had way more images that that waiting in the queue in the past weeks.

spike · « **Reply #103 on:** August 31, 2023, 08:19 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2023, 03:05

Even if it is a few thousand, from countries with lower income...wouldn't that still be cheaper than just one potential US lawsuit with Tesla or Apple?

Reviewers from countries with lower income is what I believe initially led to AI library looking like it does.

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2023, 03:05

As for too many files coming in, upload limits solve that very easily.

Yes, I have also suggested that.

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2023, 03:05

I just read that apparently there is a limit around having 700 files in the queue...they could lower that and encourage people to really select the best images and not endless series. Even if they all look lovely, it bogs down searches.

I have over 2k files in the queue for over 3 weeks now, and it's not moving at all. So the limits likely depend on the contributor. I've been with fotolia/adobe for ~15 years.

cobalt · « **Reply #104 on:** August 31, 2023, 08:24 »

So...you are blocking the queue for us all with your unlimited uploads

But it makes sense to reward the old guard.

Old age before beauty as we say in German...

I will never have that problem. When I read that people upload 1000 files a week or 100 a day...even if I did only simple backgrounds...I wouldn't be able to achieve that.

I am trying to increase my output, but the absolut max I was ever able to do was 30 in one day. Usually I do 50-100 a week.

Doesn't matter if it is photo/video or ai. Research is a big part of my workflow and that simply takes time.

It will get better next year, when I just have to expand on my themes.

cascoly · « **Reply #105 on:** August 31, 2023, 12:56 »

I've been to Persepolis and the first thing that struck me was how many people were there. it's not easy to get there, and fewer tourists now (not a popular site for Iranians)

also, there are no pillars on the sides of the gates and the statues look more Egyptian.

this is the type of AI that shouldn't be labeled w a specific site, but i doubt many reviewers know enough to be able to reject this

ole999 · « **Reply #106 on:** August 31, 2023, 14:36 »

There's roughly over 200k images coming in per day for review. Time yourself and see how many you can inspect in an hour.
[/quote]

Absolutely crazy ...

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #107 on:** August 31, 2023, 14:42 »

Quote from: cascoly on August 31, 2023, 12:56

I've been to Persepolis and the first thing that struck me was how many people were there. it's not easy to get there, and fewer tourists now (not a popular site for Iranians)

also, there are no pillars on the sides of the gates and the statues look more Egyptian.

this is the type of AI that shouldn't be labeled w a specific site, but i doubt many reviewers know enough to be able to reject this

Steve, I've posted the examples here before.
I found some AI images of the Atacama Desert in Chile, decorated with sand dunes from the Sahara.
The unreal AI versions look more impressive

Mifornia · « **Reply #108 on:** September 01, 2023, 19:28 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2023, 08:24

So...you are blocking the queue for us all with your unlimited uploads

But it makes sense to reward the old guard.

Old age before beauty as we say in German...

I will never have that problem. When I read that people upload 1000 files a week or 100 a day...even if I did only simple backgrounds...I wouldn't be able to achieve that.

I am trying to increase my output, but the absolut max I was ever able to do was 30 in one day. Usually I do 50-100 a week.

Doesn't matter if it is photo/video or ai. Research is a big part of my workflow and that simply takes time.

It will get better next year, when I just have to expand on my themes.

I currently can upload max 5 images per day. I can’t even imagine uploading 30 per day, let alone 100. Do they not upscale them, re-save them, put metadata, and do description/keyword them? Descriptions and keywords alone take me 10 minutes per file.

They must be making a huge amount of money…

Mifornia · « **Reply #109 on:** September 01, 2023, 19:40 »

Quote from: MatHayward on August 29, 2023, 17:41

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 29, 2023, 15:51
Quote from: MatHayward on August 29, 2023, 15:22

.... and you can know with confidence you're account won't be blocked because of it.

Thanks,

Mat Hayward

Mat, is this really the new tone with the contributors? If you do everything the way we want (and keep changing it every day), we love you?

But if you make one mistake, we'll block you? Great

Mat, we are all adults here, with experience in the stock business or other training and decent Jobs, have families, raised children and Adobe is just treating us like a bunch of toddlers at the whim of our teachers.

You are the only agency here that creates an atmosphere of fear, although everyone here in the forum is trying to help Adobe.

I submitted images today (no AI) and felt bad about it because of your new threatening disclaimer. But I don't want to feel threatened when I send pictures, not to mention the fact that I won't know the outcome of my threatening experience for weeks

This is a real new experience in stock photography

As far as interpersonal issues are concerned, Adobe is really screwing things up here.

Thanks

Hi Ralf. I'm actually communicating the opposite of what you wrote. The concern I was addressing is regarding the new checkbox that appears before you can complete the submission process. The checkbox states the following:

-I added a model release for each recognizable person
-My content has no logos, trademarks, or other intellectual property issues
-If my content is AI generated, I have checked the box declaring so
-If my content is AI generated, I have not generated it with reference to other artists(s) in the prompt.
-I understand my account can be suspended if I breach the guidelines.

The issue that was called out earlier in this thread, is that these checkboxes appear even when you are submitting content for the illustrative editorial collection. Clearly, you cannot submit to the illustrative editorial collection and affirm your content has no logos or trademarked elements.

My response was to confirm that we recognize the language needs to be updated to address this. Until that language is updated, it is OK to submit to to the collection and check the boxes. You will not be blocked if you do so.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Hi Mat,

Currently, there is no way to double check if you checked AI box after images got uploaded to queer. There is information that it’s illustration, what category it is, what language, title and keywords. However, no information if AI box was checked or missed.
Can you please add a confirmation that AI box was checked in uploaded images?

Thank you

cobalt · « **Reply #110 on:** September 01, 2023, 20:48 »

Quote from: CarmelCalifornia on September 01, 2023, 19:28

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2023, 08:24
So...you are blocking the queue for us all with your unlimited uploads

But it makes sense to reward the old guard.

Old age before beauty as we say in German...

I will never have that problem. When I read that people upload 1000 files a week or 100 a day...even if I did only simple backgrounds...I wouldn't be able to achieve that.

I am trying to increase my output, but the absolut max I was ever able to do was 30 in one day. Usually I do 50-100 a week.

Doesn't matter if it is photo/video or ai. Research is a big part of my workflow and that simply takes time.

It will get better next year, when I just have to expand on my themes.
I currently can upload max 5 images per day. I can’t even imagine uploading 30 per day, let alone 100. Do they not upscale them, re-save them, put metadata, and do description/keyword them? Descriptions and keywords alone take me 10 minutes per file.

They must be making a huge amount of money…

You can batch keyword and describe a group of images in lightroom etc…even if you add individual variations keywording and descriptions should not take that long per file.

With photos, especially if you do people shootings, you can generate a lot more very good files than with ai that don‘t need a lot of processing.

Some people with good computer skills probably can automate their entire ai output.

But for the rest of us, using a camera is still much faster.

Mifornia · « **Reply #111 on:** September 01, 2023, 21:57 »

(I don’t know how to upscale AI photos with good results. Tried Gigapixel, Photoshop and Lightroom, but I’m not satisfied with results: especially extra lines around hair. So I do illustrations.
I’m still processing my 3000 photos from my vacation. Interesting thing is that I see AI with less quality pass and photos with better quality get rejected)

dragonblade · « **Reply #112 on:** September 01, 2023, 22:03 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2023, 08:24

I am trying to increase my output, but the absolut max I was ever able to do was 30 in one day. Usually I do 50-100 a week.

30 a day still seems like a massive amount to me. Way more than I could do. Ive been doing stock now for a bit more than a few years and I admit that I am a very slow uploader. Well I do shoot Raw so the files need time to process and get everything looking just right. Even if the Raw processing is done quickly for a particular image, there's always something else that takes a lot of time like research. I wish there was more time in a day to produce more files for stock. I am constantly amazed at how fast some contributers are. They're able to build huge ports in a very short space of time while keeping the quality high. I envy that.

cobalt · « **Reply #113 on:** September 02, 2023, 01:10 »

Like i said, my normal output is 50-80 a week. But I know people with larger outputs and they mostly do things with people.

But I must increase my output to increase my sales.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #114 on:** September 02, 2023, 09:49 »

For genAI content acceptances, the parade of awfuls continues (just in case anyone was thinking things were improving somehow). Too many images in recent approvals shouldn't have been submitted; given that they were, they should have been rejected (I stopped after page 10; my brain needs a break)

I'll show just two as examples

The interior was one of a series - all of them full of ridiculous visual errors and technically a mess too (blurry patches, objects that fade or float, jagged lines, etc.)

Titles are misleading, keywords are worse and the images not quirky enough to be fantasy but too broken to represent reality.

Other than being able to boast about the numbers in the genAI collection, I can't see any point, not even for training. Train AI on this content and the results will be even scarier.

Adobe, please rein in this mess. You can be so much better than this if you want to.

spike · « **Reply #115 on:** September 02, 2023, 10:35 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 02, 2023, 09:49

For genAI content acceptances, the parade of awfuls continues (just in case anyone was thinking things were improving somehow). Too many images in recent approvals shouldn't have been submitted; given that they were, they should have been rejected (I stopped after page 10; my brain needs a break)

I'll show just two as examples

The interior was one of a series - all of them full of ridiculous visual errors and technically a mess too (blurry patches, objects that fade or float, jagged lines, etc.)

Titles are misleading, keywords are worse and the images not quirky enough to be fantasy but too broken to represent reality.

Other than being able to boast about the numbers in the genAI collection, I can't see any point, not even for training. Train AI on this content and the results will be even scarier.

Adobe, please rein in this mess. You can be so much better than this if you want to.

I don't think Adobe wants to or has the capabilities to deal with this.

Just recently, they closed their discord channel where contributors could post links to genAI works that shouldn't have ever passed review. At the same time, they implemented a server-wide rule that anyone linking to another contributors' work gets a 24 hour (or longer?) ban

To me, these are clear symbols that Adobe wants to pretend that everything is fine. As long as you don't acknowledge something, it doesn't exist, right?

I'm glad there are still independent forums like MSG where posts like this exist. On Adobe's discord, Jo Ann, you would have been banned.

cobalt · « **Reply #116 on:** September 02, 2023, 13:11 »

I hope that at least the buyers appreciate ports were producers make the effort to provide good files even at 100% view.

But if they continue to be very strict with photo inspections and very lax with ai, then ai will be considered lower quality, just because it does not have to pass the same editing standards.

cascoly · « **Reply #117 on:** September 02, 2023, 13:18 »

Quote from: CarmelCalifornia on September 01, 2023, 19:28

I currently can upload max 5 images per day. I can’t even imagine uploading 30 per day, let alone 100. Do they not upscale them, re-save them, put metadata, and do description/keyword them? Descriptions and keywords alone take me 10 minutes per file.

They must be making a huge amount of money…

do you edit metadata before uploading? I can do 50+ images /hr since many images use similar descriptions & keywords

i use topaz apps to upscale, denoise & sharpen in batches

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #118 on:** September 02, 2023, 14:33 »

Quote from: spike on September 02, 2023, 10:35

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 02, 2023, 09:49
For genAI content acceptances, the parade of awfuls continues (just in case anyone was thinking things were improving somehow). Too many images in recent approvals shouldn't have been submitted; given that they were, they should have been rejected (I stopped after page 10; my brain needs a break)
....
Other than being able to boast about the numbers in the genAI collection, I can't see any point, not even for training. Train AI on this content and the results will be even scarier.

Adobe, please rein in this mess. You can be so much better than this if you want to.

I don't think Adobe wants to or has the capabilities to deal with this.

Just recently, they closed their discord channel where contributors could post links to genAI works that shouldn't have ever passed review. At the same time, they implemented a server-wide rule that anyone linking to another contributors' work gets a 24 hour (or longer?) ban

To me, these are clear symbols that Adobe wants to pretend that everything is fine. As long as you don't acknowledge something, it doesn't exist, right?

I'm glad there are still independent forums like MSG where posts like this exist. On Adobe's discord, Jo Ann, you would have been banned.

I am only sporadically on the discord channel but I looked today after reading your post and saw the note with which they closed the QA channel:

"I wanted to let you know that we are closing this channel. Thanks to your help, during the last two months we have got hundreds of great (or awful, depending) examples that we shared with our moderation team, to train them better into recognizing not-so obvious mistakes on Generative AI images. I hope we will see the results of this effort in the upcoming months!
Thanks again for your help!"

I beg to differ with his assessment about the genAI moderation team improving in the last couple of months.

In the past, this forum had a rule, which I abided by, that you don't post other people's work - they can if they want to get feedback, but otherwise it was a no-no.

My take on the AI content is that it isn't a person's work, and thus doesn't involve the same consideration. Especially given the factory production line approach, it's more manufacturing than creating, IMO.

Possibly we need to talk about what the forum rule should be. I'd like to be able to criticize the inspection process with examples, but that inevitably involves criticizing the contributor too. I'm guessing this hasn't come to a head because it's mostly the new gold-rush contributors whose work has been posted, not people who've been producing stock for a while and know better.

I'm probably done pointing out the Adobe Stock genAI train wreck anyway as they appear to be happy to host logo free rubbish just to get the numbers up.

cobalt · « **Reply #119 on:** September 02, 2023, 15:05 »

Adobe can run their discord the way they like, but msg is for us as producers.

Ai is a world changing historic development in art. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to show examples, good or bad, to discuss.

And like you said, the discussion is not about the soul bearing intimate art, but the result of a software prompt.

To see if or how it improves, what the weak points are, you need to see images.

synthetick · « **Reply #120 on:** September 02, 2023, 18:17 »

The closing of the #quality-control channel happened after a lot of new members joined the Adobe Stock Discord to complain that their accounts had been blocked for IP infringement, and then they starting blaming the #quality-control channel and being quite aggressive and attacking towards people who had posted there. The vibe on the server was awful and didn't feel like a safe space to chat on. However these people really had the wrong idea and were coming on and blaming #quality-control with no context. The number of posts in #quality-control were just a small drop in the ocean. An admin posted that the mass bannings were a result of an internal investigation, not #quality-control but the message kind of got drowned out in the heated discussion. I don't think anyone posted images in #quality-control in order to try to take down whole accounts, it was just related to specific images, most of which were really awful. So the admins did a U-turn from encouraging people to post bad images, to making it against the rules of the server to do so.

synthetick · « **Reply #121 on:** September 02, 2023, 19:38 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 02, 2023, 09:49

I clicked on this interior that Jo Ann posted and found that apart from bad interiors, their portfolio is full of Barbie IP infrigements!

spike · « **Reply #122 on:** September 02, 2023, 22:39 »

Quote from: synthetick on September 02, 2023, 19:38

I clicked on this interior that Jo Ann posted and found that apart from bad interiors, their portfolio is full of Barbie IP infrigements!

If only there were a method to report this to Adobe... for example, a Discord channel..

cobalt · « **Reply #123 on:** September 02, 2023, 22:57 »

If the vibe became really aggressive, it would explain why they closed that publicly visible channel.

I hope they have a different, closed channel, invite only, where both team members and maybe some experienced contributors can report risky ports with IP abuse.

But overall I think it would be helpful to have more articles or blog posts explaining how stock works.

Or maybe even team up with a popular youtuber who makes a great clip explaining the issues.

One problem I see is that the new producers very stubbornly believe that what they are doing is perfectly legal and right.

It reminds me of the days people were file sharing everything, music videos books over limewire.

If it is on the internet it is mine…and no respect for copyright at all.

But I believe a good „education“ can help.

In combination with banning accounts that are not ready to learn from their mistakes.

cobalt · « **Reply #124 on:** September 02, 2023, 23:12 »

Yes, clearly visible and named barbie doll

https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/barbie-doll-outside-villa-barbie-girl-generative-ai/633795175?prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/tennis-court-of-barbie-villa-generative-ai/633403041?prev_url=detail

Again, the real issue is how do these files get through inspections if the copyright problem is even brazenly named.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Adobe Stock generative AI reminders (Read 22791 times)

spike

cobalt

Her Ugliness

spike

cobalt

cascoly

ole999

RalfLiebhold

Mifornia

Mifornia

cobalt

Mifornia

dragonblade

cobalt

Jo Ann Snover

spike

cobalt

cascoly

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

synthetick

synthetick

spike

cobalt

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors