AI knows how to take steal photos
AI prompters know how to control obei AI

The Apple logos just keep on getting accepted

Fix the review process

At this point, just email Apple. They don't take kindly for having their intellectual property violated.

Quote from: blvdone on August 28, 2023, 16:13

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 28, 2023, 15:14

...

No worries.  Buyers will fix them to make them make sense.  At least these are not copyright/trademark violations.  Reviewer AI clearly can�t distinguish 6 fingers, 3 arms, 3 legs and other weird images.

and, nitpicking, but this unsupported staircase, is possible - while scary i've used such in Turkey & India

An unsupported staircase may be possible, however, in this case, the transition between the lower part and the higher part does not seem right.

The devil is in the details.

.... 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

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

and never go to a cat party!

Looks more like a cat burning party.

On istock they have a clear reminder that even if a small part is changed with ai, it is ai generated and cannot be sent to istock.

On Adobe it would have to be marked as generated with ai tools.

To illustrate my point, from new approvals

Logos - Midjourney loves Apple

.

Specific places - Persepolis was first up



Furious cobra logo (vector)



Warhol, Mondrian and Hockney (same images show up for both search terms), Jackson Pollock, Matisse

Quote from: cobalt on August 30, 2023, 09:55

On istock they have a clear reminder that even if a small part is changed with ai, it is ai generated and cannot be sent to istock.

On Adobe it would have to be marked as generated with ai tools.

including AI features in PS? content aware fill, upcoming generative fill to extend backgrounds, and especially neural filters?

these effects are not traceable, and have never been considered ai generated in the past

Totally agree there's a gray line here.  Using AI tools like content aware fill, background extension etc. is not the same as generating an image in Midjourney.

To illustrate my point, from new approvals

Logos - Midjourney loves Apple

.

Specific places - Persepolis was first up



Furious cobra logo (vector)



Warhol, Mondrian and Hockney (same images show up for both search terms), Jackson Pollock, Matisse

Jo Ann, I appreciate your hard work finding these. But putting these on a small forum like this one may not be the best course of action. It's obvious Adobe won't care unless they get hit financially because of this. Have you considered contacting the companies whose rights have been violated directly? How about some tech websites like petapixel?

Jo Ann, I appreciate your hard work finding these. But putting these on a small forum like this one may not be the best course of action. It's obvious Adobe won't care unless they get hit financially because of this. Have you considered contacting the companies whose rights have been violated directly? How about some tech websites like petapixel?

Jo Ann persistently puts her finger on Adobe's sore spot here. I find that good and also somehow entertaining.

This is not a small forum here either, as we know Adobe reads along here.

And maybe Jo Ann has already achieved something through her commitment, that's hard to judge.

But I find the demand that an Adobe contributor should report violations to the companies very strange. There are certainly better and more amicable solutions.

Why don't you do that? 

Theree are still 113,080 genAI vectors live in the collection (that are marked as "Generated with AI")

Agreed there are a lot of auto-traced AI vectors. However there may also be a significant number of mislabelled vectors amongst that 113,080 files. Adobe's AI detection mislabelled a bunch of my non-AI vectors as "Generated with AI." It took me a while to notice, then I wrote to support with the file numbers and they removed the label. I reckon a lot of contributors wouldn't notice when their files get mislabelled as there's no way to filter your portfolio to check for AI. It has happened to around 5% of my raster illustrations too (all non-AI) so now I check every file as soon as it's approved.