MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: MatHayward on August 19, 2023, 15:15
-
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
-
Mat, that's really nice of you to get in touch with us on behalf of Adobe.
Very important:
But when will Adobe find a solution for the ridiculously long and annoying review times for non AI images?
-
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...
-
Hello Mat,
-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.
I just looked to check if I could see if I had mistakenly enabled this on some images here, but you can't seem to see that on the submitted images anymore - or did i miss something there?
Thanks,
Michael
-
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
-
Based on posts I've read on the Adobe Stock Discord, when a contributor is found to have AI images that go against the terms of service, their account has a temporary block put on it while they are given the opportunity to clean up their account and delete all the problematic images. So it may be that Adobe has temporarily blocked a lot of accounts rather than culling 100's of thousands of images themselves.
-
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
-
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
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
-
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)
-
So basically "painting in the style of Leonardo da Vinci" is fine, but "In the style of Banksy" is not, right?
-
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.
-
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)
Someone mentioned Apple logos on approved genAI images??
From recently approved, page 4:
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/11/72/84/240_F_611728452_zHPBdJEoAgNr94evuLNwFMqzEzlZd26S.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/office-industrial/611728452)
-
Someone mentioned Apple logos on approved genAI images??
From recently approved, page 4:
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/11/72/84/240_F_611728452_zHPBdJEoAgNr94evuLNwFMqzEzlZd26S.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/office-industrial/611728452)
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?
-
Mat, that's really nice of you to get in touch with us on behalf of Adobe.
Very important:
But when will Adobe find a solution for the ridiculously long and annoying review times for non AI images?
This may (is likely?) to be a fluke, but I submitted an editorial image about a week ago and it was reviewed and approved overnight! I was shocked as most reviews were taking weeks.
-
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.
-
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
This is a good question and i think yes,i think it can be done,I don't think you need to check the AI content box in this case,because in the end there are no AI generated elements in the final content,but surely Mat will be able to give a definitive answer.
And this also makes me think about how those nice vectors were made on Shutterstock,a while ago someone showed these really well done vectors,I think they did just that to create them.
-
...
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?
-
Mat, that's really nice of you to get in touch with us on behalf of Adobe.
Very important:
But when will Adobe find a solution for the ridiculously long and annoying review times for non AI images?
I also asked them about this problem but it seems they don't even want to answer with a classic email like " we are sorry but..."...
:-\
-
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?
-
Reminders for Adobe Stock about its generative AI
It shouldn't be news to Adobe Stock that its review process for generative AI content is largely useless.
I'm so tempted to just forward the Apple logo fails directly to Apple, but in the hope that Adobe can turn this train wreck of rubbish content around at some point, here's a recent approval with two clearer-than-daylight logos in it (and I can't post in the discord QA forum because I'm not of a high enough level for them to be interested in what I have to say) (yes, I'm angry with Adobe)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/12/72/17/240_F_612721782_QycwRz8WTmOhCb6pkXJOCUvojCQA8HCX.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/continuing-from-the-previous-text-i-will-create-a-website/612721782)
How the #$%* do you miss those????
Suggestions:
1) remove the above image Edited 25 Aug - it's now gone, although the one I posted about Aug 20 is still there...
2) get new reviewers/better software to clean up future genAI submissions
3) spend the money to clean up all the "oops" images, not just the logos, already littering the 14+million items.
3.5) Leave last place in the genAI content quality race to Shutterstock
-
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
-
And how about this :
https://stock.adobe.com/images/disney-princess-created-using-generative-ai-technology/578112545?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/images/generative-ai-illustration-of-chubby-girls-designs-cartoon-pixar-style/574355329
https://stock.adobe.com/images/the-magic-of-ghibli-a-family-s-nighttime-walk-through-a-mystical-forest-ai-generated/569878423
https://stock.adobe.com/images/character-concept-art-from-gris-2d-flat-vector-character-design-ghibli-and-disney-style-cute-and-quirky-baby-tiger-playing-electric-guitar-wearing-a-sun-glass-and-headphone-t-shirts-design-18-y/606069803
Disney ? Pixar ? Ghibli ?
Really Adobe.... really ?
-
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.
-
All these images are keyworded with christmas and show up in a search for christmas even though nothing about them is christmassy
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/beautiful-girl-laying-in-the-flowers-she-is-wearing-transparent-blouse-and-has-perfect-pastel-make-up-natural-face-care-concept-generative-ai/600470423?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/beautiful-brunette-woman-female-girl-model-with-retro-clothing-posing-with-the-bubbles-summer-time-vacaion-relax-mode-la-60s-generated-ai/610671295?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/two-adults-a-man-and-woman-stand-together-smiling-joyfully-while-embracing-in-love-colorful-clothing-under-the-sky-filled-with-flowers-and-bubbles-retro-60s-pastel-style-and-colors-generated-ai/601367502?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/illustration-of-beautiful-women-surrounded-by-swirling-fabric-generative-ai/589368829?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/pretty-young-woman-in-casual-clothes-inside-trade-centre-background/601209516?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/an-italian-senior-old-lady-wearing-trendy-clothes-with-colored-sunglasses-and-posing-against-a-solid-background-copy-space-generative-ai/595228290?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/a-tuscan-winemaker-tending-to-vines-ai-generative/574231679?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/young-handsome-caucasian-man-holding-pizza-and-isolated-background-generative-ai/622398513?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/sweet-girl-with-green-eyes-and-strawberry-hat-place-for-your-text-green-background-generative-ai/622401249?prev_url=detail
-
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 (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&load_type=page&k=christmas+donut+willow&acp=&aco=christmas+donut+willow&get_facets=1) with both Christmas and Easter as keywords!!!
Just so we'll have the picture if/when they take these down...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/19/70/50/240_F_619705018_1NU1IXhHNPRYEDECwniVyXoPGaXiwB5l.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/willow-patter-of-china-on-donut-christmas-decoration-on-blue-background-generative-ai/619705018)
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?
-
They may have to rename it the "AI-yai-yai" collection! :)
-
what a mess with these AIs!
I stay away for now,too much risk of copyright or accidentally running a prompt already done by someone else.
I'm sure content created by AI generative tools sell well,but today I had a nice walk in the nature under the summer sun with my tripod and my camera, interacting with animals,insects and plants near the waterfalls,I have been taking pictures since I was 14,I had my own darkroom,lupo enlarger,developing tank and other toys,and surely it won't be an AI to stop me.
I'll think about it in the future,but I'm starting to think about keeping this style,because in the end a customer who wants real things,seeing my portfolio,immediately understands that there are no AI contents.
maybe I'm wrong,because first come first served,but in the end I've always been that fish that swims upstream,and that will probably end up drowned!
sorry for the chatter! :D
-
ai makes me enjoy my camera more. Full control over everything, not wasting time while testing prompts.
That being said, I am slowly reaching a level where I can use ai to try very different things. And creating material that is currently not available on agencies.
Maybe it will not sell, but I hope customers appreciate that I am really trying to do something different.
-
... I've always been that fish that swims upstream,and that will probably end up drowned!
..
most fish who swim upstream spawn, waste away & die - hope you're the exception
-
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
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
Mat, We need a clear answer.
-
... I've always been that fish that swims upstream,and that will probably end up drowned!
..
most fish who swim upstream spawn, waste away & die - hope you're the exception
therefore...a nice swim against the tide,then reproduction(I hope this part lasts for a while at least)..to then have the time to waste away in peace before dying....a good life I would say! :D
thank you! :D
-
More from the "how on earth can a reviewer miss these" department
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/04/49/74/240_F_604497452_2VV8qY5ykNAz76pYQ46rWt8XzDJv1xsu.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-business-woman-working-at-a-desk-with-plants-and-books-and-laptop-macbook-illustration/604497452)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/05/87/97/63/240_F_587976322_GFjWD1hqtnTC6xeCHWNHXd5nDBgZmYjW.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/mac-computer-imac-generative-ai/587976322)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/34/42/60/240_F_634426002_5dlXAkb6kNyPzRP8l2MKG81DwAHUHzFN.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/female-entrepreneur-gaining-new-ideas-working-on-a-laptop-generative-ai/634426002)
And with the next two you get the three armed businessman as well as a logo...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/34/32/70/240_F_634327056_72Q49fEMX5LVeFRjJX5AoEOI2BXXotgp.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/professional-businessman-in-blue-suit-sitting-at-desk-in-office-working-on-laptop-computer-created-with-ai/634327056)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/34/32/69/240_F_634326995_HoAZJe16QLuo0tTxEzmR6CwB8qbYEqcC.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/professional-businessman-in-blue-suit-sitting-at-desk-in-office-working-on-laptop-computer-created-with-ai/634326995)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/34/35/53/240_F_634355366_UuJTf0XUWA2JUzXqwTqIuTgzGcBaKyOq.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-young-girl-works-from-a-computer-on-the-internet-earning-money-online-rich-and-luxurious-life-in-a-warm-country-a-woman-earns-at-the-table-against-the-background-of-the-sunset-generative-ai/634355366)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/23/24/64/240_F_623246420_8TH4jb6Yo6PRD3GnuArNZrnlyLeOJnEr.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/home-office-modern-black-and-gray-tones-sleek-interior-background-a-stylish-and-functional-workspace-at-home-3d-rendering-ai-generated/623246420)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/20/59/53/240_F_620595358_GKKQDjQ1IcBieWPlA7xUFXWNbdZbcFQK.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-desk-with-a-computer-and-a-chair-in-front-of-a-window-ai/620595358)
etc., etc., etc.
-
More from the "how on earth can a reviewer miss these" department
I don't disagree with you.
Of course, Adobe is responsible for not controlling the monster that they have greatly welcomed.
But...
"how on earth can a contributor miss these" New Department
The infringement is -firstly- made by the person submitting these images. There are clear laws they must follow when submitting. Why does it seem we are going in a world where image creators don't inspect their "own" "work" anymore?
Adobe can react by refusing the images concerned during review, or, and here is the new thing, delete entire portfolio. I think they realize now that the uncontrolled flood of AI images can be dangerous for themselves too. Before, there was no risk for contributors who submitted mass AI images. Should we regret? Do you regret Jo Ann?
-
I came upon this it-should-never-have-passed-inspection doozy...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/31/10/22/240_F_631102269_tehCvnyGbKwtwo3zLH4tDpAaGdr5a5pL.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/robots-working-on-car-assembly-line-automation-and-industry-concept/631102269)
...so I did a few more searches for classic cars. There are a lot in the genAI collection where similar images in the "regular" collection are editorial use only. As with the other "oops" images, the contributor should have known better, but it is a total failure of the reviewing process to have so many of these items accepted:
Model T Ford (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=model+T+ford+-futuristic&acp=&aco=model+T+ford+-futuristic&get_facets=1)
Cadillac (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=cadillac+-cocktail&acp=&aco=cadillac+-cocktail&get_facets=1). Some are very specific with year and model:
(https://stock.adobe.com/images/1955-cadillac-fleetwood-sixty-special/564383197) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/1955-cadillac-fleetwood-sixty-special/564383197)
Ford Mustang (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=ford+mustang+-supercar&acp=&aco=ford+mustang+-supercar&get_facets=1)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/05/82/26/21/240_F_582262119_1tG7eUGCBq53NKfHswYAKETkFu7lDwOr.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/an-old-garage-filled-with-vintage-vehicles-from-a-classic-corvette-to-an-old-british-motorcycle-created-with-generative-ai/582262119)
That portfolio is full of classic cars, many of which probably aren't OK (I'm not an expert in classic car IP), here (https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=206612322&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=classic+car&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=classic+car&get_facets=0) and here (https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=206612322&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=garage+classic&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=garage+classic&get_facets=0)
-
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
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
Mat, We need a clear answer.
We do not accept generative AI vector images. I strongly advise against what you are suggesting. Using the tool as inspiration is one thing, auto-trace or something similar I would avoid at all cost.
Thanks for the question,
Mat Hayward
-
It seems like more AI violation account closings coming on Adobe Stock. Check your portfolio and delete images that may violate the AI term.
-
I came upon this it-should-never-have-passed-inspection doozy...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/31/10/22/240_F_631102269_tehCvnyGbKwtwo3zLH4tDpAaGdr5a5pL.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/robots-working-on-car-assembly-line-automation-and-industry-concept/631102269)
...so I did a few more searches for classic cars. There are a lot in the genAI collection where similar images in the "regular" collection are editorial use only. As with the other "oops" images, the contributor should have known better, but it is a total failure of the reviewing process to have so many of these items accepted:
Model T Ford (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=model+T+ford+-futuristic&acp=&aco=model+T+ford+-futuristic&get_facets=1)
Cadillac (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=cadillac+-cocktail&acp=&aco=cadillac+-cocktail&get_facets=1). Some are very specific with year and model:
(https://stock.adobe.com/images/1955-cadillac-fleetwood-sixty-special/564383197) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/1955-cadillac-fleetwood-sixty-special/564383197)
Ford Mustang (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=ford+mustang+-supercar&acp=&aco=ford+mustang+-supercar&get_facets=1)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/05/82/26/21/240_F_582262119_1tG7eUGCBq53NKfHswYAKETkFu7lDwOr.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/an-old-garage-filled-with-vintage-vehicles-from-a-classic-corvette-to-an-old-british-motorcycle-created-with-generative-ai/582262119)
That portfolio is full of classic cars, many of which probably aren't OK (I'm not an expert in classic car IP), here (https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=206612322&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=classic+car&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=classic+car&get_facets=0) and here (https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=206612322&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=garage+classic&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=garage+classic&get_facets=0)
Let's see if those account may get closed by Adobe Stock. They shouldn't accepted those images with brand logos in the first place.
-
Wow. How did they miss this big Apple logo. lol.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/businessman-working-late-at-office/627662611?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-robot-working-on-a-laptop/626914926?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/images/laptop-and-cup-of-coffee/577917311?prev_url=detail
-
It seems Adobe has a lot more cleanup to do. This thread shows it so well, and it's just what a couple of nice people from this board have found. I can only imagine how the rest of the assets look like :/
-
Found another Apple logo.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-young-dark-skinned-man-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181138?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208063215/romana?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
Adobe should pay me doing their job. lol
-
Another one.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/working-behind-your-laptop-ai-generated/617164818?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/207546567/djomas?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-man-in-a-blue-suit-sitting-in-front-of-a-laptop/628328481?prev_url=detail
It's kinda ridiculous if Adobe block their entire account because reviewers failed to find trademark and accepted those photos. It's their fault. Just reject them.
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211205003/pham?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-woman-wearing-a-hijab-and-working-on-a-laptop/630965528?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211079737/ployker?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
https://stock.adobe.com/images/headshot-portrait-photography-of-a-glad-boy-in-his-30s-using-the-laptop-against-a-colorful-hot-air-balloon-background-with-generative-ai-technology/611072818?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211379834/markus-schroder?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
Adobe should fire those reviewers who miss those obvious trademarks.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-young-beautiful-woman-procrastinating-doing-some-self-development-work-she-is-lying-on-her-bed-and-her-laptop-is-open-next-to-her-daylight/634816966?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211501990/نيلو-ڤر?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
Found another Apple logo.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-young-dark-skinned-man-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181138?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208063215/romana?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
Adobe should pay me doing their job. lol
I looked at the contributor portfolio, and wonder what the logo in lower right corner of this image is?
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-mature-grown-up-male-adult-with-silver-hair-and-beard-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181404?prev_url=detail (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-mature-grown-up-male-adult-with-silver-hair-and-beard-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181404?prev_url=detail)
-
This is not quite the Apple logo, but let's see what Adobe does with this.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/professional-businessman-in-blue-suit-sitting-at-desk-in-office-working-on-laptop-computer-created-with-ai/634327136?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211192500/rizone?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
Found another Apple logo.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-young-dark-skinned-man-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181138?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208063215/romana?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
Adobe should pay me doing their job. lol
I looked at the contributor portfolio, and wonder what the logo in lower right corner of this image is?
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-mature-grown-up-male-adult-with-silver-hair-and-beard-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181404?prev_url=detail (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-mature-grown-up-male-adult-with-silver-hair-and-beard-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181404?prev_url=detail)
That's weird.
-
Found another Apple logo.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-young-dark-skinned-man-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181138?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208063215/romana?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
Adobe should pay me doing their job. lol
I looked at the contributor portfolio, and wonder what the logo in lower right corner of this image is?
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-mature-grown-up-male-adult-with-silver-hair-and-beard-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181404?prev_url=detail (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-mature-grown-up-male-adult-with-silver-hair-and-beard-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181404?prev_url=detail)
Ai software sometimes created logos and trademarks because apparently they see this as a design element of images.
I get this a lot if I do oil paintings or watercolor, apparentely a signature or logo is for the ai a typical element of a painting.
This could of course be a real watermark from a company image photo, but I would think it is an added design element of the ai.
Nevertheless, the producer should have removed it and the Adobe reviewer should not have accepted it.
-
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
-
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
And further, why would anyone buy an AI generated stock image, when they could just as well have their own unique image AI generated?
-
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
And further, why would anyone buy an AI generated stock image, when they could just as well have their own unique image AI generated?
It's easier and cheaper to buy on Adobe Stock or Shutterstock on cheap subs.
-
As someone who has been doing ai generation daily for months…it is a lot faster to create content with a camera.
Especially if you work with real people, you get a huge amount of files in one afternoon that are instantly usable, need little postprocessing and you can do videos at the same time.
And you get personalized images. With ai you have the problem that if somebody else is using the same prompt, they will get a duplicate or extremely similar image to yours.
As for travel images…the images are not accurate. You can add a location, but is that cactus growing in the desert really from Mexico?
In my underwater tests I got all kinds of new fish species.
If you try to prompt local landmarks (I know we should not do this for Adobe…) my cathedral suddenly has three spires instead of two, the bridges all look wrong…
The ai is „creative“ it mixes and matches just on visual similarity.
It is not a fact checker and absolutely not accurate.
So no, I see ai content as an interesting addition, but mostly I see it as a good photoshop tool.
For instance if I do studio christmas cards in the snow, i can then use ai to easily overlay snow and lighting filter effects, adjust colors or add a quick vintage look.
So I can expand on my photos.
With people you can add or remove beards, change the daytime and maybe even change ethicity and skin color in a realistic way.
Then you could take a group of white caucasians and transform the group into a more diverse mix, even different for different countries - more mideast people for Germany, more black or hispanic for the USA…
It is a tool.
If you only prompt with ai without your own base photos, or without a mile long complex prompt, you will just end up with an endless duplicate midjourney port.
-
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
And further, why would anyone buy an AI generated stock image, when they could just as well have their own unique image AI generated?
I've looked at a huge number of AI generated images accepted at Adobe Stock, and I think the reason that people are buying, and probably will continue to buy, human-produced stock images is that a very large number of AI generated images aren't usable.
Impossible staircases in luxury interior shots, ladders you can't climb, kitchens with door handles at all angles, stools missing legs or sitting at bizarre angles, people with three thumbs, three legs or missing some body parts, hammocks suspended in thin air, table lamps growing out of books, doors you can't get to - it goes on and on and it isn't getting better with newer submissions.
Buyers can't use these except as novelty items or to create memes. My experience with images that sell suggests that there are lots of real world businesses that need real-world images for their marketing materials and web sites.
And then there are the people. By and large they look artificial - beyond any overdone retouching we've typically seen in stock shots. There may be a niche market for a small number of these, but I don't see this stuff going mainstream.
If you risk eyeball damage by looking over what Shutterstock has for AI generated images (what customers made with their Dall-E based tool) you'll understand why in the earnings call SS said that they saw lots of experimentation but few downloads. They expected that would improve when the quality increased, effectively acknowledging the quality problem they have.
Firefly is still in beta but widely available now via Adobe Express. Reviews of that earlier this month mentioned the poor quality of results (which my testing of the beta would agree with)
Fantasy content seems to be where AI does best - because there are no rules. It's where it intersects with the real world that it has trouble - and that's where a huge segment of stock licensing operates.
Edited to add: I just went to look at new genAI uploads and the first two images were of a kitchen. Just look at all the errors in this image (2nd one) - freshly approved...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/32/06/12/240_F_632061299_PdQvaYeB484G2JRBMVdYNSzCuH6X2RQN.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/kitchen-island-table-and-cabinets-in-modern-kitchen/632061299)
The stool legs are missing parts of their supports; the cabinet handles are all over the place; stovetop knobs are mashed pixels; the stool on the far side of the island has mangled legs; there's a light cord on the left but no light; the fridge doors are missing handles - and that's just what I can see in the preview image. This is useless and should not have been approved.
-
I agree, for fantasy content, but also for anything art related - paintings, watercolor, charcoal, clipart, papercraft it is amazing what you can generate.
But as soon as you need the accuracy of the real world, it is very difficult.
I am now trying to do people and food, genres that need very good accuracy, and it is extremely difficult to get good results.
-
Contrary to the advice here, I'm doing photorealistic stuff. I'm doing it exactly because it's hard, that means fewer producers can't make it, and it's not as simple as putting a few words in MJ and calling it a day.
Just a few days ago I had a genAI sale of a person for over $30.
I'm not afraid of the "competition" using midjourney - skin looks fake, people are in the uncanny valley, and we're going to laugh about pictures like that in a few months just like today we're laughing when we see "person isolated on white" shots.
Of course, producing high-end genAI takes time, but imho as long as Adobe cleans up their library, it's worth it.
-
You can do photrorealistic stuff, but you say yourself it is hard.
Compared to one afternoon with real people, what will get you more files, more choices, more scenes and video?
I see an advantage if you are trying to do engineers working on an oil plattform, medical doctor performing open heart surgery…all kinds of things where it is difficult to get access to or to get releases.
If you can generate that with ai, with very good detail accuracy, then yes, I think ai will have the advantage, because simply the time you need for organising and preparing that kind of shoot is very time consuming and good models/actors also costs quite a lot.
I am determined to learn my way around people and food, but it certainly is a much bigger challenge than easter eggs.
-
I see an advantage if you are trying to do engineers working on an oil plattform, medical doctor performing open heart surgery…all kinds of things where it is difficult to get access to or to get releases.
Cobalt, that's exactly what I tried and didn't get anything usable if you're interested in photorealistic detail. This is somehow understandable, because in many areas where it is difficult to get access for a photographer, there are not many reference images to train the AI as well.
For all the medical subjects I had in mind, the AI failed completely.
Even with classic simple doctor images with stethoscope around the neck, the stethoscope usually had ear pieces on both sides.
Our new Youtube trained generation of AI contributors should not care about that - especially because the pictures looked superficially pretty at first sight - but stethoscopes are not designed for whispered mail ;)
-
...
I see an advantage if you are trying to do engineers working on an oil plattform, medical doctor performing open heart surgery…all kinds of things where it is difficult to get access to or to get releases.
....
awhile ago i asked for a surgeon doing brain surgery, while results showed diversity, one had a woman working on an isolated brain that looked more like a turkey
and my request for Darwin writing in his garden ( for a blog post), it showed how industrious the man was - he could write on both pages w a pen in each hand
-
Another question is how long will it take for AI to get beyond the non-sense/inaccurate images? Could be that it will be "quick" or could be it will take a long time due to the way AI image generation works.
-
You never know but to create technically or medically accurate images...or just accurate fish species underwater and correct corals for a specific location...I think that will take a very, very long time.
It would have to understand entire ecosystems or entire professions including current details to be able to do that.
From working with ai...I sense nothing "intelligent" about.
Just a random visual mix, that gradually improves as users tell it ... no...not like this.
But I do not have the impression of the slightest bit of actual understanding what is in the image.
Working with ai makes me less scared of it.
-
New approvals in the genAI collection continue to include some utterly useless, broken, messed up images. One portfolio (https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211296786/love-allah) (which is huge) had some major clunkers in recent approvals so I took a look at some of the rest.
It makes the point so clearly - cleaning up the review process is critical and should be the number one priority. Popups in the upload process won't do the job.
Just a small taste of what I'm referring to:
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/29/10/44/240_F_629104486_ApE5rrASdDr8ZYGJ3Bk5FKgDKTRRxJIc.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/scientist-working-in-laboratory-ultra-high-quality-photo/629104486)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/32/68/39/240_F_632683903_D8qbsmGJuuwCfoESDmctV9Y4HnjtvbUz.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-close-up-to-the-nature-wallpaper-landscape-texturs-and-background-ultra-hd-high-quality/632683903)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/29/08/08/240_F_629080856_rUUMyyjKLHZsYgDpCxiYgQ98FpjTIoDg.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/modern-living-room-the-best-and-beautiful-work-office-design-for-office/629080856)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/28/43/13/240_F_628431381_vzxGB5X3mIxlcSp4OEPQV6XxPz8JEJmY.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/the-best-gift-boxes-for-packing-white-box-with-red-strip/628431381)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/19/71/91/240_F_619719159_MBgGsSdNQuSITHLQScl9W4jbR5K5dNG1.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-interior-design-of-home-basement-with-stairs-sofas-and-3d-wallpaper-generative-ai-technology/619719159)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/19/71/93/240_F_619719306_VUuEsZAg7P6QuaWpSsqzasHgpe12kXed.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-interior-design-of-home-basement-with-stairs-sofas-and-3d-wallpaper-generative-ai-technology/619719306)
-
New approvals in the genAI collection continue to include some utterly useless, broken, messed up images. One portfolio (https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211296786/love-allah) (which is huge) had some major clunkers in recent approvals so I took a look at some of the rest.
It makes the point so clearly - cleaning up the review process is critical and should be the number one priority. Popups in the upload process won't do the job.
Just a small taste of what I'm referring to:
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/32/68/39/240_F_632683903_D8qbsmGJuuwCfoESDmctV9Y4HnjtvbUz.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-close-up-to-the-nature-wallpaper-landscape-texturs-and-background-ultra-hd-high-quality/632683903)
Jo Ann,
I think you see the issue a bit too narrowly and too critically.
If a train travels faster than its CO2 emissions, then the zeitgeist is well met and highly topical ;)
Thank you, the picture was my ;D highlight and is hard to top.
-
New approvals in the genAI collection continue to include some utterly useless, broken, messed up images. One portfolio (https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211296786/love-allah) (which is huge) had some major clunkers in recent approvals so I took a look at some of the rest.
It makes the point so clearly - cleaning up the review process is critical and should be the number one priority. Popups in the upload process won't do the job.
Just a small taste of what I'm referring to:
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/29/10/44/240_F_629104486_ApE5rrASdDr8ZYGJ3Bk5FKgDKTRRxJIc.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/scientist-working-in-laboratory-ultra-high-quality-photo/629104486)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/32/68/39/240_F_632683903_D8qbsmGJuuwCfoESDmctV9Y4HnjtvbUz.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-close-up-to-the-nature-wallpaper-landscape-texturs-and-background-ultra-hd-high-quality/632683903)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/29/08/08/240_F_629080856_rUUMyyjKLHZsYgDpCxiYgQ98FpjTIoDg.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/modern-living-room-the-best-and-beautiful-work-office-design-for-office/629080856)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/28/43/13/240_F_628431381_vzxGB5X3mIxlcSp4OEPQV6XxPz8JEJmY.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/the-best-gift-boxes-for-packing-white-box-with-red-strip/628431381)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/19/71/91/240_F_619719159_MBgGsSdNQuSITHLQScl9W4jbR5K5dNG1.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-interior-design-of-home-basement-with-stairs-sofas-and-3d-wallpaper-generative-ai-technology/619719159)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/19/71/93/240_F_619719306_VUuEsZAg7P6QuaWpSsqzasHgpe12kXed.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-interior-design-of-home-basement-with-stairs-sofas-and-3d-wallpaper-generative-ai-technology/619719306)
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.
-
New approvals in the genAI collection continue to include some utterly useless, broken, messed up images. One portfolio (https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211296786/love-allah) (which is huge) had some major clunkers in recent approvals so I took a look at some of the rest.
It makes the point so clearly - cleaning up the review process is critical and should be the number one priority. Popups in the upload process won't do the job.
Just a small taste of what I'm referring to:
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/32/68/39/240_F_632683903_D8qbsmGJuuwCfoESDmctV9Y4HnjtvbUz.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-close-up-to-the-nature-wallpaper-landscape-texturs-and-background-ultra-hd-high-quality/632683903)
Jo Ann,
I think you see the issue a bit too narrowly and too critically.
If a train travels faster than its CO2 emissions, then the zeitgeist is well met and highly topical ;)
Thank you, the picture was my ;D highlight and is hard to top.
Not everybody knows the german language here Ralf. And then the joke is not quite understood.
And it's quite bitterful that someone is having a laugh about AI while so many suffer of it's consequences and see their hard work and livelyhood be destroyed.
-
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.
You mentioned trademark violations? Today's approvals have those too...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/14/05/56/240_F_614055686_GW3w54Q39ToN8dViBljrplJCnT3BhQeV.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/moderen-office/614055686)
-
@RalfLiebhold
Somehow I'd never heard of the ability to outrun one's CO2 emissions :)
-
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.
You mentioned trademark violations? Today's approvals have those too...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/14/05/56/240_F_614055686_GW3w54Q39ToN8dViBljrplJCnT3BhQeV.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/moderen-office/614055686)
I blame Apple.
-
New approvals in the genAI collection continue to include some utterly useless, broken, messed up images. One portfolio (https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211296786/love-allah) (which is huge) had some major clunkers in recent approvals so I took a look at some of the rest.
It makes the point so clearly - cleaning up the review process is critical and should be the number one priority. Popups in the upload process won't do the job.
Just a small taste of what I'm referring to:
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/32/68/39/240_F_632683903_D8qbsmGJuuwCfoESDmctV9Y4HnjtvbUz.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-close-up-to-the-nature-wallpaper-landscape-texturs-and-background-ultra-hd-high-quality/632683903)
Jo Ann,
I think you see the issue a bit too narrowly and too critically.
If a train travels faster than its CO2 emissions, then the zeitgeist is well met and highly topical ;)
Thank you, the picture was my ;D highlight and is hard to top.
Not everybody knows the german language here Ralf. And then the joke is not quite understood.
This is called germanism.
As far as I know, the term zeitgeist is used as a loan word in the English language in the same way as, for example, kindergarten or German Angst.
But I'm happy to be taught better.
-
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.
You mentioned trademark violations? Today's approvals have those too...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/14/05/56/240_F_614055686_GW3w54Q39ToN8dViBljrplJCnT3BhQeV.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/moderen-office/614055686)
The office swivel chair is also interesting. The lack of a backrest indicates an ergonomic innovation.
-
Here is an interesting web page. You can type your name or image and see if your images are used as ‘training’. Some of mine are there. I hope someone will go to court to stop this madness.
https://haveibeentrained.com/
-
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
And further, why would anyone buy an AI generated stock image, when they could just as well have their own unique image AI generated?
It's easier and cheaper to buy on Adobe Stock or Shutterstock on cheap subs.
But doing it yourself you can get exactly what you want.
-
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
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
Mat, We need a clear answer.
We do not accept generative AI vector images. I strongly advise against what you are suggesting. Using the tool as inspiration is one thing, auto-trace or something similar I would avoid at all cost.
Thanks for the question,
Mat Hayward
Redrawing is not autotracing.
-
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
And further, why would anyone buy an AI generated stock image, when they could just as well have their own unique image AI generated?
But doing it yourself you can get exactly what you want.
That is also true for photos and videos and yet we have sales every day. Even very mundane photos anyone can do quickly with a mobile phone.
Customers don't have time. We are a resource for them to work faster.
It's easier and cheaper to buy on Adobe Stock or Shutterstock on cheap subs.
-
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/33/09/86/240_F_633098655_GnscfGsBxETlLMsdGLQ80gnTUUkiM9Oi.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-vision-of-the-future-work-experience-with-state-of-the-art-workplace-design-and-copyspace/633098655)
The Apple logos just keep on getting accepted
Fix the review process
-
The stool legs are missing parts of their supports; the cabinet handles are all over the place; stovetop knobs are mashed pixels; the stool on the far side of the island has mangled legs; there's a light cord on the left but no light; the fridge doors are missing handles - and that's just what I can see in the preview image. This is useless and should not have been approved.
No faucets on the sink? Maybe it's magic Temp. control and motion activated?
-
AI knows how to
take steal photos
AI prompters know how to control obei AI
-
The verification rules have become very strange. When I send illustrative editorial photos, obviously not generated by AI, I have to accept the conditions, among others: the photo does not contain logos and trademarks. After all, this is the essence of illustrative editorial photos. And Adobe is threatening to suspend my account.
-
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/33/09/86/240_F_633098655_GnscfGsBxETlLMsdGLQ80gnTUUkiM9Oi.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-vision-of-the-future-work-experience-with-state-of-the-art-workplace-design-and-copyspace/633098655)
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.
-
...
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/19/71/93/240_F_619719306_VUuEsZAg7P6QuaWpSsqzasHgpe12kXed.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-interior-design-of-home-basement-with-stairs-sofas-and-3d-wallpaper-generative-ai-technology/619719306)
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
-
...
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/19/71/93/240_F_619719306_VUuEsZAg7P6QuaWpSsqzasHgpe12kXed.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/most-beautiful-interior-design-of-home-basement-with-stairs-sofas-and-3d-wallpaper-generative-ai-technology/619719306)
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.
-
The verification rules have become very strange. When I send illustrative editorial photos, obviously not generated by AI, I have to accept the conditions, among others: the photo does not contain logos and trademarks. After all, this is the essence of illustrative editorial photos. And Adobe is threatening to suspend my account.
We are aware of this issue and will update the language ASAP to call out the exception for Illustrative Editorial photographs. For now, if you are submitting Illustrative Editorial, it's OK to click the box and you can know with confidence you're account won't be blocked because of it. If you have any issues with this (you won't), you may contact me directly and I'll take care of it.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
-
.... 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 :o
As far as interpersonal issues are concerned, Adobe is really screwing things up here.
Thanks
-
Found another Apple logo.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-young-dark-skinned-man-wearing-on-ear-headphones-and-watching-or-reading-some-content-on-a-laptop-indoors-modern-sleek-interior/631181138?prev_url=detail
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208063215/romana?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
Adobe should pay me doing their job. lol
I see Adobe Stock removed the photos with Apple logo, but didn't block the entire portfolio of contributors. Is this the new approach by Adobe Stock? If so, I can upload photos again.
-
.... 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 :o
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, nitpicking, but this unsupported staircase, is possible - while scary i've used such in Turkey & India
If you look at this staircase, it's impossible to walk up it - that's what I was calling out, not the fact that it's cantilevered, which is fine (if you have a good builder and strict building codes :) ). There's no landing and mangled steps at the turn.
In AI world, don't sit down, don't climb or descend the stairs, and never go to a cat party!
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/29/10/86/240_F_629108659_QESLckbrtqxTxXtpbpTSrsflKe4YAvSB.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/birthday-cake-and-candles-with-cute-kitty-ultra-high-quality-photo/629108659)
-
and never go to a cat party!
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/29/10/86/240_F_629108659_QESLckbrtqxTxXtpbpTSrsflKe4YAvSB.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/birthday-cake-and-candles-with-cute-kitty-ultra-high-quality-photo/629108659)
Looks more like a cat burning party.
-
With all this going on, I am not submitting any images containing AI content ... so far. However, I do enjoy using Midjourney and other AI programs, and I do have several images containing AI generated parts. I just don't submit them.
What about this situation :
A normal photograph, shot with a camera, containing fully model released people on a fully released background. BUT, I did not like the cleavage of one of the models, and I made it more modest using AI software.
According to Mat, I think I should submit this image as "AI generated" + add the model and property releases of the real people and background.
Correct ?
Seems not correct to me, as I do have the raw file of the photo, just not the lady's cleavage ...
This is just a non-existing example, but for me, it is the reason why I don't submit these images to Adobe.
-
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.
-
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
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
Mat, We need a clear answer.
We do not accept generative AI vector images. I strongly advise against what you are suggesting. Using the tool as inspiration is one thing, auto-trace or something similar I would avoid at all cost.
Thanks for the question,
Mat Hayward
I hear the policy statement, and I see that the number of vectors marked as genAI has dropped a little over the last several weeks, but new genAI vectors keep appearing - this is currently the most recent and look at the image number.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/crm-management-filled-colorful-logo-business-automation-gears-meshing-design-element-created-with-artificial-intelligence-ai-art-for-corporate-branding-software-company-cloud-computing-service/639157535
Edtied Sep 1 to add that new vectors have been approved. Overall numbers are going up again too
https://stock.adobe.com/images/catering-service-filled-colorful-logo-meal-prep-carrot-symbol-design-element-created-with-artificial-intelligence-friendly-ai-art-for-corporate-branding-salad-bar-retail-store-food-market/640542184
The most recent JPEG (I just searched) is image number 633609083 (now 636012633) - older than the vector (639157535 now 640542184).
There is a huge gap between what the written rules for contributors say - for genAI, no specific places, no vectors, no logos - and what's actually happening in approvals. All of those rules are still being broken. A lot
If the rules and the inspection process lined up, it would make taming the lawless wild west of the AI content a lot easier IMO.
Theree are still 113,080 (now 113,752) genAI vectors live in the collection (that are marked as "Generated with AI")
-
To illustrate my point, from new approvals
Logos - Midjourney loves Apple
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/36/11/99/240_F_636119962_hy94dRg8DMV7plRpUwnHrI8X9HIexpRc.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/minimalist-workspace-clean-design-functional-layout-generative-ai/636119962). (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/40/79/93/240_F_640799384_Xtn2RGjZQYplTKgkzdLTjwFNuYaTmdbl.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/engineer-working-with-laptop-in-the-style-of-social-documentary-photography-monolithic-structures-commission-for-light-indigo-and-beige-candid-dadaist-ironica/640799384)
Specific places - Persepolis was first up
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/33/60/87/240_F_633608741_Rbv9fSNNO5cdxnRKhnBJ2b7chLeXTv84.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/gate-of-all-nations-in-ancient-city-persepolis-iran/633608741)
Furious cobra logo (vector)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/28/28/73/240_F_628287344_83HjvCWKXEm6m4qKmzO5YGULvAbJAaTV.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/furious-cobra-sport-vector-logo-concept-isolated-on-white-background-modern-military-professional-t-vector-illustration-cartoon/628287344)
Warhol (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=warhol&acp=&aco=warhol&get_facets=1&asset_id=588741939), Mondrian and Hockney (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=hockney&k=hockney&get_facets=1) (same images show up for both search terms), Jackson Pollock (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=%22jackson+pollock%22&k=%22jackson+pollock%22&get_facets=1), Matisse (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=matisse&k=matisse&get_facets=1)
-
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
-
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.
-
Have a look yourself in the istock forums. Last time I read there they said generative ai tools were not allowed.
They quote Adobes terms that generative fill is not allowed for commercial use.
"4. No Commercial Use
While generative AI features are in beta, all generated output is for personal use only and cannot be used commercially.
"
Or write to their support and ask them if you can use ai tools.
I wouldn't upload anything ai related to istock/Getty without their explicit approval.
-
To illustrate my point, from new approvals
Logos - Midjourney loves Apple
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/36/11/99/240_F_636119962_hy94dRg8DMV7plRpUwnHrI8X9HIexpRc.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/minimalist-workspace-clean-design-functional-layout-generative-ai/636119962). (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/40/79/93/240_F_640799384_Xtn2RGjZQYplTKgkzdLTjwFNuYaTmdbl.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/engineer-working-with-laptop-in-the-style-of-social-documentary-photography-monolithic-structures-commission-for-light-indigo-and-beige-candid-dadaist-ironica/640799384)
Specific places - Persepolis was first up
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/33/60/87/240_F_633608741_Rbv9fSNNO5cdxnRKhnBJ2b7chLeXTv84.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/gate-of-all-nations-in-ancient-city-persepolis-iran/633608741)
Furious cobra logo (vector)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/28/28/73/240_F_628287344_83HjvCWKXEm6m4qKmzO5YGULvAbJAaTV.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/furious-cobra-sport-vector-logo-concept-isolated-on-white-background-modern-military-professional-t-vector-illustration-cartoon/628287344)
Warhol (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=warhol&acp=&aco=warhol&get_facets=1&asset_id=588741939), Mondrian and Hockney (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=hockney&k=hockney&get_facets=1) (same images show up for both search terms), Jackson Pollock (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=%22jackson+pollock%22&k=%22jackson+pollock%22&get_facets=1), Matisse (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=matisse&k=matisse&get_facets=1)
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? ;)
-
Jo Ann is doing a fantastic job! And certainly making me a better contributor…don‘t want to be caught with weird content on her watch ;)
-
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.
-
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 that, especially if they can do it online.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
As for too many files coming in, upload limits solve that very easily.
Yes, I have also suggested that.
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.
-
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'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
-
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 ...
-
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 ;)
-
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…
-
.... 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 :o
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
-
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.
-
(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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/35/30/96/240_F_635309667_Yrp84dvwjF7a0W7aRzl4N7HJa4E3Dovc.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/mujer-de-negocios-viajando-a-su-trabajo-de-oficina-en-bicicleta/635309667)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/33/03/36/240_F_633033618_oA0vCGyQzadzIHe8ReuCkiq9GiLGYBJn.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/beautiful-interior-of-a-luxury-house-yellow-gray-themed-furniture-and-paint-luxury-lifestyle-generative-ai/633033618)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/33/03/36/240_F_633033618_oA0vCGyQzadzIHe8ReuCkiq9GiLGYBJn.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/beautiful-interior-of-a-luxury-house-yellow-gray-themed-furniture-and-paint-luxury-lifestyle-generative-ai/633033618)
I clicked on this interior that Jo Ann posted and found that apart from bad interiors, their portfolio is full of Barbie IP infrigements!
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
To illustrate my point, from new approvals
Logos - Midjourney loves Apple
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/36/11/99/240_F_636119962_hy94dRg8DMV7plRpUwnHrI8X9HIexpRc.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/minimalist-workspace-clean-design-functional-layout-generative-ai/636119962). (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/40/79/93/240_F_640799384_Xtn2RGjZQYplTKgkzdLTjwFNuYaTmdbl.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/engineer-working-with-laptop-in-the-style-of-social-documentary-photography-monolithic-structures-commission-for-light-indigo-and-beige-candid-dadaist-ironica/640799384)
Specific places - Persepolis was first up
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/33/60/87/240_F_633608741_Rbv9fSNNO5cdxnRKhnBJ2b7chLeXTv84.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/gate-of-all-nations-in-ancient-city-persepolis-iran/633608741)
Furious cobra logo (vector)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/28/28/73/240_F_628287344_83HjvCWKXEm6m4qKmzO5YGULvAbJAaTV.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/furious-cobra-sport-vector-logo-concept-isolated-on-white-background-modern-military-professional-t-vector-illustration-cartoon/628287344)
Warhol (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&k=warhol&acp=&aco=warhol&get_facets=1&asset_id=588741939), Mondrian and Hockney (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=hockney&k=hockney&get_facets=1) (same images show up for both search terms), Jackson Pollock (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=%22jackson+pollock%22&k=%22jackson+pollock%22&get_facets=1), Matisse (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=usertyped&search_page=1&acp=&aco=matisse&k=matisse&get_facets=1)
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?
Just dont put anything on the Adobe contributor community forum, the giys on there defend Adobe irrationally like their life depends on it. Complete waste of time that place.
-
Financially their life probably does depend on it.
I really like Adobe, but situations like these make it clear as a stock producer you must work with many places and also be prepared that some disaster might strike that you cannot control.
The producers reporting an account blocked for more than 2 months because criminals tested stolen credit cards on their port…how do you protect yourself from this?
And two months is literally deadly. It will kill the ranking of everything uploaded in the last 12 months.
So I hope Adobe finds a more nuanced way to handle these issues.
Including a proper process with case number, a visible waiting queue etc…these things have been around forever.
The admins are working super hard, but their job could be made a lot easier.
And of course I hope they fix the inspection process.
-
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..
lol
-
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
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
Mat, We need a clear answer.
We do not accept generative AI vector images. I strongly advise against what you are suggesting. Using the tool as inspiration is one thing, auto-trace or something similar I would avoid at all cost.
Thanks for the question,
Mat Hayward
If you use the filters "Vector" + "gernerative AI only", you get 120000 results. This is quite a lot considering that these files are not accepted.
-
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
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
Mat, We need a clear answer.
We do not accept generative AI vector images. I strongly advise against what you are suggesting. Using the tool as inspiration is one thing, auto-trace or something similar I would avoid at all cost.
Thanks for the question,
Mat Hayward
I am sorry Matt, but I have to ask one more time, because it looks like the situation is changed.
I've SEEN approved vectors, marked as Generative AI. Not in the title/keywords, but marked by the rewiever. What is the current policy about it? Of course, I am not talking about an autotrace, which in my opinion is not a good way for any vector content. But there are a lot of ways currently. There's already a vector-only AI engines available for icons.
I'd say, by the 2024 it will be something you can't stop, but can control.
-
I don't think reviewers are labelling vectors as Gen. AI. It's being done by Adobe Stock's automated AI detection system, which doesn't seem to have been programmed to ignore vectors, so it just treats them the same as JPEG's and if it think they look like AI it puts a "Generated with AI" label on them. I don't submit any AI but I found that around 3% of my images were mislabelled as "Generated with AI" including a handful of vectors. Everyone should check their portfolios for mislabelled content. Someone on the Discord server posted this handy method to check your portfolio: Go to your page and add this to the end of the link: &filters[gentech]=only& and it will filter everything else than "ai generated" out. Then you can send the file numbers to support using the Contact Us link at the bottom of your dashboard and ask for the Gen.AI label to be removed. (And wait weeks for them to do it and get back to you.)
-
I don't think reviewers are labelling vectors as Gen. AI. It's being done by Adobe Stock's automated AI detection system, which doesn't seem to have been programmed to ignore vectors, so it just treats them the same as JPEG's and if it think they look like AI it puts a "Generated with AI" label on them. I don't submit any AI but I found that around 3% of my images were mislabelled as "Generated with AI" including a handful of vectors. Everyone should check their portfolios for mislabelled content. Someone on the Discord server posted this handy method to check your portfolio: Go to your page and add this to the end of the link: &filters[gentech]=only& and it will filter everything else than "ai generated" out. Then you can send the file numbers to support using the Contact Us link at the bottom of your dashboard and ask for the Gen.AI label to be removed. (And wait weeks for them to do it and get back to you.)
Unfortunately it doesn't work for me as you describe, but by sampling I now had to find out that I too have "AI generated" images, even though I've never uploaded any.
Why does Adobe do this?
What is the point behind it?
If someone filters out AI images, I get penalized because then images of mine don't show up in the results.
This is an outrage! And misleading the buyer!
Mat: Can you enlighten us what this is about?
Do I really have to search out all the images now and ask AS to fix it?
-
If someone filters out AI images, I get penalized because then images of mine don't show up in the results.
This is an outrage! And misleading the buyer!
More to say, I had an issue with iStock, which found that one of my vectors are marked as AI on Adobe. They blocked me and we had a conversation.
I have a story behind, so probably everyone should not panic about it. However, there was a risky situation.
-
Hi Matt,
I found many Generative AI vector documents in the link below. I also prepared one, but the Generative AI checkbox does not appear on the vector page while uploading.
Then I found this page and wanted to ask you. Adobe Stock support pages do not say that Generative AI vector files are not accepted. Or I couldn't find it.
If uploading generative AI vector is forbidden, how is this possible?
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=0&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=pagination&search_page=6&acp=&get_facets=0 (https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=0&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_type=pagination&search_page=6&acp=&get_facets=0)
Thanks
-
Unfortunately it doesn't work for me as you describe, but by sampling I now had to find out that I too have "AI generated" images, even though I've never uploaded any.
Wilm try this link to filter your portfolio: https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201081893/wilm-ihlenfeld?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&filters[gentech]=only&
sorry I can't get this to format properly maybe because of the [] brackets but you can just copy and paste. You only have 3 files marked as Ai so don't be too stressed about it!
-
This works too if you put ?filters[gentech]=only& at the end of your the Adobe Stock link that is on your posts here. Like this: https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201081893/wilm-ihlenfeld?filters[gentech]=only&
-
If someone filters out AI images, I get penalized because then images of mine don't show up in the results.
This is an outrage! And misleading the buyer!
More to say, I had an issue with iStock, which found that one of my vectors are marked as AI on Adobe. They blocked me and we had a conversation.
I have a story behind, so probably everyone should not panic about it. However, there was a risky situation.
That is not funny at all.
-
Unfortunately it doesn't work for me as you describe, but by sampling I now had to find out that I too have "AI generated" images, even though I've never uploaded any.
Wilm try this link to filter your portfolio: https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201081893/wilm-ihlenfeld?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&filters[gentech]=only&
sorry I can't get this to format properly maybe because of the [] brackets but you can just copy and paste. You only have 3 files marked as Ai so don't be too stressed about it!
You don't need the final ampersand - that's the intro character for a parameter. And if you use escaped characters for the brackets - %5D - then the link will work
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201081893/wilm-ihlenfeld?&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only
If you want to show only the non AI content, you can use &filters%5Bgentech%5D=exclude
You can tack other filters on to your portfolio link too - like showing it in download order or newest first:
?&order=nb_downloads
?&order=creation
You only need the question mark once after the URL and then start each additional filter with an ampersand
-
Unfortunately it doesn't work for me as you describe, but by sampling I now had to find out that I too have "AI generated" images, even though I've never uploaded any.
Wilm try this link to filter your portfolio: https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201081893/wilm-ihlenfeld?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&filters[gentech]=only&
sorry I can't get this to format properly maybe because of the [] brackets but you can just copy and paste. You only have 3 files marked as Ai so don't be too stressed about it!
Thank you very much! Now it works. :)
Only four of my files are affected. I will contact Adobe.
-
Unfortunately it doesn't work for me as you describe, but by sampling I now had to find out that I too have "AI generated" images, even though I've never uploaded any.
Wilm try this link to filter your portfolio: https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201081893/wilm-ihlenfeld?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&filters[gentech]=only&
sorry I can't get this to format properly maybe because of the [] brackets but you can just copy and paste. You only have 3 files marked as Ai so don't be too stressed about it!
You don't need the final ampersand - that's the intro character for a parameter. And if you use escaped characters for the brackets - %5D - then the link will work
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201081893/wilm-ihlenfeld?&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only
If you want to show only the non AI content, you can use &filters%5Bgentech%5D=exclude
You can tack other filters on to your portfolio link too - like showing it in download order or newest first:
?&order=nb_downloads
?&order=creation
You only need the question mark once after the URL and then start each additional filter with an ampersand
Thank you as well, Jo Ann. :)
-
I continue to see huge quantities of broken photo-realistic genAI content that should have been rejected by inspectors - I was looking through this evening's new approvals and here's a tiny selection of examples.
The genAI collection is now over 15.5 million. Given the high volume of unsaleable mistakes, I'd suggest tighter upload limits until the inspections can get a grip.
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/45/39/30/240_F_645393047_Qcf8QnD9vDFMr1rzX1hAX0DIhBGzoJfP.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-female-entrepreneur-with-laptop-and-smiling-stock-photo/645393047)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/39/58/84/240_F_639588475_6DnRTnnfYCZSoIif0AkITJhRIc0P9ql3.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/happy-thanksgiving-thanksgiving-pumpkins-and-autumn-leaves-thanksgiving-food-party-thanksgiving-concept-thanksgiving-background-thanksgiving-theme-generative-ai/639588475)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/39/50/16/240_F_639501668_JVa1lwjoUBXxX5GOvSeLGNdfAyRMb7pr.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/top-view-of-green-stethoscope-on-colorful-background/639501668)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/38/44/47/240_F_638444703_ioPtggdbWk0jk80IT2uptK0sVf3hlO96.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/statue-with-a-laptop-in-his-lap-conceptual-image/638444703)
Mutant turkey is apparently a thing this season...
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/39/58/61/240_F_639586110_3IjY8S7ATte0uHsi08IeYvueMQUXZIah.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/happy-thanksgiving-thanksgiving-pumpkins-and-autumn-leaves-thanksgiving-food-party-thanksgiving-concept-thanksgiving-background-thanksgiving-theme-generative-ai/639586110)
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/18/68/97/240_F_618689757_yhhv0HFtgFJSwFMEMJs8bq6SejibI2Du.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/close-up-of-woman-with-yellow-travel-suitcase-at-the-beach-at-coast-watercolor-painting-generative-ai/618689757) (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/44/60/89/240_F_644608910_dB6JzAUFmug88MspJ7euOcwSt1r3Ai02.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/happy-family-ready-to-their-journey-airport-terminal-generative-ai/644608910)
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/39/58/82/240_F_639588237_xHKuCiAZZ2cd4IgdasVVvXT68ECCtgtk.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/happy-thanksgiving-thanksgiving-pumpkins-and-autumn-leaves-thanksgiving-food-party-thanksgiving-concept-thanksgiving-background-thanksgiving-theme-generative-ai/639588237)
-
I just had a few photo ai images for Halloween and christmas approved while other non seasonal images are still in the queue.
Thank you for choosing seasonal images first. This really helps.
-
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.
This would now also apply to the Generative Fill in the new PS version. Even if you only use it for removing things like cigarette stubs on a sidewalk. So we all should use the "good" old methods of removing things.
Furthermore Adobe says in the user guidelines that you are not allowed to use the results for AI training or allow third parties to do so on your results. So in effect you won't be allowed to upload those images to any stock agency because most "lend" the images for AI training.
-
If you use the filters "Vector" + "gernerative AI only", you get 120000 results. This is quite a lot considering that these files are not accepted.
I spoke to the support and they are probably going to fix it. Probably, by re-reviewing. Soon, I guess.
At this day, I think, real Vector-AI will be punished. Because Adobe is not accepting Vector AI. While I don't see any clear answer of a line in ToS about it.
Is there a way to question Mat directly? Because I really think it's time to start thinking of AI-vectors as a separate thing, like AI images. Look at Shutterstock, which claims zero tolerance for AI. Their database is full of it. And they will never know what is human-made now, they will never be able to roll it back.
-
del
-
If you use the filters "Vector" + "gernerative AI only", you get 120000 results. This is quite a lot considering that these files are not accepted.
I spoke to the support and they are probably going to fix it. Probably, by re-reviewing. Soon, I guess.
At this day, I think, real Vector-AI will be punished. Because Adobe is not accepting Vector AI. While I don't see any clear answer of a line in ToS about it.
Is there a way to question Mat directly? Because I really think it's time to start thinking of AI-vectors as a separate thing, like AI images. Look at Shutterstock, which claims zero tolerance for AI. Their database is full of it. And they will never know what is human-made now, they will never be able to roll it back.
Is this really the intention at all? So, if I remove a minuscule logo with the new 'remove' tool, do I have to label my photo as 'generated with AI'? This completely misses the point, doesn't it? 'Modified by AI' would cover it better, but I still find it completely nonsensical
Edit: Nevermind. I wrote nonsense
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/msg592314/#msg592314 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/msg592314/#msg592314)
-
As announced in September 2022, Getty Images does not accept files created using AI generative models. This includes Adobe’s recently announced Creative Cloud tools, which are now available with its Firefly-powered generative AI tools built in.
-
If you use the filters "Vector" + "gernerative AI only", you get 120000 results. This is quite a lot considering that these files are not accepted.
I spoke to the support and they are probably going to fix it. Probably, by re-reviewing. Soon, I guess.
At this day, I think, real Vector-AI will be punished. Because Adobe is not accepting Vector AI. While I don't see any clear answer of a line in ToS about it.
Is there a way to question Mat directly? Because I really think it's time to start thinking of AI-vectors as a separate thing, like AI images. Look at Shutterstock, which claims zero tolerance for AI. Their database is full of it. And they will never know what is human-made now, they will never be able to roll it back.
Is this really the intention at all? So, if I remove a minuscule logo with the new 'remove' tool, do I have to label my photo as 'generated with AI'? This completely misses the point, doesn't it? 'Modified by AI' would cover it better, but I still find it completely nonsensical
If I understand Mat Hayward's comment correctly, you don't need to label your image as generative AI if you just remove something with generative AI tools.
Examples when to label your image as generative AI:
-Generating new additions, such as a new person, animal, or object
-Adding new subjects might compromise the accuracy of an image
-Making significant adjustments or changes to a human subject in an image
-Recoloring the primary subject of an image
Examples when you wouldn’t be obligated to label an image as generative AI:
-Extending background for any reason
-Removing IP or other forms of retouching
-Removing distracting objects or people
-Recoloring the background of an image
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/100/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/100/)
-
If you use the filters "Vector" + "gernerative AI only", you get 120000 results. This is quite a lot considering that these files are not accepted.
I spoke to the support and they are probably going to fix it. Probably, by re-reviewing. Soon, I guess.
At this day, I think, real Vector-AI will be punished. Because Adobe is not accepting Vector AI. While I don't see any clear answer of a line in ToS about it.
Is there a way to question Mat directly? Because I really think it's time to start thinking of AI-vectors as a separate thing, like AI images. Look at Shutterstock, which claims zero tolerance for AI. Their database is full of it. And they will never know what is human-made now, they will never be able to roll it back.
Is this really the intention at all? So, if I remove a minuscule logo with the new 'remove' tool, do I have to label my photo as 'generated with AI'? This completely misses the point, doesn't it? 'Modified by AI' would cover it better, but I still find it completely nonsensical
If I understand Mat Hayward's comment correctly, you don't need to label your image as generative AI if you just remove something with generative AI tools.
Examples when to label your image as generative AI:
-Generating new additions, such as a new person, animal, or object
-Adding new subjects might compromise the accuracy of an image
-Making significant adjustments or changes to a human subject in an image
-Recoloring the primary subject of an image
Examples when you wouldn’t be obligated to label an image as generative AI:
-Extending background for any reason
-Removing IP or other forms of retouching
-Removing distracting objects or people
-Recoloring the background of an image
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/100/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/100/)
Yes, you are correct.
-Mat
-
This looks like the entire portfolio is Generative AI but only about 2% of the images are tagged as Gen. AI:
https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=211324434
-
Yes, you are correct.
-Mat
Matt, while you're here, can you clear up the situation with the Vector AI?
Is Vector AI allowed or planned to be allowed?
By vector AI, I mean a wide range of tools and techniques, from reworking AI raster images and getting inspiration from them, to using AI that creates a vector from scratch, without a raster in the middle.
And I don't mean basic AI image autotracing, which will inevitably lead to spam.
-
The total size of the genAI vector collection is down - I just looked and it's 118,194 - but there are still new approvals - the most recent is file ID 650558560
The total size on Monday was 119,358, but even then there were new images that hadn't been there the week before. I don't understand why they're continuing to approve new genAI vector images if they're also removing the previously approved ones and saying that the rules are you can't submit genAI vectors.
The contributor who has the newest genAI vector has just over 300 genAI vectors in their portfolio (https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/204771390/bsd-studio?&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=creation) along with tens of thousands of human-created vectors.
I would guess that the contributor doesn't see anything amiss as their genAI work keeps getting approved...
Not only should the moderators reject these vectors, they should have a clear, specific reason: "Generative AI vectors are not permitted".
Contributors can act on that information and will stop submitting (at least an established contributor like this one will; they won't want to waste time creating things that aren't accepted).
-
[deleted]
-
Did anyone have anything rejected because of mentioning "antique" artists' names? I often mention styles like "Rembrandt" and "Vermeer", but they died 400 years ago ... Does Adobe say anything about long-dead artists? (and do the reviewers know?)
-
Did anyone have anything rejected because of mentioning "antique" artists' names? I often mention styles like "Rembrandt" and "Vermeer", but they died 400 years ago ... Does Adobe say anything about long-dead artists? (and do the reviewers know?)
Adobe's website says this:
Content created by prompting with artist names if their works are no longer under copyright may be acceptable as 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.
Personally I would not risk it. Adobe has a twitchy finger when banning accounts.
-
Adobe's website says this:
Content created by prompting with artist names if their works are no longer under copyright may be acceptable as 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.
Personally I would not risk it. Adobe has a twitchy finger when banning accounts.
For "Rembrandt" it's far to late, as I use the keyword in the meaning of "Rembrandt lighting" a lot, but the word "Vermeer" I could remove from already submitted images I suppose ... although there are hundreds of "Vermeer" images online, including 200 girls with pearl earrings, and only 8 of them are editorial.
I do realize I'm on the wrong topic here, as I was talking about "real" photos, not AI ...
-
The total size on Monday was 119,358, but even then there were new images that hadn't been there the week before. I don't understand why they're continuing to approve new genAI vector images if they're also removing the previously approved ones and saying that the rules are you can't submit genAI vectors.
I would guess that the contributor doesn't see anything amiss as their genAI work keeps getting approved...
First of all, not all of these vectors are really an AI. Far from it. It's not like "they keep approving." I talked to support and they didn't say it directly, but implied that it was some kind of glitch. I think the AI reviewer is doing this and they just don't know how to stop it
Secondly, Mat doesn't give a clear answer as to whether this is allowed or not. The support engineer I spoke with referred me to the FAQ. But there are no prohibitions. There is a policy regarding raster AI. All other types are not mentioned. The FAQ was clearly written before vector AI became a thing. So, at the moment there is no policy in this regard
-
...Secondly, Mat doesn't give a clear answer as to whether this is allowed or not.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-generti/msg591340/#msg591340 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-generti/msg591340/#msg591340)
Seemed pretty clear to me - Adobe Stock doesn't accept it. It's true, it's not in their official dos & don'ts list on Adobe's web site.
It would be a very good idea to put something explicit into that page about all the asset types found on Adobe Stock with a check mark or an X depending on whether it's allowed or not.
As far as a bug making 120k human created vectors into AI work, that's possible, but would suggest it's really low priority given how long it's been going on.
-
...Secondly, Mat doesn't give a clear answer as to whether this is allowed or not.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-generti/msg591340/#msg591340 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-generti/msg591340/#msg591340)
Seemed pretty clear to me - Adobe Stock doesn't accept it. It's true, it's not in their official dos & don'ts list on Adobe's web site.
It would be a very good idea to put something explicit into that page about all the asset types found on Adobe Stock with a check mark or an X depending on whether it's allowed or not.
As far as a bug making 120k human created vectors into AI work, that's possible, but would suggest it's really low priority given how long it's been going on.
Mat also said "Using the tool as inspiration is one thing, auto-trace or something similar I would avoid at all cost."
To me it sounds like he's talking about auto-tracing and "something like that". Inspiration seems to be allowed. And at the moment he doesn't know that people can do a lot of things with AI. From redrawing AI-images where no one can tell what you did because you'll have the original wireframe to prove it, to AIs creating valid SVG vectors from prompts. And much more. For me it does not look like "something like auto-tracing"
-
Is it safe to use holiday names in AI-generated content? Like if I (or actually AI) make a banner for Black Friday or Cyber Monday with that text? Or any international "insert random thing" day? Like international headphone day, or international day of poker players?
-
Is it safe to use holiday names in AI-generated content? Like if I (or actually AI) make a banner for Black Friday or Cyber Monday with that text? Or any international "insert random thing" day? Like international headphone day, or international day of poker players?
Why should it not be? Holiday names are not copyrighted.
-
WFT???
https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=210680721&order=creation&k=inisial
They're not the letters the titles say; over 100 meaningless white lines on black. I'd fire any designer that brought me those as logos.
How does this get approved?
If this were not an AI generated image, wouldn't that have been rejected for "aesthetic or commercial appeal of image"?
-
Very important:
-Do not submit any assets created with prompts in the style of other artists or referring to famous people or brands.
Hi Mat,
Is there any chance that this rule can be applied to all content, not just the AI generated?
-
There is a rule that AI videos are not allowed, but why do I keep seeing heaps of animated videos on Adobe Stock that consist of an AI-generated still image plus a few overlays from a phone app for animating stills, such as bokeh particles or butterflies? This portfolio is the sort of thing I am talking about:
https://stock.adobe.com/search/video?creator_id=207826067
If these kind of videos are going to be accepted then please at least label them as generative AI.
-
There is a rule that AI videos are not allowed, but why do I keep seeing heaps of animated videos on Adobe Stock that consist of an AI-generated still image plus a few overlays from a phone app for animating stills, such as bokeh particles or butterflies? This portfolio is the sort of thing I am talking about:
https://stock.adobe.com/search/video?creator_id=207826067
If these kind of videos are going to be accepted then please at least label them as generative AI.
Is there such a rule? Can you point to it in the FAQ or TOS?
I haven't heard anyone talk about this because AI video was almost non-existent two months ago and there is still very little of it.
-
Is there such a rule? Can you point to it in the FAQ or TOS?
I haven't heard anyone talk about this because AI video was almost non-existent two months ago and there is still very little of it.
https://www.synthetick.com/Screenshot-AI-video.png (https://www.synthetick.com/Screenshot-AI-video.png)
From Discord
-
Is there such a rule? Can you point to it in the FAQ or TOS?
I haven't heard anyone talk about this because AI video was almost non-existent two months ago and there is still very little of it.
https://www.synthetick.com/Screenshot-AI-video.png (https://www.synthetick.com/Screenshot-AI-video.png)
From Discord
Good. Except there is no official policy and not everyone monitors Discord. Personally, I don't have time to check it. It's just not fair...
-
There is a rule that AI videos are not allowed, but why do I keep seeing heaps of animated videos on Adobe Stock that consist of an AI-generated still image plus a few overlays from a phone app for animating stills, such as bokeh particles or butterflies? This portfolio is the sort of thing I am talking about:
https://stock.adobe.com/search/video?creator_id=207826067
If these kind of videos are going to be accepted then please at least label them as generative AI.
Would it be so difficult to allow ai video?
I am sure lots of people would love to experiment with that.
You can always start with a low number of upload slots to prevent the video queue from being overwhelmed
-
There are currently 873 video items tagged as genAI. That's been growing over the last month or so, but very, very slowly. 356 two months ago vs 791 in the middle of August.
They seem to be lots of animated illustrations - moving through an AI image like the Ken Burns effect.
Given how utterly broken the AI inspection process is at the moment, I think Adobe Stock would do better to work on filtering out all the "oops" images and endless spam repeats first. New approvals are not getting better, IMO.
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/39/27/74/240_F_639277405_vcKsAorLdTuXyPwE549Sp38JRLEDVYep.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/middle-aged-woman-sits-on-a-gray-background-next-to-stacks-of-books/639277405) (https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/43/98/60/240_F_643986079_kgEmROcrvVYt5KOPnRJ6J0G49Aobmbsw.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-woman-and-man-in-love-during-snowfall-ai-generated/643986079) (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/38/38/15/240_F_638381594_dy6cYfWlpfFKtKr1SlyyiZckLkbxs3am.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-woman-girl-student-using-laptop-e-learning-or-remote-working-at-home-office-using-laptop-pc-computer-for-webinar-generative-ai/638381594)
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
-
My video portfolio is pretty much all animation done in After Effects. I've been working on getting some vertical Christmas videos made and uploaded, but I started to question whether it was worth it when I realised they are potentially going to get overwhelmed by the quantity of AI-generated vertical Christmas videos. I'm biased of course ;) but I think my animations are better than videos made from putting a slight pan and some sprinkles from a phone app onto an AI-generated still image.
-
It's true that now renders image or videos made by humans using programs like Cinema 4D, Blender, Autodesk 3D Max for example have to be included as AI images or videos? All this without using AI tools. Thanks! I don't use AI tools.
-
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
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/31/62/42/240_F_631624244_ImgsN3cu6jN7JyY0OOiPeRJt1JpPMdYx.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/businessman-s-energetic-leap-across-stairs-and-spaces-white-shirt-contrast/631624244)
HOW does this get approved?
-
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
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/31/62/42/240_F_631624244_ImgsN3cu6jN7JyY0OOiPeRJt1JpPMdYx.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/businessman-s-energetic-leap-across-stairs-and-spaces-white-shirt-contrast/631624244)
HOW does this get approved?
I am not only asking myself "How does this get approved?", but also "How does this get submitted?". It's really impossible to miss, so the person having AI create this image must have noticed the 3 legs, right? And wher are the stairs? And, why does this businessman not look like a businessman at all? What is happening here? I do not understand people.
-
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
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/31/62/42/240_F_631624244_ImgsN3cu6jN7JyY0OOiPeRJt1JpPMdYx.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/businessman-s-energetic-leap-across-stairs-and-spaces-white-shirt-contrast/631624244)
HOW does this get approved?
:D
-
likely they're training for a 3-legged race parcours style
-
There are currently 873 video items tagged as genAI. That's been growing over the last month or so, but very, very slowly. 356 two months ago vs 791 in the middle of August.
They seem to be lots of animated illustrations - moving through an AI image like the Ken Burns effect.
It's nowhere near 873, Jo Ann. Currently, contributors cannot label videos as AI. They can only mention it in the title or keywords. This number 873 you see is the AI-reviewer marking. Which it shouldn't have done in the first place.. The same situation as with AI vectors. Not all of them are AI videos and not all actual AI videos are labeled.
On the other hand, you can search for “AI Generated” in all videos. And there are 10,006 results. Not all of them will actually be created by artificial intelligence, but this way you will find many more producers who just want to be honest about their content.
-
The hits just keep on coming...
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/50/57/27/240_F_650572748_GQaXjno3EM61P6M2lSrzzBvHT0zxvb7m.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/portrait-of-successful-group-of-business-people-at-modern-office/650572748) (https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/38/03/04/240_F_638030443_NuITZByko16xToh40oCwRDUbP0SFTjYq.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/mechanic-working-meticulously-beneath-a-lifted-car-in-a-garage/638030443)
-
@ Mat Hayward
https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=%22japan+web%22
28,968 files NOT identified by checking the box “Created using generative AI tools”.
And that is just a small amount of "vectors" created by AI which are accepted in a collection without being stated as a AI generated content.
I strongly think that accepting those files on a daily bases , as regular vector files, harms both contributors and buyers.
-
The hits just keep on coming...
How's this bizarre dental anatomy?! And they submitted it as a video which is not permitted.
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/05/87/66/23/360_F_587662318_zWNw6AlomUdpr3DXw3JB7SSxijs0U7IL.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/video/dental-implant-is-used-to-replace-a-missing-tooth-this-digital-rendering-made-from-titanium-which-is-screwed-into-the-jaw-prosthetic-tooth-just-like-a-natural-one-generative-ai/608896048)
-
@ Mat Hayward
https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=%22japan+web%22
28,968 files NOT identified by checking the box “Created using generative AI tools”.
And that is just a small amount of "vectors" created by AI which are accepted in a collection without being stated as a AI generated content.
I strongly think that accepting those files on a daily bases , as regular vector files, harms both contributors and buyers.
I don't see much AI here. Pretty solid styles and correct shapes. I maybe found 2 images on the whole page, which could be AI. OR it can be SVGs, produced by vector AI...
Let me remind you that vector artists don't have the “Created using generative AI tools” checkbox. But we desperately need it.
-
@ Mat Hayward
https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=%22japan+web%22
28,968 files NOT identified by checking the box “Created using generative AI tools”.
And that is just a small amount of "vectors" created by AI which are accepted in a collection without being stated as a AI generated content.
I strongly think that accepting those files on a daily bases , as regular vector files, harms both contributors and buyers.
I don't see much AI here. Pretty solid styles and correct shapes. I maybe found 2 images on the whole page, which could be AI. OR it can be SVGs, produced by vector AI...
Let me remind you that vector artists don't have the “Created using generative AI tools” checkbox. But we desperately need it.
Do not submit vector images created with or by generative AI software.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
-
-
Do not submit vector images created with or by generative AI software.
Now we have Vector Firefly. Are there any news? ;)
-
At first you don't notice the third arm...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/62/01/36/240_F_662013659_CfkGRrLeQSblHIMUFKdoHoep0fIMipkv.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/beautiful-fashionable-fall-outfits/662013659)
What is the point of reviewing if g@rbage like this gets accepted? It's not just one or two. It's not just a start-up glitch. There are now over 19.5 million acknowledged genAI items at Adobe Stock.
The contributor should have noticed this and not uploaded it.
The reviewers should have noticed this and rejected it.
Different contributor. This time there's a leg missing. Oh well. It looks stylish and polished, so who cares about the details..../
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/47/36/08/240_F_647360817_2dGuQIko1Lf7dLqPhMLi7uEaembJFBh3.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-retired-married-couple-passing-the-time-while-waiting-by-reading-a-newspaper-at-the-airport/647360817)
The three-legged woman I pointed out a week or two back is gone, but many many more are still there weeks later - e.g.
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/39/27/74/240_F_639277405_vcKsAorLdTuXyPwE549Sp38JRLEDVYep.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/middle-aged-woman-sits-on-a-gray-background-next-to-stacks-of-books/639277405) (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/38/38/15/240_F_638381594_dy6cYfWlpfFKtKr1SlyyiZckLkbxs3am.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-woman-girl-student-using-laptop-e-learning-or-remote-working-at-home-office-using-laptop-pc-computer-for-webinar-generative-ai/638381594) (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/40/79/93/240_F_640799384_Xtn2RGjZQYplTKgkzdLTjwFNuYaTmdbl.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/engineer-working-with-laptop-in-the-style-of-social-documentary-photography-monolithic-structures-commission-for-light-indigo-and-beige-candid-dadaist-ironica/640799384)
What has happened to pride in the quality of the Adobe Stock collection? Being part of a larger company that is focusing elsewhere - getting the stock price up as part of the AI goldrush (https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/10/16/these-4-magnificent-stocks-keep-driving-higher/?source=eptyholnk0000202) - has its downsides...
-
At first you don't notice the third arm...
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/62/01/36/240_F_662013659_CfkGRrLeQSblHIMUFKdoHoep0fIMipkv.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/beautiful-fashionable-fall-outfits/662013659)
What is the point of reviewing if g@rbage like this gets accepted? It's not just one or two. It's not just a start-up glitch. There are now over 19.5 million acknowledged genAI items at Adobe Stock.
The contributor should have noticed this and not uploaded it.
The reviewers should have noticed this and rejected it.
Different contributor. This time there's a leg missing. Oh well. It looks stylish and polished, so who cares about the details..../
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/47/36/08/240_F_647360817_2dGuQIko1Lf7dLqPhMLi7uEaembJFBh3.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-retired-married-couple-passing-the-time-while-waiting-by-reading-a-newspaper-at-the-airport/647360817)
The three-legged woman I pointed out a week or two back is gone, but many many more are still there weeks later - e.g.
(https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/39/27/74/240_F_639277405_vcKsAorLdTuXyPwE549Sp38JRLEDVYep.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/middle-aged-woman-sits-on-a-gray-background-next-to-stacks-of-books/639277405) (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/38/38/15/240_F_638381594_dy6cYfWlpfFKtKr1SlyyiZckLkbxs3am.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-woman-girl-student-using-laptop-e-learning-or-remote-working-at-home-office-using-laptop-pc-computer-for-webinar-generative-ai/638381594) (https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/40/79/93/240_F_640799384_Xtn2RGjZQYplTKgkzdLTjwFNuYaTmdbl.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/engineer-working-with-laptop-in-the-style-of-social-documentary-photography-monolithic-structures-commission-for-light-indigo-and-beige-candid-dadaist-ironica/640799384)
What has happened to pride in the quality of the Adobe Stock collection? Being part of a larger company that is focusing elsewhere - getting the stock price up as part of the AI goldrush (https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/10/16/these-4-magnificent-stocks-keep-driving-higher/?source=eptyholnk0000202) - has its downsides...
Third hand, logos, missing legs..all this can be captured by some coding and AI. Then all this photos will be separated in the review process, I think they will have some kind of tool soon, because billions of AI images are coming with breakneck speed.