Hi everyone,

If you are new to creating and submitting generative AI content to Adobe Stock, or you have a question about generative AI content, I'm hosting a Stock 101 session on that very topic this Wednesday, June 28 at 12pm Pacific time.

The event will happen in our Behance Live page which can be found here: https://www.behance.net/adobestock/livestreams

I hope to see you there,

Mat Hayward

Perhaps June 28th?

Perhaps indeed! Note to self...drink more coffee before posting! JUNE 28 it is!!

Will it be recorded for thos of us who want to watch later?

Yes it will. You should see the thumbnail appear within an hour or so after the end of the livestream. Thanks for asking.

-Mat

That was great, thank you very much!!!

ETA

I do have one question - when you do these photorealistic macro insect shots, do you compare them to real photos to make sure it looks authentic?

Because ai can be very creative in inventing new species.

Thank you for the great prompt ideas to experiment with

Currently trying my luck at underwater images. But I am no marine life expert and I am suspecting that the ai is being very creative and inventing new species...so I am going more towards watercolor or designs that are clearly art.

I think this can also be a problem if you are trying to create landscapes with a localized style. That cactus might not actually grow in Mexico...

The customers will learn to pay attention to this, but it is important to consider when creating content.

The results were so weird, that even I could see it. Crabs with far too many legs, weird fish, Octopus with 20 arms.

If you choose an �artsy� design then that is ok, it can even enhance the concept, but it cannot be used for photorealism.

With people or cats or dogs we can immediately understand what is wrong. But other animals or plants?

I am sure also the corals or plants underwater were wrong or mixed together from different parts of the ocean.

I now have a few concept images with dolphins, seals, whales, but even these animals look a little strange. The size of the eyes, shape of fins.

But I am now using mostly watercolor, painting or design styles, so it is very obvious this is not a real photo, or an attempt at being a real photo.

Also a clear color scheme for the series that does not exist in nature.

It is the same problem people encounter with chat gpt. The ai can write great text, but nobody knows if the actual facts are real.

Biggest danger is that people ask it medical questions and cannot see that the answer is completely wrong.

On the other hand�this keeps us fed. As long as experts are still needed to work with ai, it stays a tool that enhances professional use.

It certainly saves a lot of time, I have cycled through hundreds of concepts in 3 days and gotten a lot of interesting results to explore further.

eta

Also got a lot of ideas for photos or videos.So next time at the beach I can look at my ai concepts gone wrong for inspiration.

Currently trying my luck at underwater images. But I am no marine life expert and I am suspecting that the ai is being very creative and inventing new species...so I am going more towards watercolor or designs that are clearly art.

I think this can also be a problem if you are trying to create landscapes with a localized style. That cactus might not actually grow in Mexico...

Thecustomers will learn to pay attention to this, but it is important to consider when creating content.

I think you give them way too much credit

Firstly thanks for highlighting a growing problem.  But secondly, thanks for providing me with a laugh first thing this morning with those images!
[/quote]

Second! The fruit one is my favorite.

But I don't get how these get approved. I understand that sometimes image slook "right enough" at first glance and you do not notice mistakes immediatelly, like with insects that have to many or too little limbs. But everything is wrong about some of these pictures. How can a reviewer not notice this, even if he or she just looked  at the image for a second?

Many of these mistakes are great content for social media marketing. Endless entertainment value.

Love the hamburger image.

The IP problem is a bigger issue, like with the apple keyboard.

Adobe is letting itself down in more than one way ...

I have submitted images of gummy bears and Adobe has rejected each for poor focus and yet shutterstock have since accepted and sold most of them and a couple repeatedly. I also have some beautiful autumnal leaf images which are dissimilar enough from the 3 I have been permitted thatbthey should be allowed. And yet rejected for similars. Which then begs the question how is this shower of s�it possible ...

... not only is the image nonsense ... there is a lot of nonsese permitted ... no rejection for similar Matt???
Not only are they similar they're so similar they look like the same.photo. A joke.

No doubt Matt will say its just teething problems.

A.I. gingivitis vs actual gingivitis

* almighty. What concept teeth did it borrow that off. I wouod suggest that gingivitis is the least of its worries.

...Which then begs the question how is this shower of s�it possible ...

... not only is the image nonsense ... there is a lot of nonsese permitted ... no rejection for similar Matt???
...

I have a collection of examples of massively repetitive similars from genAI images approved in the last week or two.

It's not just a few times it happens. It's many more than 5 or 6 similars.

Even when the images are not "mistakes", when a photographer gets a rejection for similars when there are only 2 or 3 alike, it seems absolutely clear that there's a completely different rule book for the genAI submissions

Here are just a handful from those I've seen
35 yellow suitcases

79 overhead shots of peaches (there are some pie shots I couldn't exclude because the keywords are spammed)

129 sunset on a beach with palm trees

220+ marble wave abstracts

Generalized mediocrity, at all levels...
What is mediocre, false, is favored.

Quote from: Lowls on July 02, 2023, 04:51

...Which then begs the question how is this shower of s�it possible ...

... not only is the image nonsense ... there is a lot of nonsese permitted ... no rejection for similar Matt???
...

I have a collection of examples of massively repetitive similars from genAI images approved in the last week or two.

It's not just a few times it happens. It's many more than 5 or 6 similars.

Even when the images are not "mistakes", when a photographer gets a rejection for similars when there are only 2 or 3 alike, it seems absolutely clear that there's a completely different rule book for the genAI submissions

Here are just a handful from those I've seen
35 yellow suitcases

79 overhead shots of peaches (there are some pie shots I couldn't exclude because the keywords are spammed)

129 sunset on a beach with palm trees

220+ marble wave abstracts

I know Jo. It's tragic. But if you're in the market for Pintomatapples, avocana Orangebeets, or a dear child wielding a monkey paw clutching a Qwetty keybone then look no further than Adobe house of hilarity.

...I know Jo. It's tragic. But if you're in the market for Pintomatapples, avocana Orangebeets, or a dear child wielding a monkey paw clutching a Qwetty keybone then look no further than Adobe house of hilarity.

I thought I'd put Firefly beta to work - you might be onto a really hot new market segment there Click for larger size

OK folks today's lucky finds begin with lady with cracked heals. Who appears to have solved the pain of cracked heals by putting her hands and toes into a car door whilst someone repeatedly slammed it shut. Looks like she split a nail because some bright yellow puss is leaking into shot

Then we have pretty flower feet and a rather nasty case of hammer toe

Trip out the the country where we spend a lovely autumnal evening gathering Horse Chesconkercherries and some P. Never forget your P when making a chesconkercherry coating

Finally "We began with prawn and an avocado lemon squeezer"and awoke to find the paramedic performing an ermegency colonoscopy to remove the alien tapeworm that had survived the cooking process.

Quote from: Lowls on July 04, 2023, 10:08

Finally "We began with prawn and an avocado lemon squeezer"and awoke to find the paramedic performing an ermegency colonoscopy to remove the alien tapeworm that had survived the cooking process.

Not that just the very idea of putting PRAWN in a cocktail wasn't already highly questionable.

Prawn cocktail was a very popular starter in the UK in the 70s. Small prawns mixed with rose marie sauce or thousand island dressing. Then a large wine glass was layered with lettuce and the prawn mix layered in and finished off with a pinch of cress and a lemon slice. The top then dusted with paprika for colour. Unless you knew that already some may or may not.

The A.I. however had created something horrifically different lol. gag worthy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPYgw0wX4AAlBSW.jpg

Quote from: Lowls on July 05, 2023, 05:45

Prawn cocktail was a very popular starter in the UK in the 70s. Small prawns mixed with rose marie sauce or thousand island dressing. Then a large wine glass was layered with lettuce and the prawn mix layered in and finished off with a pinch of cress and a lemon slice. The top then dusted with paprika for colour. Unless you knew that already some may or may not.

The A.I. however had created something horrifically different lol. gag worthy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPYgw0wX4AAlBSW.jpg

No, I didn't know that. But it sounds gag worthy to me too, to be honest. 

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣  brilliant. Later they replaced the wine glass with an avocado to make avocado prawn. Was very posh if you were working class. I can remember my mum ordering one and well all ghasped at the splendor of it on our last meal of the holiday.

On the car journey home we must have pulled off every slipway and side road as she had it coming out of both ends. She never touched prawns again lol. I however still continued until I watched a documentary on where most prawns come from. Its a real eye opener and if you do watch it be warned you are very unlikely to ever eat another prawn ... up to you ... 😊...

https://youtube.com/shorts/8Xu-4PUI1AU?feature=share4

and

https://youtu.be/UxlkTk2w7BU

Because it makes a lot of very reliable money and I can keep inviting friends out It is the real world part of my port

Just look around the people shooters, even in the ports of Yuri Arcurs you see a lot of real world content selling well.

"Real world" is a styling trend for people shots, nothing magical about it.

Stock is not about discovering your soul, stock images are just digital products for sale

I look forward to generating lots of shiny happy very fake people once firefly is out for commercial use.

Laughing women with salad, here I come.

eta

Maybe I will ask the ai to transform my ugly food snapshots into beautiful studio shot masterpieces set in elaborate restaurant and home locations and generate fresh money from thousands of iphone shots

Who knows...endless possibilities...

Maybe the AI reviewers give preference to the AI submitters and those are preferred by the AI buyers. I for one welcome our AI overlords.

Hi everyone,

If you are new to creating and submitting generative AI content to Adobe Stock, or you have a question about generative AI content, I'm hosting a Stock 101 session on that very topic this Wednesday, June 28 at 12pm Pacific time.

The event will happen in our Behance Live page which can be found here: newbielink:https://www.behance.net/adobestock/livestreams [nonactive]

I hope to see you there,

Mat Hayward

Dear @Mat Hayward
Maybe next stream you'll do with Adobe Stock and ask them about the problems with "Generated with AI". How to generate a million images with Midjourney -  it doesn't take much skill and knowledge. Better ask Adobe how they are going to protect authors in such situations:

The person downloaded my images from Adobe Stock (I doubt he bought them). He inserted them into Midjourney (or other AI program) and generated new pictures and sells them as his own. Is this legal? Didn't Adobe promise to protect authors from this? What compensation will I get as an author while stolen content based on my work is being sold?
I find a lot of works from other authors who obviously operate in the same way: they download an image and generate similar images in Midjourney based on my work and sell them. Yes, they are not selling my work specifically, but they have used my work to generate new work. Is that acceptable? How is Adobe Stock going to protect me from this?

I already told you about this one. Why are not asked the necessary and sharp questions during the streams. Why aren't the interests of the authors being defended in the streams?

The person downloaded my images from Adobe Stock (I doubt he bought them). He inserted them into Midjourney (or other AI program) and generated new pictures and sells them as his own. Is this legal? Didn't Adobe promise to protect authors from this? What compensation will I get as an author while stolen content based on my work is being sold?
I find a lot of works from other authors who obviously operate in the same way: they download an image and generate similar images in Midjourney based on my work and sell them. Yes, they are not selling my work specifically, but they have used my work to generate new work. Is that acceptable? How is Adobe Stock going to protect me from this?

I already told you about this one. Why are not asked the necessary and sharp questions during the streams. Why aren't the interests of the authors being defended in the streams?

Adobe AI images restrictions are very clear. You cannot upload works based on someone else work. It's not allowed, and that's all, what else could Adobe do to protect the works?

About "copycat": looking at others works and replicate them in different ways is what 99% of stock producers did from the very first day.
The only difference is that now it's much more easy to do. But of course you can't pretend to have copyright on a tomato, or an apple, or anything else: anyone can produce a new image on the same subject. Anyone can get a camera (or a pen, or a digital pen) and produce similar images.
And now anyone can use an AI image creator.

This is not an AI issue.
This is a human issue.

I thought video that was genAI was not permitted - but there are a small number that are marked as generative AI

There are over 114,000 photos marked as generative AI and over 8,000 vectors. I thought the rules said Illustration category only.

Combine the above with the massive repetition of themes (and some portfolios with several dozen identical pairs or triplets) which I gave examples of in another thread, and it appears the rules are largely ignored during inspection, at least of AI images.

Some of those vectors look mislabelled. There's work labelled as AI that really doen't look like AI and is consistent with the artist's older work that predates AI. Weird.

Quote from: derby on July 12, 2023, 08:41

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 07, 2023, 19:26

There are over 114,000 photos marked as generative AI and over 8,000 vectors. I thought the rules said Illustration category only.

I have few of them, some AI marked as photo, probably just because I forgot to change the category during submit process. I wrote to support to change that (because I can't do by my own) and after several days woithout answer I ask to Mat to help to correct this issue.
It's quite easy to forget to change category from photo to illustration, even after flagging the image as "AI Generative"; and I'll probably did this mistake for some images

Completely understandable that mistakes happen, but this needs to get fixed during inspection or sent back to the contributor to fix (and make it possible for the contributor interface to make that change).

Perhaps they could get Chat GPT to write the code for them to update the software

This evening there are over 16,700 vectors tagged as generative AI - more than double what was there a few days ago. Over 179,000 genAI photos now.

One option would be to change the rules...

I think it also happened to me - Though I can't say for sure, because when I look at the image, it only tells me whether it's Ai generated or not, not whether it is a photo or illustration - But I do not understand why this is even possible on Adobe's end. AI generated images must be submitted as illustrations, so the combination of checking the "Ai content" checkbox and selecting the photo catergory instead of illustration category should simply lead to an error message.

I didn�t expect that from Adobe. No quality. Ai over human artist :/

Is it possible those are photos about using generative ai?

Because it clearly is a trending subject also for normal production.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on July 13, 2023, 03:24

Hey Matt, why is AS allowing autotraced AI vector stuff through that it would never even consider if it wasn't AI? i.e. why is quality standard for AI lower when it is easier to produce in massive numbers? Shouldn't it, if anything, be higher if you don't want the whole collection to be swamped?

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/night-moonlight-fantastic-spooky-house-in-a-dark-spooky-wind-dark-fantasy-scene-landscape-with-spooky-house-forest-graveyard-vector-illustration-banner-of-spooky-misty-forest-at-night/584968697

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/set-of-vintage-retro-comics-cartoon-book-cover-sunburst-boom-explosion-boom-can-be-used-for-graphic-design-or-illustration-graphics-style/618573612

Wow, this is so incredibly awful, it is impossible to miss - if someone was looking.

Quote from: Stockmaan on July 13, 2023, 04:03

I didn�t expect that from Adobe. No quality. Ai over human artist :/

Yeah, I am very surprised too that Adobe did this, especially because it supposed to be more quality-oriented than other agencies. Now this reminds me of times when SS opened their gates for everybody with zillion almost identical, low-quality, phone, stolen images. I know that agencies don't care much about us, but buyers are also complaining about quality on their forums, obviously not enough... Anyway, I completely lost motivation to upload since AI uploads exploded.

SS are also doing this. There are hundreds of vectors on SS that are obviously garbage auto traces of AI images.