I have said this (on Discord) from the moment when I found out that AI-only contributors were paid the Firefly bonus. It makes a mockery of Adobe Stock claiming to be ethical. They pass it off by saying that any AI content submitted and approved to their site has been designated by the contributor as non-infringing. But most of that AI content has Getty Images and Shutterstock and other stock agencies' watermarked images in its dataset.
@InJuisticeForAll On the Discord server Mat Hayward has said they used Ai images to train Firefly.
as I said,I find it extremely difficult to think that an AI can be trained on the already generated renderings of other AIs,but ok,if Mat said it I can believe it! :)
I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning. Adobe forced me(us) by giving money, to infringe my(our) copyrights on MY(our) own images. It seems to me that no choice was offered to refuse this money. In this way, they can suggest a mutual understanding, in possible legal procedures, and claim to act ethically.
as I said,I find it extremely difficult to think that an AI can be trained on the already generated renderings of other AIs,but ok,if Mat said it I can believe it! :)
Training AI with AI is a slippery slope kind of thing.
Adobe has said they used up to 5% AI images, which were individual reviewed and vetted, to train the Firefly lab. There's still debate on this, which I'd agree, that using AI to train AI is wrong. Not ethically wrong, but scientifically and system integrity kind of wrong.
I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning. Adobe forced me(us) by giving money, to infringe my(our) copyrights on MY(our) own images. It seems to me that no choice was offered to refuse this money. In this way, they can suggest a mutual understanding, in possible legal procedures, and claim to act ethically.
I'm not going to say I support how the agencies did this, but I have to answer, that you signed the contract, that allowed this use and you could have refused the money, but they still had the right to use your images. You made that choice when you agreed to the contract.
"I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning."
You Did.
If you think that's wrong and disagree, you and all those silent people, who aren't here according to you, should get together and file a claim against Adobe. Class action suit if there is any attorney who will see your side of the arguments, after reading the contract that you signed, when you offered to be a contributor to Adobe or Fotolia.
There you are. You signed a contract, now you disagree. Take it up with the courts.
AI-only contributors were paid the Firefly bonus?this is new,have you been able to personally verify this?
Mat, do I understand this correctly, that the payment is solely based on portfolio sice and sales, not on whether the images were actully used to train your AI? Because if that's the case that basically means that someone who has not done a single real photo or illustration in all his life, but has only created tons of AI content based off other people's hard work also got the "compensation". So they basically got PAID for generating AI images based off the work of people who never got paid for it.
That's a far cry from Adobe's statement that you were "developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center."
The initial bonus is based on the all-time total number of approved images you submitted to Adobe Stock and the number of licenses that those images generated in the 12-month period between June 3rd, 2022 to June 2nd, 2023. The bonus is weighted towards license.
-Mat Hayward
Yes, I can read. I understood that very well. I just wanted to clarify whether that REALLY means that you also compensated people who only submit AI images, so never had any images to offer for your training in the first place. Because that seemed insane. But apparently that's the case as you just copied the info from the mail Adobe sent out without adressing the actual issue.
Very "fair". ::)
So far, of all the agencies that use their database to create AI content, Adobe seems actually to be the most unethical one! No opt-out option AND giving money that was meant as compensation for having our real photos and illustrations used to train your AI to people who only use our content to generate AI images. I am sure these tons of new "contributors" that only submit AI content are overjoyed from now profitting even more from other peoples' work. But Adobe seems to care more about these pople than real photographers and illustrators anyways.
I already critisized this when it was happening, but not all that many people seemed to care?
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-bonus-payment-for-adobe-firefly-training/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-bonus-payment-for-adobe-firefly-training/)Mat, do I understand this correctly, that the payment is solely based on portfolio sice and sales, not on whether the images were actully used to train your AI? Because if that's the case that basically means that someone who has not done a single real photo or illustration in all his life, but has only created tons of AI content based off other people's hard work also got the "compensation". So they basically got PAID for generating AI images based off the work of people who never got paid for it.
That's a far cry from Adobe's statement that you were "developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center."
The initial bonus is based on the all-time total number of approved images you submitted to Adobe Stock and the number of licenses that those images generated in the 12-month period between June 3rd, 2022 to June 2nd, 2023. The bonus is weighted towards license.
-Mat Hayward
Yes, I can read. I understood that very well. I just wanted to clarify whether that REALLY means that you also compensated people who only submit AI images, so never had any images to offer for your training in the first place. Because that seemed insane. But apparently that's the case as you just copied the info from the mail Adobe sent out without adressing the actual issue.
Very "fair". ::)
So far, of all the agencies that use their database to create AI content, Adobe seems actually to be the most unethical one! No opt-out option AND giving money that was meant as compensation for having our real photos and illustrations used to train your AI to people who only use our content to generate AI images. I am sure these tons of new "contributors" that only submit AI content are overjoyed from now profitting even more from other peoples' work. But Adobe seems to care more about these pople than real photographers and illustrators anyways.
Adobe does not care whether their AI is really ethical. They just want to put that label on it to tell their customers it was ethical and safe to use. It's nothing more than a marketing stategy to make more money and nothing is ethical about it. It's like green-washing, but for AI - Ethical-washing. ::)
I beg to differ on this,the way Firefly was trained in my opinion is always the most ethical,even if they used AI images already in Adobe's collection.
Midjourney literally stole content for its own training,without even bothering to remove logos,signatures,watermarks,not paying anything to anyone,and asking substantial sums for subscriptions.
Firefly paid for all the content used,they didn't steal anything from anyone,and they didn't upload content with logos,signatures and watermarks,also leaving free access to the platform for months.
I beg to differ on this,the way Firefly was trained in my opinion is always the most ethical,even if they used AI images already in Adobe's collection.
Midjourney literally stole content for its own training,without even bothering to remove logos,signatures,watermarks,not paying anything to anyone,and asking substantial sums for subscriptions.
Firefly paid for all the content used,they didn't steal anything from anyone,and they didn't upload content with logos,signatures and watermarks,also leaving free access to the platform for months.
No. Just absolutely NO.
You accuse of midjourney stealing content. But then Adobe knowingly used that stolen content from Midjourney images to train their AI. What's the differene? NO. We did not get paid for that. MY images were used to train Midjourney. Adobe used Midjourney images to train their AI. Where in that chain did Adobe pay me to use Midjourney images based on my stolen content to train their AI?!
And you pretend as if logos, signatures and watermarks were all that matters? As if using images to train an AI without the creator's permission was somehow okay as long as the stolen images had no logos or watermarks?
All Adobe did was let Midjourney do the dirty work for them so they can pretend their own hands were clean.
Actually, there is no clause that say they can steal your images to train competing software.All the agencies have super wide terms, aka weasel words, which they can subsequently use in various ways we, and probably even they didn't think of at the time.
Did Adobe steal something?NoWhat about the notion of receiving stolen goods?
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes
Did Adobe steal something?NoWhat about the notion of receiving stolen goods?
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes
And make it the source (even partial) of a business?
Did Adobe steal something?NoWhat about the notion of receiving stolen goods?
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes
And make it the source (even partial) of a business?
so you assume that content generated by AI is stolen content?
so if you have AI content in your portfolio you are a thief too! :D
whereas if you don't have AI content in your portfolio,you are consistent with your ideas,and I respect that,but I don't agree with it! :)
Did Adobe steal something?NoWhat about the notion of receiving stolen goods?
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes
And make it the source (even partial) of a business?
so you assume that content generated by AI is stolen content?
so if you have AI content in your portfolio you are a thief too! :D
whereas if you don't have AI content in your portfolio,you are consistent with your ideas,and I respect that,but I don't agree with it! :)
Does pushing a "generate" button makes you copyright owner?