Author Topic: AI Generated video on Adobe Stock (Read 1285 times)

Pacesetter · « **on:** August 15, 2024, 00:21 »

Was just doing a search of videos of Sydney City on Adobe Stock and came across this AI generated video clip of the city which has basically no resemblance (Link below). At least the clip is flagged as AI but find it strange Adobe would accept this kind of content.

https://stock.adobe.com/au/video/city-view-of-sydney-australia/775815216

What do others think about this?

Madede · « **Reply #1 on:** August 15, 2024, 00:32 »

Quote from: Pacesetter on August 15, 2024, 00:21

Was just doing a search of videos of Sydney City on Adobe Stock and came across this AI generated video clip of the city which has basically no resemblance (Link below). At least the clip is flagged as AI but find it strange Adobe would accept this kind of content.

https://stock.adobe.com/au/video/city-view-of-sydney-australia/775815216

What do others think about this?

I think not just that this is piece of s**t but also I'm quite sure that the view of Sydney opera in this "video" is INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT , so moderation "team" made a HUGE mistake here.

synthetick · « **Reply #2 on:** August 15, 2024, 01:29 »

Quote from: Madede on August 15, 2024, 00:32

I think not just that this is piece of s**t but also I'm quite sure that the view of Sydney opera in this "video" is INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT , so moderation "team" made a HUGE mistake here.

I totally agree with the first part of what you said, however photos and depictions of the Sydney Opera House are permitted as part of a wider cityscape. This is what the SOH's website says: "Where your photo or image places SOH in its geographical context of Sydney Harbour, in equal representation with other elements of the harbour such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the city skyline, commercial usage of the image would be permitted. In cases where SOH forms the exclusive or dominant feature, approval should be sought by contacting our Brand team." Adobe guidelines say, "Isolated images of the Sydney Opera House are prohibited. All depictions are evaluated on case-by-case basis."

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #3 on:** August 15, 2024, 07:20 »

Quote from: synthetick on August 15, 2024, 01:29

Quote from: Madede on August 15, 2024, 00:32
I think not just that this is piece of s**t but also I'm quite sure that the view of Sydney opera in this "video" is INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT , so moderation "team" made a HUGE mistake here.

I totally agree with the first part of what you said, however photos and depictions of the Sydney Opera House are permitted as part of a wider cityscape. This is what the SOH's website says: "Where your photo or image places SOH in its geographical context of Sydney Harbour, in equal representation with other elements of the harbour such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the city skyline, commercial usage of the image would be permitted. In cases where SOH forms the exclusive or dominant feature, approval should be sought by contacting our Brand team." Adobe guidelines say, "Isolated images of the Sydney Opera House are prohibited. All depictions are evaluated on case-by-case basis."

Actually.. while that may be true for real photographs/videos...

Every time you submit a GenAI thing, you have this box to tick (optionally, if not ticked - and you have real stuff - you need the property release):

Code: [Select]

[x] People and Property are Fictional
"I certify that people or property in this asset are not based on a recognizable person or property. 
Do not check the box if you used a real person or property to generate your AI asset. 
In this case upload a model or property release."

So............ this person (probably east indian because they tend to ignore things like that/don't care whether they spam real places/etc) would not have (honestly) been able to check it, because obviously it says "Sydney Australia", and HIGHLY unlikely they submitted a property release for that as well... so in this case, no - that asset should not be there...

BT1976 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 15, 2024, 09:16 »

There is a warning in the video submission requirements that says "Duration needs to be at least 5 seconds and not exceed 60 seconds."

How can they accept a 3-second video?

WendyT · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2024, 18:34 »

How on earth can they accept something that is NOT even close to what Sydney looks like, and that Opera House is not even close to what it really looks like. It should clearly state it is a fictional view of a fictional place they called Sydney.

synthetick · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2024, 07:53 »

Quote from: BT1976 on August 15, 2024, 09:16

There is a warning in the video submission requirements that says "Duration needs to be at least 5 seconds and not exceed 60 seconds."

How can they accept a 3-second video?

The moderators accept videos under 5 seconds and from my observations a short time later the videos get deleted.

BT1976 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2024, 08:38 »

Quote from: synthetick on August 16, 2024, 07:53

Quote from: BT1976 on August 15, 2024, 09:16
There is a warning in the video submission requirements that says "Duration needs to be at least 5 seconds and not exceed 60 seconds."

How can they accept a 3-second video?

The moderators accept videos under 5 seconds and from my observations a short time later the videos get deleted.

In the example given above, all of the videos in the portfolio of the person are 3 seconds long, across 86 pages. very interesting

Noedelhap · « **Reply #8 on:** August 16, 2024, 10:59 »

Adobe Stock dropped the ball big time. This is what microstock is heading to, AI crap that is passed off as real, while in fact it's just a distorted view of reality.
Not only does it not meet minimum video length requirements, it's also grossly misleading customers and inflating the collection with garbage.

There is also ZERO commercial value because why would you use a fake Sydney cityscape and not a real drone shot? I always thought commercial value was considered important for acceptance, but standards have clearly fallen.
Even if they remove this asset (or the entire portfolio), there's no guarantee it won't happen again, because nobody will waste time and money quality-checking every asset. If it's not already automated.

stocker2011 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 16, 2024, 12:04 »

Like other agencies they opened the flood gates, which contributes directly to a loss of earnings for serious contributors who take pride in their work.

everest · « **Reply #10 on:** August 18, 2024, 01:10 »

Another piece of crap.

Adobe is now the worst stock agency not in terms of contributors royalties but for buyers searches.

It offers so much ai crap, with very bad execution than the whole place has suffered with now a low reputation among buyers.

cobalt · « **Reply #11 on:** August 18, 2024, 03:57 »

But the buyers can exclude all ai with one simple click?

So why would ai be a problem?

The fact that ai is being preferred by Adobe for reviews at the moment tells you that the customers love the stuff.

I mean, how are sales at the agencies without ai? Are you seeing a strong uptick in sales because every customer is fleeing Adobe?

The only place I keep hearing where producers have steadily rising income is Adobe.