MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Announcing bonus payment for Adobe Firefly training  (Read 26293 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: September 13, 2023, 08:00 »
+7
Hi Everyone,

When we announced Adobe Firefly, we made it clear that we are developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center.

Although the use of Adobe Stock images for training Firefly is covered by our contributor agreement, we recognize that Firefly would only exist with the community that made it possible. As a result, today we are announcing the bonus payment details for contributors whose content was used to train our first commercial Firefly model, which is now available.

All eligible Adobe Stock contributors with photos, vectors or illustrations, whose content was used to train the first commercial Firefly model, received a Firefly bonus payment today, September 13, 2023. The bonus payment is not guaranteed, it varies for each contributor, and is paid at Adobes discretion.

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 licenses. A banner on the Insights>My Statistics tab in the Contributor portal provides the specific amount that was added to your account.

We plan to base potential subsequent bonuses on new approved images and licenses they generate annually.

We have put together an FAQ here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/firefly-faq-for-adobe-stock-contributors.html 

Let me know if you have any questions not covered there.


Kind regards,

Mat Hayward


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2023, 08:08 »
0
Will you also pay the authors money for video content?

Mir

« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2023, 08:12 »
+8
Please, give us an option to opt out.

« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2023, 08:17 »
+1
Please, give us an option to opt out.

We currently do not allow for an opt-out mechanism for Adobe Stock content, as this content is used for building AI models for a variety of existing and future Stock features.

thank you,

Mat Hayward

« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2023, 08:18 »
+1
Will you also pay the authors money for video content?

We dont have any information to share on that at this time.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Mir

« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2023, 08:27 »
+3
Are you planning to include an option to opt out for the future?

« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2023, 08:29 »
+18
I am very concerned by the large payment I received (close to $700).

This means that my assets were heavily used to directly compete against myself.
We need a way to opt out from shooting ourselves in the foot for money.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2023, 08:31 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2023, 08:30 »
+9
Hi Matt,

Thank-you for the FYI. While it is nice to compensate authors, and certainly appreciated -

(a) Doing it the way other companies did (i.e., "take first, ask permission later") does not feel right, and is not right.
(b) A more honest/ethical/equitable approach would be doing fractional payments (as opposed to a lump sum) for EVERY image generated with the tool going forward. I realize that is not what other companies are doing - BUT - it would certainly be a much fairer system. AND... adobe could be a leader here... If you wouldn't mind passing that on, that would be appreciated.

Basically -
(a) Opt-in/opt-out system. Contributors CHOOSE whether they want to participate. Works are added/removed from the training set, depending on the setting.
(b) For a 'fair' system (where you'd most likely get contributors WANTING to participate) - contributors benefit for EVERY SINGLE "AI" IMAGE generated.

How do you do that? It's quite simple, really.
- When the neural networks are set up - the ID # of the images is recorded for the data inputted - i.e., a "data point".
- When a customer "generates" an "AI" image - it "pulls" from sometimes tens, or hundreds or thousands of "data points" to create that image. All the ID#'s of images used in composing that "AI image" is recorded.
- Each contributor - image ID - is given a fractional portion of that generated sale. Which, obviously adds up the more images created.

Doing it this way is certainly much more ethical, AND equitable/fair - and most likely you'd have people WANTING to make images when they know they will be compensated for, not with a tool that is designed to "replace" them.

It also CAN (and SHOULD be) done retroactively - and is very easy to do so.

Going forward it is also very easy to do so.

So for example, let's say:

a) A customer pays $50 for an "AI" tool, and makes 500 images. So each "image" is worth $0.10.
b) Let's say one of those random images "used" 100 contributor files to do so in their neural network.
c) Using the current arrangement (33%), payment would work out as follows. (As an aside, the % should be upped significantly for contributors, because once the tool is in place, adobe doesn't really have to do much 'maintenance'. The 'work' is image creation. I'd suggest a 90% contributor/10% split, or at least 80% contributor-20% adobe. But a different topic).

But for now - using the 33% idea... $0.067 to adobe, $0.033 to the "contributor pool" for the image created.
100 'images' used to create the "ai" image, so $0.033/100 = $0.0033/contributor.

Obviously, for a single image that is not much - BUT - it also obviously quickly adds up, as 1000's of images are created with the "AI" tools.

Certainly much fairer, and equitable.

And OPT-IN/OPT-OUT respected. if a contributor chose to "opt-out" - then their data points would ALSO BE REMOVED from the dataset for future "AI" image generation. "OPTING IN" is likewise very easy - it simply 're-adds' the datapoints to the training set for "ai" image generation.

Programatically VERY EASY to do - although it requires a bit of work to set up. And doing it this way more likely to have contributors WANTING to participate, as opposed to getting very upset/annoyed because it was simply "taken" from them.

THAT is much more along the lines of "responsible AI", with creators in mind at the "center". Not the "pay once to you, we benefit forever on your works" model which creates resentment, and actually discourages future image creation (which long term, will make a useless "AI" tool, as it quickly becomes outdated).

It also makes Adobe a HUGE amount of money going forward, with nice consistent revenue for very little effort or work, and happy contributors that benefit too.

fotorob

  • Professional stock content producer
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2023, 08:33 »
+2

« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2023, 08:39 »
+4
"If you want to get at least some money for your work (and only we determine how much you get for your work) that you've invested years of your life into, then you have to let us do what we want with your work, pay you what we want, and trust us to do our best.
Of course, you're free to leave at any time and throw your years of work down the drain. You don't have many other realistic options for selling it anyway.
So, of course, you'll stay on with us until you help us raise your replacement.  Thank you for failing to form a guild or union.  ;D "

« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2023, 08:42 »
0
Will you also pay the authors money for video content?

We dont have any information to share on that at this time.

thanks,

Mat Hayward
Firefly doesn't use video for his training?

« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2023, 08:46 »
+2
Will this be a recurring payment (once/twice yearly)? Or only when a new data set is required for learning?

Thanks

« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2023, 08:47 »
+6
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."

« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2023, 08:50 »
+1
I got 200$. Pretty happy

« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2023, 09:07 »
+1
Will this be a recurring payment (once/twice yearly)? Or only when a new data set is required for learning?

Thanks

After the initial Firefly bonus compensation on September 13, 2023 for eligible online images and their downloads, which occurred between June 3, 2022, and June 2, 2023, any potential subsequent bonuses are planned to be based on new approved images and downloads. Please note, that subsequent bonus calculations and timeline are still subject to further evaluation and the model may change.

-Mat Hayward

« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2023, 09:09 »
+1
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

« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2023, 09:10 »
0
Hi Mat,

perhaps Adobe could consider a lump sum payment to show up in the download feed? Then the payment information can be read by stats programs like stockperformer and it is also easier for general accounting.

That is the way other places do it. No image with it, just a number and "data sales" or something similar in text.

« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2023, 09:15 »
+1
I got a huge payment.

I don't know how I feel about it, but I tried out Firefly using some prompts and some of the content is still in early stages.

It's not good enough to directly compete with my work just yet, but man, it is a bit scary to see what it can do.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2023, 09:19 by Minsc »

« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2023, 09:15 »
0
Deleted.

« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2023, 09:22 »
+12
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.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2023, 09:29 by Her Ugliness »

f8

« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2023, 10:14 »
+6
I am very concerned by the large payment I received (close to $700).

This means that my assets were heavily used to directly compete against myself.
We need a way to opt out from shooting ourselves in the foot for money.

You seem to forget this is not about you. Adobe is not shooting themselves in the foot at all. They are using your/our content to create their content for their benefit. Notice how much Adobe cares about your best interests... You can't opt out. Sadly we are all expendable. Adobe knows this, Shutterstock knows this, Getty knows this.

This is not so different from the beginning of microstock when anyone who willingly submitted was shooting themselves in the foot whether they know it or not.

If Adobe had any integrity they would let us opt out. And yes you can opt out, stop submitting and close your account. Or stay, Adobe has you/us over a barrel.

Sadly it's the way of the world.




« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2023, 10:17 »
0
Many thanks Matt :)


« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2023, 11:16 »
+4
I got my bonus and I was like WOW...thank you! I appreciate the fact that once again Adobe treats their stock contributors well and did this. I appreciate it so much!

« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2023, 13:01 »
+6
Message to this forum's dev/admin : can we have a minus (-1) link option to dislike some messages in this thread...
For example those from M. Hayward ?
Considering the interdiction of opt out from Firefly, which is a shame and puts from now on Adobe Stock on the same level as Shutterstock and those alike (which says it all).
That may be a least for us contributors in this forum...
 >:(


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
173 Replies
42664 Views
Last post December 15, 2023, 11:32
by zebra007
147 Replies
32816 Views
Last post November 02, 2023, 06:35
by synthetick
17 Replies
5096 Views
Last post August 31, 2023, 05:47
by DiscreetDuck
6 Replies
2117 Views
Last post September 19, 2024, 11:19
by cascoly
6 Replies
816 Views
Last post October 21, 2024, 12:31
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors