Author Topic: Announcing bonus payment for Adobe Firefly training (Read 24581 times)

Zero Talent · « **Reply #25 on:** September 13, 2023, 13:53 »

Quote from: f8 on September 13, 2023, 10:14

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 13, 2023, 08:29
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.

No, I didn't forget anything. It's not about myself. It's about "us".
And when I said "us" I didn't include Adobe in my circle.
I only meant contributors who have no way out of shooting themselves in the foot, by being forced to accept this deal.

Fyi, you can opt out of data licensing on Shutterstock, but not on Adobe.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #26 on:** September 13, 2023, 13:59 »

Quote from: vectorsforall on September 13, 2023, 13:01

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...

Hmm, I don't like the lack of an opt-out either or better said: this is crap and needs to be changed.
But most people here in the forum are able to put their criticism into words. In this respect, you do not need an anonymous Dislike function.

You should have noticed that Adobe, in the person of Mat, is the only agency that keeps in touch with us in the forum.

In this respect, we should cherish the good Mat here, even if it is not always easy - not for me either

JustAnImage · « **Reply #27 on:** September 13, 2023, 15:42 »

I can only agree with Ralf here - Mat always provided us with information as far as this was possible and I am sure that at one point or another "more information" was simply not allowed.

And even though I've been accused of being a fanboy, I'll stick to my guns and say that we at least respect that, because nobody forces Mat or Adobe to write anything here, even if we don't like the content of the message.

ole999 · « **Reply #28 on:** September 13, 2023, 15:57 »

At least Adobe is paying something. Midjourney and the others are not paying the artists anything at all ..!

Wilm · « **Reply #29 on:** September 13, 2023, 16:25 »

The whole thing is, in my view, a miserable paid consolation for doing away with ourselves and letting AI replace us. And so that the AI can always be kept up to date with the latest trends, there is to be an undefined "remuneration" for the files uploaded from now on. The agency can determine this to its own liking. And at the same time, the algorithm can be set so that the new (and old) images themselves are no longer sold, but only their AI derivatives.

When I started with Microstock - in 2009 - there were crystal-clear compensation rules. How much do I get for a downloaded image - depending on my ranking, image size and usage. So you knew where you stood.

Today, from an agency perspective, it's like, "You can work for me and make me rich. But please don't expect me to tell you what you'll earn per hour or per month." I decide that according to my gusto.

It's imperative to opt out! Now!!!

Wilm · « **Reply #30 on:** September 13, 2023, 17:10 »

One thing we all - all microstock providers - need to be clear about: no agency will pay out millions of dollars just like that if it can't earn many times more. And finally can reduce the expenses for the providers to a minimum. All those who are happy about a few dollars in their account today will wonder tomorrow why hardly any money is coming in.

The bad thing about it is: Nothing has been clarified, neither in terms of copyright nor in terms of the law. We are being presented with a fait accompli - without the possibility of opting out of the system.

ravens · « **Reply #31 on:** September 13, 2023, 21:30 »

Adobe doesn't respect copyright at all.
We need an option to OPT OUT!

cobalt · « **Reply #32 on:** September 13, 2023, 22:23 »

But Adobe is paying for every ai download and even scaled back the number of ai images in a search for better balance.

The reason so many people are reporting that their ai is selling better than their photos is because their prompted images are better quality.

In my port ai sells at the same rate as photos and I still have genres where my photos clearly outsell ai.

However ai allows me to explore new genres like watercolor or illustrations which greatly expands my range.

For the agency the advantage of ai is that over time some of the newbies doing only ai will adapt to customer needs and produce great content.

For all agencies I would wish we got an option to opt in or opt out button as a standard option.

At the same time though, those who opt out should not be allowed to upload any ai content.

Fair is fair.

FiledIMAGE · « **Reply #33 on:** September 13, 2023, 23:48 »

Not saying I approve of AI and I think aspects opf photo industry are in big trouble but anyone trying to opt out is in complete denial. Its amazing Adobe pay at all to be honest. Not happening for anything else. IOf we all opt out and Adobe went bust for some reason, customers will go to the next service.

goober · « **Reply #34 on:** September 14, 2023, 01:15 »

So it seems that all of our content that was uploaded over the last decade has now been added into the ai system for which we got a few pieces of silver and from now on only new content attracts more ai money. Which means the old stuff is stuffed. If I have a cartoon cat with a peanut ai can just make a new version with more nuts, which incidentally is what this deal is. Nuts to you.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #35 on:** September 14, 2023, 02:07 »

Quote from: FiledIMAGE on September 13, 2023, 23:48

Its amazing Adobe pay at all to be honest. Not happening for anything else.

That's actually not true - Most agencies now pay you for AI training like Shutterstock, Depositphotos or Alamy, BUT unlike Adobe they have an opt-out option. Sure, they are also shady as f*** and only gave us the opt-out option AFTER they used our imges for training, but at least the option to keep future imges from being used for their training is there. Adobe just forces us to let them use our images, whether we like it or not. No option to opt out ever. Yes, sure, we have the "choice" to remove all our images and leave Adobe. But for those of us depending on microstock income, this as as much a "free choice" as pointing a gun at someone and asking him to sign a treaty. Also, the other agencies compensate us for images that were actually used for AI training. Adobe just throws money at contributors depending on port size and sales, even compensating the one group of people that should not be compensated for anything: Contributos who submit AI content only.

I am seriously considering not submitting any real photos to Adobe in the future anymore. The damage with the old images is already done and they seem to favor AI content so much more anyways, accepting almost everything, while very randomly rejecting real photos now. Years of having an almost spotless acceptance rate with them, and suddenly my real photos are not good enough anymore.

cosus · « **Reply #36 on:** September 14, 2023, 04:49 »

All the agencies give us a random amount for the use of our work, controlled by no one. We have no idea how much they're making on it, whether we're getting 30%, 10%, 1% of the income. But it's certainly well calculated... for them. The amount Adobe gave us seems large, but it's a fraction of what our work can earn over the next few years. We've already lost that money, and the agencies will get it all when they take us out of the market.

Yes Adobe is better than others in their approach to us, it's great that they sent Matt to talk to us, but overall there's nothing to love them for. They'll just use us and dump us. We really lack the unity and bargaining power that maybe screenwriters and actors in Hollywood have. The agencies can do whatever they want with us.
And our time as photographers, illustrators or graphic designers is coming to an end.

Enjoy the money, you who cheer!

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #37 on:** September 14, 2023, 05:12 »

A one off payment is unacceptable. There needs to be ongoing payments for as long as the AI trained on that content is used. We need full transparency.

It's useless asking for it from the agencies, they will squeeze as much as they can out of us. Copyright rules need to be updated to move with the times. EU in particular needs to get on this and update the laws covering artists control of their content.

Photobomb · « **Reply #38 on:** September 14, 2023, 08:58 »

As shady as the agencies have been with us over the years - there is no transparency with any of them. We have to trust that they are reporting every single transaction and at the right amount and percentage. There is no recourse to challenge their books, they change the rules at their whim. Frankly I wonder if the op-out button does nothing more than opt us out of getting paid for the use of our images not the actual use of them.

flotsom · « **Reply #39 on:** September 14, 2023, 09:39 »

Using our images for AI isn't good, there's no opt out and no way to tell how many images have been used or what artwork an AI algorithm will make using our images in the future. There's no transparency at all and the bonus is a pittance when you take into account we've basically handed over copyright our images to adobe's AI.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #40 on:** September 14, 2023, 11:44 »

Quote from: flotsom on September 14, 2023, 09:39

...There's no transparency at all and the bonus is a pittance when you take into account we've basically handed over copyright our images to adobe's AI.

There's a lot I don't agree with about how Adobe went about using Adobe Stock images for training data - as I noted before, I think a good lawyer could demolish their argument that the contributor agreement gave our consent to this use - but I strongly disagree that we have effectively handed over copyright to our images.

It's true that if genAI got better it could potentially put us out of business licensing photos/illustrations, but using our images to learn about how images are constructed and what objects look like and how they connect/interact is not the same thing as grabbing copyright.

If any of the commercial getAI tools produced a replica of a copyrighted image, I think there'd be lawsuits. There have already been lawsuits where someone created a very, very similar image.

Without our images, collectively, there'd be no generative AI. Zero. But we still hold the copyright to our work, with whatever value the buyers will place on that over time.

cosus · « **Reply #41 on:** September 14, 2023, 14:05 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 14, 2023, 11:44

But we still hold the copyright to our work, with whatever value the buyers will place on that over time.

We still hold the copyright, but they have taken an perpetual license to use our images and are paying us a one-time payment of an amazing $0.069 per image. At least that's the amount I got for each image. None of us would agree to something like that. But the way the agencies set it up, if you don't leave, you agree.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #42 on:** September 14, 2023, 14:33 »

Quote from: cosus on September 14, 2023, 14:05

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 14, 2023, 11:44
But we still hold the copyright to our work, with whatever value the buyers will place on that over time.

We still hold the copyright, but they have taken an perpetual license to use our images and are paying us a one-time payment of an amazing $0.069 per image. At least that's the amount I got for each image. None of us would agree to something like that. But the way the agencies set it up, if you don't leave, you agree.

Yes indeed. If can withdraw all my images from the market and stop selling them because I own the copyright, I can't withdraw them from the already trained algorithms and from the AI market.

Bits of my images will be sold forever without my consent.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #43 on:** September 14, 2023, 14:47 »

Just received this:

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.

We’ll update you if our submission policy changes.

Best wishes
Getty Images | iStock

Great!
👏👏👏

Wilm · « **Reply #44 on:** September 14, 2023, 15:20 »

Quote from: cosus on September 14, 2023, 14:05

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 14, 2023, 11:44
But we still hold the copyright to our work, with whatever value the buyers will place on that over time.

We still hold the copyright, but they have taken an perpetual license to use our images and are paying us a one-time payment of an amazing $0.069 per image. At least that's the amount I got for each image. None of us would agree to something like that. But the way the agencies set it up, if you don't leave, you agree.

For me, I would have to receive every month for 246 months the amount I received for using my images for AI training to come up to the amount I earned "in the normal way" from Adobe Stock with the images. That's 20.5 years of this income every month. Or to put it another way: I received for training AI one 246th of the revenue I made at Adobe with my images.

When I think about what the agency can possibly earn in the future with the AI images that are generated based on my data, I think the compensation is anything but a cause for celebration!

PigsInSpace · « **Reply #45 on:** September 14, 2023, 16:42 »

Quote from: cosus on September 14, 2023, 14:05

We still hold the copyright, but they have taken an perpetual license to use our images and are paying us a one-time payment of an amazing $0.069 per image. At least that's the amount I got for each image. None of us would agree to something like that. But the way the agencies set it up, if you don't leave, you agree.

On a purely per-image uploaded basis, my total is different: $0.118, so the metric must be something else. Mat said it was heavily weighted toward sales totals, so they must be ignoring the pictures I have of box elder bugs that no one has ever bought

Zero Talent · « **Reply #46 on:** September 14, 2023, 17:01 »

Quote from: PigsInSpace on September 14, 2023, 16:42

Quote from: cosus on September 14, 2023, 14:05

We still hold the copyright, but they have taken an perpetual license to use our images and are paying us a one-time payment of an amazing $0.069 per image. At least that's the amount I got for each image. None of us would agree to something like that. But the way the agencies set it up, if you don't leave, you agree.

On a purely per-image uploaded basis, my total is different: $0.118, so the metric must be something else. Mat said it was heavily weighted toward sales totals, so they must be ignoring the pictures I have of box elder bugs that no one has ever bought

For me it's $0.51 for every image in my port.
This shows that not all images are treated equally.
Big concern for me, when I see this number!

cosus · « **Reply #47 on:** September 14, 2023, 17:10 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 14, 2023, 17:01

Quote from: PigsInSpace on September 14, 2023, 16:42
Quote from: cosus on September 14, 2023, 14:05

We still hold the copyright, but they have taken an perpetual license to use our images and are paying us a one-time payment of an amazing $0.069 per image. At least that's the amount I got for each image. None of us would agree to something like that. But the way the agencies set it up, if you don't leave, you agree.

On a purely per-image uploaded basis, my total is different: $0.118, so the metric must be something else. Mat said it was heavily weighted toward sales totals, so they must be ignoring the pictures I have of box elder bugs that no one has ever bought

For me it's $0.51 for every image in my port.
This shows that not all images are treated equally.
Big concern for me, when I see this number!

Maybe they have a system, or maybe they're just rolling the dice on who gets how much. Either way, they're using their stronger position against us. As a professional graphic designer, I declare that Adobe will not see another penny from me for their software. Sorry Adobe, I just lost a lot of money over the next years and I need to save some money somewhere.

goober · « **Reply #48 on:** September 14, 2023, 17:52 »

The Adobe rep who started this thread hasn't been back lately to answer for this crap situation. Here's a question Mat, from Abobe. If I pull my images off your site dose Adobe get to use them in perpetuity in your ai firefly system? If so, what date was this in perpetuity clause put into the artist agreement?

spike · « **Reply #49 on:** September 14, 2023, 20:12 »

Quote from: goober on September 14, 2023, 17:52

The Adobe rep who started this thread hasn't been back lately to answer for this crap situation. Here's a question Mat, from Abobe. If I pull my images of your site dose Adobe get to use them in perpetuity in your ai firefly system? If so, what date was this in perpetuity clause put into the artist agreement?

Mat is trying to be helpful, but my feeling is that there's a low probability of you getting an answer to that, or any other difficult questions posed in this thread. How the expression goes - these may be above his pay grade.

I appreciate what Mat is doing, and I also have a feeling he's doing a lot behind the scenes - these deals and stuff with royalty adjustments likely could have gone a lot worse if Mat weren't here to advocate for contributors.

But let's not kid ourselves, they have a whole legal department which is responsible for stuff like this, and it's a lot more likely that you'll get a response if you send (physical) mail there, preferably through a lawyer.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Announcing bonus payment for Adobe Firefly training (Read 24581 times)

Zero Talent

RalfLiebhold

JustAnImage

ole999

Wilm

Wilm

ravens

cobalt

FiledIMAGE

goober

Her Ugliness

cosus

Justanotherphotographer

Photobomb

flotsom

Jo Ann Snover

cosus

Zero Talent

Zero Talent

Wilm

PigsInSpace

Zero Talent

cosus

goober

spike

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors