pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Announcing bonus payment for Adobe Firefly training  (Read 16380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2023, 02:09 »
+2
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.

Yeah, silly of me to think the guy who started this thread would answer my question.

We should have been given multiple clear warnings and an option to opt-out. I can't calculate which images were or weren't used so I have to divide the payout by the number of images I have there which is 3.8cents per image. Now I need to know if that's forever.


« Last Edit: September 15, 2023, 02:47 by goober »


« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2023, 05:58 »
0
I can't calculate which images were or weren't used

I am 99% sure ALL images were used. If you want to train an AI you need as big a dataset as possible. I cannot think of any possible reason why Adobe would not use all images it their database. Maybe if they actually paid the contributors a price per used image that might be a possible - but still very unlikely - reason, since they would cut costs like this. But since the info mail was very clear that there is actually no relation between images that were actually used and payment, but the payment was based on port sice and licenses sold - Why would they not use all of the images?

« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2023, 07:37 »
+1
       Adobe's business is very lucreative: they feed us money peanuts (but about 30 or 40 millions dollars for peanuts if paid around $0.10 per image) for stealing us the "food" they gave to their filthy beast. Why didn't they pay before doing it? They had to be able to first analyze the excrement of this beast? Agree or not, everyone must feed the beast! This is how it is, and Adobe calls it developing generative AI responsibly, like the ironic words of a dictator.
 
       I am sorry, but I was not happy to receive that money, which I would have liked to refuse to preserve my freedom and image rights, as other more responsible stock sites permit us by an opt-out.
But the beast will always be hungry, and they will still use our products, perhaps for free. Products made always made more invisible because they are dissolved in the crowd more and more, and mistreated by search engines. But that will be perfectly well sucked up for use by their deep thing.
 
       They have absolute power, who would stop them in this corrupt world on all levels?
Justice? when the only certainty is lawyers win in any case... the money they get from the people who have been abused.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2023, 08:10 by DiscreetDuck »

« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2023, 09:39 »
+3
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?

Hello Goober.

We currently have no plans to use removed content for training purposes.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Mir

« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2023, 10:02 »
+16
As far as I understand once AI is "trained" on the images it can't be untrained. So if we remove our images there's no difference, it's already done.

« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2023, 12:17 »
0
As far as I understand once AI is "trained" on the images it can't be untrained. So if we remove our images there's no difference, it's already done.

I thought the same, but now I'm realizing that this is not really completely clear.
Maybe it depends on how the AI engine is working, and how many times it needs to refresh its knowledge on existing images.

Otherwise, I can't see any reason for which Shutterstock is giving recurring payment (every six months they said) for data training.

In other words, I think this is still to be clarified, and maybe there is not a single answer
« Last Edit: September 15, 2023, 12:26 by derby »

« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2023, 12:29 »
0
Otherwise, I can't see any reason for which Shutterstock is giving recurring payment (every six months they said) for data training

Maybe it does revisit the same images from time to time. Or perhaps they're feeding it new images with each payment.

« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2023, 13:57 »
0
As far as I understand once AI is "trained" on the images it can't be untrained. So if we remove our images there's no difference, it's already done.

that's a function of the basic workings of data training, which is constantly misunderstood or ignored in these discussions (despite being explained countless times here) - it's not commutative - there's no way to go back from the dataset to the original images.

« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2023, 14:03 »
0
Otherwise, I can't see any reason for which Shutterstock is giving recurring payment (every six months they said) for data training

Maybe it does revisit the same images from time to time. Or perhaps they're feeding it new images with each payment.

given the mechanics of the latter is almost surely the case (it would require saving all the original images somewhere, and much more likely given the billions of images involved, these are processed in large batches, then original images deleted)  it's what SS explicitly says in its description of their data licensing program.

a much larger problem that many of the images used have no owner info, and many images are duplicates as few only distribute thru 1 agency or service.

« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2023, 14:06 »
0
Yes it's basic working but it seems that, at the same time that Ai learn more, it can also forget something, or it can be confused with different inputs, and it has to learn again
 Or maybe understand better. With need to re see images.
I don't know, these are only my personal assumption.

By the way, it's very clear that how Ai works it's NOT very clear  :D

« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2023, 15:08 »
+1
As far as I understand once AI is "trained" on the images it can't be untrained. So if we remove our images there's no difference, it's already done.

That's my understanding as well.

Unless you were to train a completely new model independently of the old one. So, no merging of checkpoints from the old model with the new one.

« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2023, 19:33 »
0
Instead of getting a single payment, I seem to be getting a few payments (in very small amounts) presumably for this AI training thing. Usually a few dollars. I haven't been notified of sales so it must be AI training related. I don't know why they need to analyse my port again and again. Is anyone else getting multiple payments for this?

« Reply #62 on: September 16, 2023, 01:23 »
+3


Otherwise, I can't see any reason for which Shutterstock is giving recurring payment (every six months they said) for data training.



I can imagine other reasons why there are recurring payment, for example:
Shutterstock is selling their dataset for AI training to different companies. So company 1 bought the dataset last year, but company 2 half a year later - new payment.

Also, as there are millions new images added to the Shutterstock database each month, Shutterstock is paying you for the usage of the new images for their training, because the more images the AI has to learn from, the better it gets. Also, the appearance of things, especially regarding technology, is changing fast, so you would need new images at least every couple of years to keep up to date.
 I do not think the AI needs the old images over and over again (And if it would, I do not think Shutterstock would be so gracious and pay you for the same image for the same AI engine twice. Once they have paid you for usage for their AI training the image is probably stored somewhere for that purpose and can be used as often as they like.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2023, 01:28 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #63 on: September 16, 2023, 13:50 »
+1
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.

You have completely forgotten about one very, very, very important detail. Amount of sold images. 0,069 USD per image can be awful but also totally great amount of money. Let me explain, the following numbers are just for illustration of the concept.

Adobe will sell ordinary images for 1B USD and AI images (images created by AI trained on our images) for 10M USD per year. So, in our example case, they will sell 100-times more ordinary images than AI images. It is obvious that one cannot expect the same revenue from AI images as from the ordinary ones if they sell 100 times more. So, if your yearly revenue is... for example 10000 USD a year from 10000 images, it is totally fine to get anything above 1/100 of that (100 USD) per year from AI images.

So, the question is... do you really know what is the ratio between revenue from ordinary and AI images? I do not. Therefore, I cannot say if 0.069 USD per image is a lot or not. Can you?

« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2023, 15:38 »
+1
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.

You have completely forgotten about one very, very, very important detail. Amount of sold images. 0,069 USD per image can be awful but also totally great amount of money. Let me explain, the following numbers are just for illustration of the concept.

Adobe will sell ordinary images for 1B USD and AI images (images created by AI trained on our images) for 10M USD per year. So, in our example case, they will sell 100-times more ordinary images than AI images. It is obvious that one cannot expect the same revenue from AI images as from the ordinary ones if they sell 100 times more. So, if your yearly revenue is... for example 10000 USD a year from 10000 images, it is totally fine to get anything above 1/100 of that (100 USD) per year from AI images.

So, the question is... do you really know what is the ratio between revenue from ordinary and AI images? I do not. Therefore, I cannot say if 0.069 USD per image is a lot or not. Can you?

1) No one can say if $0.069 per image is much. I know suppliers where it is more than $1 per image. Neither the one, nor the other provider gets an exact indication of how the calculation comes about. Therefore, no one knows if the calculation is correct or fair. Simply making a payout without saying how it works is an outrage!

"You will be paid $3.51 per hour."

"How is that calculated?"

"That's based on our parameters, which we won't tell you! Please just accept it for what it is!"

2) Adobe makes sure via algorithm that:

Adobe will sell ordinary images for 10 M USD and AI images (images created by AI trained on our images) for 1 B USD per year.

Adobe does this because they know that they can earn a lot of money this way in the future without having to spend a lot of money on contributors.

What does your calculation look like then?

3) Your contribution is based on fictitious examples and hypotheses. You don't know what happens in reality and I don't know either.

Adobe knows, but doesn't tell us. There are no more rules of the game on the basis of which our income (and our copyright) is in any way traceable. We are at the mercy and no longer have any means of protest! Neither as far as an opt out is concerned, nor as far as the correctness of our income is concerned. We are completely fishing in the mud!!! And the crumbs that we are given, are partially celebrated here! I dont get it!

And of course its not only Adobe - its all of them pushing AI Ingo the markets.

« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2023, 16:04 »
+1
And the crumbs that we are given, are partially celebrated here! I dont get it!

I am just saying that you cannot say if these are crumbs or not because you do not know the numbers. I would say that this system can be even very beneficial for some type of photographers (for some topics).

« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2023, 16:51 »
+5
And the crumbs that we are given, are partially celebrated here! I dont get it!

I am just saying that you cannot say if these are crumbs or not because you do not know the numbers. I would say that this system can be even very beneficial for some type of photographers (for some topics).

Hmmmm,

would you sign an employment contract without knowing what you earn? Would you work for a month without knowing what would end up in your bank account? I maintain: no one does - but I may be off the mark.

The stupid thing is: I signed such contracts with various agencies many years ago. When there was a system- an earning system. A shedule. And these contracts have been changed countless times. Not once in my favor. Each change brought a minus in revenue.

In the beginning, the revenue reductions were still itemized quite precisely. It said exactly what kind of download would now get less. In the meantime, we have reached the point where all the definitions no longer exist. The agencies set something and some amount for an extended license comes in or for an SOD or whatever. I don't have control over any of them anymore. Sum x. No idea what can be done with it, how the file can be distributed - no information at all.

Where did they go - the old compensation rules?

Today, we're all in the fog. Is that the system you're writing about? Meanwhile, I see a system of obfuscation. And that the "beneficial" could be, I do not see. But everyone must answer that for himself.



« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2023, 18:12 »
+7
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.

You have completely forgotten about one very, very, very important detail. Amount of sold images. 0,069 USD per image can be awful but also totally great amount of money. Let me explain, the following numbers are just for illustration of the concept.

Adobe will sell ordinary images for 1B USD and AI images (images created by AI trained on our images) for 10M USD per year. So, in our example case, they will sell 100-times more ordinary images than AI images. It is obvious that one cannot expect the same revenue from AI images as from the ordinary ones if they sell 100 times more. So, if your yearly revenue is... for example 10000 USD a year from 10000 images, it is totally fine to get anything above 1/100 of that (100 USD) per year from AI images.

So, the question is... do you really know what is the ratio between revenue from ordinary and AI images? I do not. Therefore, I cannot say if 0.069 USD per image is a lot or not. Can you?

The problem is that I didn't have a chance to agree or disagree with this use or the amount.
Adobe decided to pay me $0.069 and that's it for them. I don't want that money, I don't want to be part of the whole AI project. This is not what I agreed to. Adobe just made a decision and my work is forever a part of it and no one asked me. I can just walk away, but it's already done anyway. If I leave Adobe, I will lose 1/5 of my income and I would still have to leave SS and most others because they all behave similarly. Adobe and SS know this and are calculating with it.
I don't care if $0.069 is a little or a lot, because the whole thing is fundamentally a screw up.

« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2023, 18:21 »
0
would you sign an employment contract without knowing what you earn? Would you work for a month without knowing what would end up in your bank account? I maintain: no one does - but I may be off the mark.

I am not saying it is necesirally a good thing. All I say is that you cannot say it is bad neither according to the numbers you get because you do not know if you are getting less per sale or more. The reason is... you do not know how many images were sold using the system trained on your images (in comparison with ordinary ones), so you cannot even make an estimate, how much you should get per image. So, if you do not know, what number you should get, how can you say it is low or high? You also do not know how many other images of that topic were used in the system for that photo...

And that the "beneficial" could be, I do not see.

I do. It is a probability thing.

« Reply #69 on: September 17, 2023, 19:19 »
+4
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?

Hello Goober.

We currently have no plans to use removed content for training purposes.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

More questions for Mat from Adobe:
1. What exactly does "training purposes" mean? Is it code for perpetual use of the images for a one time payment? Using parts of the image in new AI images isn't training. That's baking it in as part of the AI recipe.

2. I've been through my emails from Adobe Stock. I found one email at Dec 2022 saying you're now accepting AI generated images. I can't find one that notifies us that you're using our work perpetually for AI. When did you send us a clear notification that this was to happen?

3. Apart from being 'possibly' legal under the contributor agreement, do you think it's moral? Giving us a clear warning and a possibility to opt-out would be moral. This is coercive not collaborative.

Seems the best site for earnings in stock is the collaborative site Stocksy.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2023, 20:19 by goober »

karmalama

« Reply #70 on: September 17, 2023, 22:32 »
+6
[deleted]
« Last Edit: September 26, 2023, 19:18 by karmalama »

« Reply #71 on: September 18, 2023, 10:43 »
+3
first of all thanks for the Firefly bonus! :D

I personally have no concern that my content will be used to train Firefly,first of all I get paid by AS for this,and there are no reference to the source content in the final content created by AI,so I don't understand the concerns about using your content to train AI,but of course everyone has their own point of view.

The fact is that in my opinion,any content whether AI or not,has the same sales potential,for some certain projects real content is necessary,for others AI is better.

AIs are here now,the only thing i can do is roll up my sleeves and start creating content that can't be done or that doesn't fit well with AIs

...I almost forgot....keep it up! :D









karmalama

« Reply #72 on: September 18, 2023, 14:17 »
+7
[deleted]
« Last Edit: September 26, 2023, 19:19 by karmalama »

« Reply #73 on: September 18, 2023, 14:29 »
+2
1. What exactly does "training purposes" mean? Is it code for perpetual use of the images for a one time payment? Using parts of the image in new AI images isn't training. That's baking it in as part of the AI recipe.

2. I've been through my emails from Adobe Stock. I found one email at Dec 2022 saying you're now accepting AI generated images. I can't find one that notifies us that you're using our work perpetually for AI. When did you send us a clear notification that this was to happen?...



you should learn how ML works before making such inaccurate statements - #1 is just wrong - ai generators do NOT use 'parts' of your image - that's done once during training only

#2 you cant find it because they are NOT  'perpetually' using your image

« Reply #74 on: September 18, 2023, 16:29 »
+1
Injustice for all, can you not see beyond your nose? I may be wrong but this is how I see it all unravelling in the near future...

AI is being used by the agencies to make contributors obsolete. Our images were being used to train AI and now we are being used to improve it by using AI. AI images will exponentially saturate the market and without retaining copyright to the new AI images, the agencies will remove us from the picture, keeping only the AI images which will dominate the market. New AI images will be genetated by customers at the prompt, adding more AI to the database. AI will be used to generate titles and tags. Soon they will not need human artists and photogtaphers at all.

Do not think so (even though I thought so as well in the past). Our role is changing (as well as for some other professions - AI is a tool for many of them, not a replacement). We are becoming the trainers of AI systems now at least in short and mid-term. There are some types of photographers which are going to be replaced more by AI (so their income from regular images will drop more but their income from AI training will increase) and vice versa.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
173 Replies
36068 Views
Last post December 15, 2023, 11:32
by zebra007
147 Replies
27391 Views
Last post November 02, 2023, 06:35
by synthetick
17 Replies
4178 Views
Last post August 31, 2023, 05:47
by DiscreetDuck
4 Replies
1925 Views
Last post October 03, 2023, 13:55
by Her Ugliness
3 Replies
803 Views
Last post May 01, 2024, 13:28
by Injustice for all

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors