MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: MatHayward on September 13, 2023, 08:00
-
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 Adobe’s 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
-
Will you also pay the authors money for video content?
-
Please, give us an option to opt out.
-
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
-
Will you also pay the authors money for video content?
We don’t have any information to share on that at this time.
thanks,
Mat Hayward
-
Are you planning to include an option to opt out for the future?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here is my article (in German) regarding the topic:
https://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2023/09/13/adobe-stock-schuettet-einnahmen-aus-dataset-trainings-an-anbieter-aus/ (https://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2023/09/13/adobe-stock-schuettet-einnahmen-aus-dataset-trainings-an-anbieter-aus/)
-
"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 "
-
Will you also pay the authors money for video content?
We don’t have any information to share on that at this time.
thanks,
Mat Hayward
Firefly doesn't use video for his training?
-
Will this be a recurring payment (once/twice yearly)? Or only when a new data set is required for learning?
Thanks
-
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."
-
I got 200$. Pretty happy
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Deleted.
-
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 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.
-
Many thanks Matt :)
-
More information about the bonus payments can be discovered in this blog article published today:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/09/13/adobe-firefly-adobe-stock
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
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!
-
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...
>:(
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
At least Adobe is paying something. Midjourney and the others are not paying the artists anything at all ..!
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
Adobe doesn't respect copyright at all.
We need an option to OPT OUT!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/msg585292/#msg585292) - 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 (https://azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/database/2013/11/photographers-photography-copyright-and-the-red-bus-case/).
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
👏👏👏
-
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!
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 don‘t get it!
And of course it‘s not only Adobe - it‘s all of them pushing AI Ingo the markets.
-
And the crumbs that we are given, are partially celebrated here! I don‘t 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).
-
And the crumbs that we are given, are partially celebrated here! I don‘t 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[deleted]
-
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
-
[deleted]
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
I see it completely differently.
I simply believe that if you want to continue working as you always have,you won't be able to get anything good out of this,you have to adapt,create content that AI can't do,or create real content that a customer can't generate with AI because it wouldn't be the same,for various reasons.
In February I stopped for a moment,I thought about the AI issue for a long time and I decided to take a direction,which now after a few months is generating good profit.
I see that "mino216" said the key phrase "our role is changing" and is exactly like this.
I don't believe that AI will make contributors obsolete,rather I believe it's up to us to make sure we don't become obsolete.
How do you explain to me that the AIs have already been there for a year and this month on AS I have sold 5 times more,than my previous BME?And the month isn't over yet!
you see,your theory doesn't hold up,if that were the case my sales should go down not up.
I remind you that my portfolio is AI free,I have never used AI in any way to create my contents until now.
-
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
I disagree. Your statements are just as opaque as the original posts about 'training' and a one time payment. At a basic level AI generated images use previous images to make new ones. So I was asking if 'training' is code for taking parts of our images to be used for making new ones. The original post said this is a one time payment. There has been no clarification on any of these terms that I've seen by Mat from Adobe Stock. So far all he has said in response to my questions is that if I remove my images from AS they won't be used for training. If I leave them there when does the training cease?
I also thinking you're an immoral person. Supporting this immoral company shows no care or concern for peoples hard work. They didn't consult us. They just think they can do it under the current agreements. They haven't explained carefully the terms they are using and what they are actually doing. You're dumping on me for asking for clarification.
-
I don't believe that AI will make contributors obsolete,rather I believe it's up to us to make sure we don't become obsolete.
[/quote]
The whole point of AI is that it learns and gets better and better at a much faster rate than humans. Right now most of it looks like the worst clipart you can imagine but over time and not too much time it will surpass humans in every way. What you're proposing is that we can find some tiny niche in the AI world. The only way we can control AI is by using the law to stop it from using our images. I saw an article on TV where a prominent illustrator with a distinctive style was involved in a class action law suit against one of the big AI companies to force them to stop it from producing images in her style. If they win, then there is a small hope for some of us who don't go along with this. Stop thanking AS for their generous contribution (cough) to our current bank account based on some equation created by them.
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
I don't believe that AI will make contributors obsolete,rather I believe it's up to us to make sure we don't become obsolete.
The whole point of AI is that it learns and gets better and better at a much faster rate than humans. Right now most of it looks like the worst clipart you can imagine but over time and not too much time it will surpass humans in every way. What you're proposing is that we can find some tiny niche in the AI world. The only way we can control AI is by using the law to stop it from using our images. I saw an article on TV where a prominent illustrator with a distinctive style was involved in a class action law suit against one of the big AI companies to force them to stop it from producing images in her style. If they win, then there is a small hope for some of us who don't go along with this. Stop thanking AS for their generous contribution (cough) to our current bank account based on some equation created by them.
[/quote]
I wish the best wishes to the illustrator who is in law suit with AI,I hope she wins.
maybe you're getting a little confused,I'm not in favor of AI,but I try to adapt and continue to work even more than before AI.
The little niche you think is actually a bottomless abyss,there are so many things that can be created that an AI cannot do.
you're here complaining that Adobe used the content to train Firefly,instead of thanking them for thinking of a compensation model,because it wasn't written anywhere that Adobe was obliged to issue this Firefly bonus,as well as the contributor bonus for software,as well as the bonus for free collections…..I'm almost starting to forget all the bonuses that Adobe is continuing to give to support artists! :D
Of course it is also in their interest and it must be so,because if the ship sinks we sink with them,don't forget it!
in my opinion you are trying to pull a large ship towards the port with a rope,a ship that has already set sail!
Thank you again Adobe!Keep it up! :D
-
(so their income from regular images will drop more but their income from AI training will increase)
Why do you think that? The income per image used for training on Adobe is much smaller than for selling a license for normale usage. In my case on Adobe is was less than a cent for an image. How am I supposed to earn more from AI training than from selling my real photo licenses in the future like this?
Also, don't you think the market for AI image generatores will be saturated pretty soon? Do you think new AI engines will keep popping out for the next 100 years? Some of the AI engines like modjourney are already creating almost perfect results in almost every topic. Their demand for new images (apart from the fact that they do not pay us for training anyways!) for them is minimal. They might need new images every couple of years for some things like technology where appearance changes fast. But even if I popped out a million of new photos of new cell phones and electric cars each year and got paid for each image for training by Adobe I would still be making significant less than what I used to earn till now with what little money Adobe gave us for training. And I actually did the math for 1 million images and mean that literally. Of course there is no way I could even produce 1 million real quality photos each year. I haven't even managed that in 10 years.
-
How is this legal? Next, they will start selling us for organs, because we ticked the box for "adobe can change the contract whenever and however it wants". They know we can't afford lawyers with the peanuts they pay us, so they keep scamming us again and again. It's a perfect crime. But if we all chip in, we can hire a team of good lawyers for all of us. Give it a thought.
-
How is this legal? Next, they will start selling us for organs, because we ticked the box for "adobe can change the contract whenever and however it wants". They know we can't afford lawyers with the peanuts they pay us, so they keep scamming us again and again. It's a perfect crime. But if we all chip in, we can hire a team of good lawyers for all of us. Give it a thought.
And what you wish to demand from adobe?
-
@karmalama:
yes of course,it could also be that in 2025 aliens invade the earth! :D
you can't know how events evolve,you can assume but nothing more,so for now it's better to continue working and try to create things that AIs can't,or start dancing with AIs
continuing this crusade against AI is useless,while on the other hand,in cases where some artists assume that their copyright or their style has been misused by AI is another story.
-
How is this legal? Next, they will start selling us for organs, because we ticked the box for "adobe can change the contract whenever and however it wants". They know we can't afford lawyers with the peanuts they pay us, so they keep scamming us again and again. It's a perfect crime. But if we all chip in, we can hire a team of good lawyers for all of us. Give it a thought.
And what you wish to demand from adobe?
Our works will be reused and resold billions of times. In the meantime, we won't be able to sell them anymore. $0.021 is hardly a fair price. It should be more like $50.
-
you're here complaining that Adobe used the content to train Firefly,instead of thanking them for thinking of a compensation model,because it wasn't written anywhere that Adobe was obliged to issue this Firefly bonus,as well as the contributor bonus for software,as well as the bonus for free collections…..I'm almost starting to forget all the bonuses that Adobe is continuing to give to support artists! :D
You must be a pleasure to do business with.
Adobe and others have twisted our agreement and used our copyrighted work for their business that will compete with our business, and in compensation they paid us a ridiculous amount that we certainly did not agree to. If you see anything there to thank them for, I'm surprised no one has yet to foreclose on your home and the rest of your possessions. If I take your $10,000 car and give you $20 for it, I assume you'll thank me for finding a way to compensate you for the loss of your property.
-
you're here complaining that Adobe used the content to train Firefly,instead of thanking them for thinking of a compensation model,because it wasn't written anywhere that Adobe was obliged to issue this Firefly bonus,as well as the contributor bonus for software,as well as the bonus for free collections…..I'm almost starting to forget all the bonuses that Adobe is continuing to give to support artists! :D
You must be a pleasure to do business with.
Adobe and others have twisted our agreement and used our copyrighted work for their business that will compete with our business, and in compensation they paid us a ridiculous amount that we certainly did not agree to. If you see anything there to thank them for, I'm surprised no one has yet to foreclose on your home and the rest of your possessions. If I take your $10,000 car and give you $20 for it, I assume you'll thank me for finding a way to compensate you for the loss of your property.
I don't agree with this,I absolutely don't believe that using my content to train an AI means competing with myself,since the content generated by AI has no reference in any way to my original content,and I don't think not even that AIs are the end of the microstock.
You talk as if Adobe's use of your content to train Firefly is a violation of your copyright,but that's not the case.
I respect your point of view,but I don't agree with it.
-
Why do you think that? The income per image used for training on Adobe is much smaller than for selling a license for normale usage. In my case on Adobe is was less than a cent for an image. How am I supposed to earn more from AI training than from selling my real photo licenses in the future like this?
I have explained that in my post, have you not read it? Once again, you cannot say "The income per image used for training on Adobe is much smaller than for selling a license for normale usage" because YOU DO NOT KNOW what is the ratio between AI and normal images. If Adobe sells normal images (for example) for 1B USD and AI images for 10M USD per year, then AI images are earning you more if they are more than 1/100 of income of your normal images. Why should it be higher when the market is smaller? It does not make sense. How can Adobe pay contributors the same 1B USD for AI images per image per year if AI images have sold for 10M only during the same time period? If your normal images will sell for 1000 USD per year but AI images generated by system based on your images for 10 USD year (because the market is much smaller), why on earth should you get the same income per image per year when these images have not sold for such amount of money? I do not get it.
Also, don't you think the market for AI image generatores will be saturated pretty soon? Do you think new AI engines will keep popping out for the next 100 years? Some of the AI engines like modjourney are already creating almost perfect results in almost every topic. Their demand for new images (apart from the fact that they do not pay us for training anyways!) for them is minimal.
Therefore there should be payment for each sold image generated by such a system (which is a problem). I am not saying all these systems are OK for contributor.
They might need new images every couple of years for some things like technology where appearance changes fast. But even if I popped out a million of new photos of new cell phones and electric cars each year and got paid for each image for training by Adobe I would still be making significant less than what I used to earn till now with what little money Adobe gave us for training.
Therefore there should be payments for usage as well (as Shutterstock said it will comensate contributors).
-
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
I disagree. Your statements are just as opaque as the original posts about 'training' and a one time payment. At a basic level AI generated images use previous images to make new ones. So I was asking if 'training' is code for taking parts of our images to be used for making new ones. The original post said this is a one time payment. There has been no clarification on any of these terms that I've seen by Mat from Adobe Stock. So far all he has said in response to my questions is that if I remove my images from AS they won't be used for training. If I leave them there when does the training cease?
I also thinking you're an immoral person. Supporting this immoral company shows no care or concern for peoples hard work. They didn't consult us. They just think they can do it under the current agreements. They haven't explained carefully the terms they are using and what they are actually doing. You're dumping on me for asking for clarification.
a one time payment is all that is possible, since if you study ML, you'd realize there's no way to track back from the newly created dataset to the original images.
you mistake my post - i criticized your ideas - not you personally.
this is not twitter -- attacking a forum member as 'immoral' and continuing such will get you reported & banned. make your arguments, attack the ideas, but leave out the personal attacks.
-
[deleted]
-
I wish the best wishes to the illustrator who is in law suit with AI,I hope she wins.
maybe you're getting a little confused,I'm not in favor of AI,but I try to adapt and continue to work even more than before AI.
The little niche you think is actually a bottomless abyss,there are so many things that can be created that an AI cannot do.
you're here complaining that Adobe used the content to train Firefly,instead of thanking them for thinking of a compensation model,because it wasn't written anywhere that Adobe was obliged to issue this Firefly bonus,as well as the contributor bonus for software,as well as the bonus for free collections…..I'm almost starting to forget all the bonuses that Adobe is continuing to give to support artists! :D
Of course it is also in their interest and it must be so,because if the ship sinks we sink with them,don't forget it!
in my opinion you are trying to pull a large ship towards the port with a rope,a ship that has already set sail!
Thank you again Adobe!Keep it up! :D
I didn't come here to complain but to see more details of what this extra payment was about and for the most part I find people like you celebrating the trojan horse that was just brought into the city. I haven't been in this forum for a couple of years and don't worry I'm leaving soon. I left Istock after many years with them and I'll be leaving AS too in a few months. You don't have to put up with immoral people or immoral companies.
Adobe should have made us aware that they were going to do this training upfront and given us an option to opt out. Even if it is the inevitable future we should have been given the right to not participate. I don't want AI using parts of my images to make new ones if that's what "training" actually means. They haven't been clear with what the word training means. The only question of mine that Mat from Adobe has answered is that if I remove my images from AS the training stops. Even that answer wasn't clear. Training from new images? How can the training from old images stop if it's been done? Clear as mud.
You say I'm trying to pull a ship to shore? No. I'm realising that a second ship built by the owners of the first ship has taken copies my 9 years of full-time work onboard and has just left compensating me with the equivalent of 2 months income. A visit from someone on the first ship asking me if I'd like my work to be taken onto the second ship, which will diminish the role of the first ship, would have been fair.
The future - AI taking the place of Adobe CC software? Adobe will fight it legally with all their might. Lap it up Adobe. It's the future.
-
How is this legal? Next, they will start selling us for organs, because we ticked the box for "adobe can change the contract whenever and however it wants". They know we can't afford lawyers with the peanuts they pay us, so they keep scamming us again and again. It's a perfect crime. But if we all chip in, we can hire a team of good lawyers for all of us. Give it a thought.
And what you wish to demand from adobe?
Double the amount of money I was getting most years, forever. Adobe can just pay me year after year no matter what.
-
@goober:
at least we agree on something:Istock.
people complain about Adobe and then contribute on Istock for a paltry 15% as non-exclusive,and I can guarantee you that I have sold many vectors on Istock at 15% when it should be 20%,It makes me think that perhaps the customer purchased the raster version of the vector,but I have serious doubts about this.
I created with my hands without taking inspiration from anyone and without stealing any ideas,content that I sold up to 30 times a day on Istock,yes,the same illustration sold 1 to 30 times a day,every day.
so Istock earned tens of thousands of dollars thanks to my work,I have been a contributor with them for 5 years,and do you know what the thanks were?
At the first problem that arose,instead of trying to contact me and ask for clarification regarding an issue that apparently they didn't understand due to the lack of knowledge of the creative software of those who make these decisions,instead of talking to me,they sent an email that effectively communicated that years of work and thousands of contents would be destroyed in one click.
so yes I support Adobe,because it is the best agency out there,and it is also the most present on this forum.
so if you also want to close with Adobe,where should you contribute?
Then you also have your reasons,perhaps there could have been an opt-out,but Adobe is still the best agency,it is perhaps not perfect but the most honest.
then why do you have to leave the forum?
we are here for a constructive exchange of opinions,trying to understand something in this strange world of microstock. Sometimes I will be right and other times wrong,like everyone else here,no one is always right,we all have our ideas.
-
For all the frustration being directed at Adobe for not asking nicely first and making it an optin instead of opt out...please keep in mind that Midjourney has scraped the entire internet and is happily creating content with the help of all our images. And they did not pay us 1 cent.
This is the reality. All our content has been used for years now by ai companies.
Maybe, over many years and many court cases, companies like midjourney will be forced to pay something to the creators, or perhaps we even win the right to have our content removed from the training material (Robert Kneschke is currently in a court case with Laion over this)...but right here, right now....EVERYTHING has been stolen already.
Personally I would have opted my content in to Adobe Firefly, because I am also a user of ai.
And I hope once the firefly quality goes up, I can make it the only ai I use.
I will of course pay for the credits and feel better that this money will also somehow find it's way to the creator. Unlike now, where the money I pay for commercial use only goes to the ai companies and the ai provider pages, but not to the artists. (maybe dalle has licensed it's content by now, not sure).
And legally...nobody knows what will happen. Different countries will have different solutions.
In the end it might indeed be possible that internet image scraping for training purposes is legal as long as the created images are not just copies.
For instance if there was a rule: content must be created from a minimum of 10 files (or 100...)...then I wouldn't be surprised if using our content for training will have a legal loop hole.
Obviously this problem is affecting everone - writers, voice artists, actors, programmers, musicians...etc...
It the biggest change in creative human art ever.
-
@goober:
at least we agree on something:Istock.
people complain about Adobe and then contribute on Istock for a paltry 15% as non-exclusive,and I can guarantee you that I have sold many vectors on Istock at 15% when it should be 20%,It makes me think that perhaps the customer purchased the raster version of the vector,but I have serious doubts about this.
I created with my hands without taking inspiration from anyone and without stealing any ideas,content that I sold up to 30 times a day on Istock,yes,the same illustration sold 1 to 30 times a day,every day.
so Istock earned tens of thousands of dollars thanks to my work,I have been a contributor with them for 5 years,and do you know what the thanks were?
At the first problem that arose,instead of trying to contact me and ask for clarification regarding an issue that apparently they didn't understand due to the lack of knowledge of the creative software of those who make these decisions,instead of talking to me,they sent an email that effectively communicated that years of work and thousands of contents would be destroyed in one click.
so yes I support Adobe,because it is the best agency out there,and it is also the most present on this forum.
so if you also want to close with Adobe,where should you contribute?
Then you also have your reasons,perhaps there could have been an opt-out,but Adobe is still the best agency,it is perhaps not perfect but the most honest.
then why do you have to leave the forum?
we are here for a constructive exchange of opinions,trying to understand something in this strange world of microstock. Sometimes I will be right and other times wrong,like everyone else here,no one is always right,we all have our ideas.
We will probably continue to sell on Adobe and Istock because there is nothing else to do - there is nowhere else to sell and survive on.
And Adobe and others know this and are taking advantage of it. But bowing down to someone who takes advantage of our weakness and treats us unfairly, just because there are worse ones out there, is not really a reason to do so.
Feel free to kiss their boots and hope your work is niche enough.
-
@goober:
at least we agree on something:Istock.
people complain about Adobe and then contribute on Istock for a paltry 15% as non-exclusive,and I can guarantee you that I have sold many vectors on Istock at 15% when it should be 20%,It makes me think that perhaps the customer purchased the raster version of the vector,but I have serious doubts about this.
I created with my hands without taking inspiration from anyone and without stealing any ideas,content that I sold up to 30 times a day on Istock,yes,the same illustration sold 1 to 30 times a day,every day.
so Istock earned tens of thousands of dollars thanks to my work,I have been a contributor with them for 5 years,and do you know what the thanks were?
At the first problem that arose,instead of trying to contact me and ask for clarification regarding an issue that apparently they didn't understand due to the lack of knowledge of the creative software of those who make these decisions,instead of talking to me,they sent an email that effectively communicated that years of work and thousands of contents would be destroyed in one click.
so yes I support Adobe,because it is the best agency out there,and it is also the most present on this forum.
so if you also want to close with Adobe,where should you contribute?
Then you also have your reasons,perhaps there could have been an opt-out,but Adobe is still the best agency,it is perhaps not perfect but the most honest.
then why do you have to leave the forum?
we are here for a constructive exchange of opinions,trying to understand something in this strange world of microstock. Sometimes I will be right and other times wrong,like everyone else here,no one is always right,we all have our ideas.
We will probably continue to sell on Adobe and Istock because there is nothing else to do - there is nowhere else to sell and survive on.
And Adobe and others know this and are taking advantage of it. But bowing down to someone who takes advantage of our weakness and treats us unfairly, just because there are worse ones out there, is not really a reason to do so.
Feel free to kiss their boots and hope your work is niche enough.
Now,however,try not to spread yourself too thin,and try to maintain a minimum amount of respect for other people's opinions.
Here no one is kissing anyone's boots and no one is bowing down to anyone.
Even if there had been the opt-out option I would have agreed to give all my content to train Firefly with a payment as it was, just as I agree to all-in in the free collections for 5 usd for each content selected.
these are my ideas and opinions about it,if you don't agree fine,but try not to exceed or disrespect other people.
-
For all the frustration being directed at Adobe for not asking nicely first and making it an optin instead of opt out...please keep in mind that Midjourney has scraped the entire internet and is happily creating content with the help of all our images. And they did not pay us 1 cent.
Yeah, but
1. it still remains to be seen whether what they did was even legal.
2. They did not shout "We are doing this fair and ethnically" from the top of the roofs and then screw us over. (So that every customer could hear and believe it). This is just a marketing spin for Adobe. Especially since they used 'unethical' created AI images to train their 'ethical' AI. This shows how little they really care.
Just because one company decided to treat us even worse, doesn't make what Adobe is doing right or should take away our right and reason to complain. You would not defend how Amazon is paying and treating their employers just because, somewhere out there, there is a company that treats their employes even worse or defend a father who beats his child once a day, because somewhere there is a father who beats his child three times a day.
But some people here seem to think we should even be thankful to Adobe for treating us like crap, just because others treat us even worse.
-
Don't get me wrong: I expected Adobe to
- give us an optin
- tell us how much we will be earning roughly before etc...
One problem I see is that they actually needed the content to build and test firefly to even be able to make decisions about quality, how much we get paid and how customers react.
But if so, this should have been clearly communicated.
As for the legal part: Adobe has excellent lawyers. If they say that what Adobe did is legal...I am inclined to believe them.
This is the problem, copyright for using ai training images is probably not at all what people here think copyright in general is.
Now, from the perspective of a business partner - I believe they should have asked us first.
However, in light of the total ai situation and how quickly all the people who scream how much they hate ai are now happy to use all those shiny new ai photoshop tools...I think any outrage will calm down extremely quickly.
"just cleaning up high iso, just extending the image, just changinbg the background, removing a person, adding a tiny detal....that is ok, right? I mean...I am not using midjourney, am I?"
Every ai tool in photoshop uses the work of another artist who was never asked if their content could be used for ai training.
Which is why getty/istock are not allowing the use of these tools
It is amazing how many producers are suddenly coming up with excuses why it is perfectly ok to use the photoshop ai tools to improve their work...
The "moral outrage" against ai didn't even survive a simple photoshop update.
How long until they are all fully using firefly??
As soon as it is "comfortable" they will all be doing it.
-
For all the frustration being directed at Adobe for not asking nicely first and making it an optin instead of opt out...please keep in mind that Midjourney has scraped the entire internet and is happily creating content with the help of all our images. And they did not pay us 1 cent.
Yeah, but
1. it still remains to be seen whether what they did was even legal.
2. They did not shout "We are doing this fair and ethnically" and then screw us over from the top of the roofs. (So that every customer could hear and believe it)
Just because one company decided to treat us even worse, doesn't make what Adobe is doing right or should take away our right and reason to complain. You would not defend how Amazon is paying and treating their employers just because, somewhere out there, there is a company that treats their employes even worse or defend a father who beats his child once a day, because somewhere there is a father who beats his child three times a day.
But some people here seem to think we should even be thankful to Adobe for treating us like crap, just because others treat us even worse.
You've hit the spot where our ideas diverge.
In your opinion Adobe is treating us like crap,in my opinion not,and this is all.
I would like to invite everyone to think about the period we are living in,in general the cost of living has increased,after Covid,and with the ongoing war.
In microstock,the competition is sky high,and these AIs have also been around for a year now.
so in short Adobe,simply keeps up with the times,and finds solutions and alternatives to keep up with the times,to stay on its feet and continue to move forward and grow,and unfortunately sometimes they are probably forced to make difficult but necessary decisions.
These are my personal considerations and in no way verified,I would like to clarify this.
in my opinion,the exchange into USD from EUR for example was a necessary maneuver,however someone else thinks that they are exploiting us.
points of view.
now let's forget about Istock,because that is an agency that really exploits people,15% as non-exclusive,but what is it?a bad joke?
and in my opinion SS also exaggerated with these 10c,because a minimum of 20c would have already been too little!
As for Adobe,I haven't seen any intention to exploit anyone so far,am I wrong?Maybe,but also trying to stay within the main theme,I believe that if AS didn't gave opt-out for Firefly,I am sure is for a good reasons.
-
For all the frustration being directed at Adobe for not asking nicely first and making it an optin instead of opt out...please keep in mind that Midjourney has scraped the entire internet and is happily creating content with the help of all our images. And they did not pay us 1 cent.
Yeah, but
1. it still remains to be seen whether what they did was even legal.
2. They did not shout "We are doing this fair and ethnically" and then screw us over from the top of the roofs. (So that every customer could hear and believe it)
Just because one company decided to treat us even worse, doesn't make what Adobe is doing right or should take away our right and reason to complain. You would not defend how Amazon is paying and treating their employers just because, somewhere out there, there is a company that treats their employes even worse or defend a father who beats his child once a day, because somewhere there is a father who beats his child three times a day.
But some people here seem to think we should even be thankful to Adobe for treating us like crap, just because others treat us even worse.
I agree with that one hundred percent!
-
yes ok that's fine! :D continue to think badly and attack the only agency that treats us well,but then I will see you all here again in line asking for the software for the 2023 contributor bonus program! :D
when it comes to having you are all here in line to ask,then when it comes to making some fair renunciation,you immediately go on the attack!
sorry guys,I respect many of you because you have helped me a lot in the past in my Microstock adventure,I have been following you since 2018.
I say what I think,but I understand you, because too many times many agencies have behaved badly in the past,in fact I am more worried about the other agencies,because if they lower prices further,Adobe will have to adapt.
Buonanotte! :D
-
@goober:
at least we agree on something:Istock.
people complain about Adobe and then contribute on Istock for a paltry 15% as non-exclusive,and I can guarantee you that I have sold many vectors on Istock at 15% when it should be 20%,It makes me think that perhaps the customer purchased the raster version of the vector,but I have serious doubts about this.
I created with my hands without taking inspiration from anyone and without stealing any ideas,content that I sold up to 30 times a day on Istock,yes,the same illustration sold 1 to 30 times a day,every day.
so Istock earned tens of thousands of dollars thanks to my work,I have been a contributor with them for 5 years,and do you know what the thanks were?
At the first problem that arose,instead of trying to contact me and ask for clarification regarding an issue that apparently they didn't understand due to the lack of knowledge of the creative software of those who make these decisions,instead of talking to me,they sent an email that effectively communicated that years of work and thousands of contents would be destroyed in one click.
so yes I support Adobe,because it is the best agency out there,and it is also the most present on this forum.
so if you also want to close with Adobe,where should you contribute?
Then you also have your reasons,perhaps there could have been an opt-out,but Adobe is still the best agency,it is perhaps not perfect but the most honest.
then why do you have to leave the forum?
we are here for a constructive exchange of opinions,trying to understand something in this strange world of microstock. Sometimes I will be right and other times wrong,like everyone else here,no one is always right,we all have our ideas.
I can only address a few points now. Why will I leave this forum? I just won't be back. I'm not earning much anymore from stock art. There was a time when I earned hundreds of thousands each year. Now it's a couple of thou for leaving my pieces in place. I had my stock on AS because they were paying around a dollar each sale. Now it's down around 30c to 55c. I was happy just to leave it there and pick up some cash each year.
I left Istock because management there treated us very poorly. I will leave AS because I think that using our content for "training", and I'm yet to get a definitive definition of what that involved, seems to be a violation of goodwill. I want to work with companies and people that will collaborate for the good of the whole. If this "training" is in fact code for using parts of our images forever through AI then that's a massive violation of goodwill. If "training" is not using our images forever then I'm happy for Mat from Adobe to explain it to me. Send me a message Mat.
I'm sure there will be a twilight period between hand produced art and AI produced art. So you'll all rock on for another 10 years.
Overall I've had it with bad Leaders. Leaders who tell you they are working for your good but in reality they are pushing an agenda that suits the interests of a small group. All I can do is move away from them even if it's just to preserve sanity.
-
If you think Adobe is poised to make a ton of money off of Firefly, you might want to consider buying the stock, ADBE. Adobe is one of the first companies to actually put an AI product on the market. The stock is up 59% already this year. I haven't tried Firefly, but it seems to be getting more and more media buzz. There is likely more upside, at least in the long term.
-
If you try Firefly, you won't feel so positive about its abilities. DALL-E 2 (what Shutterstock subscribers get to use) (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?image_type=generated&sort=newest) is worse, but Firefly is only just above that.
There's a lot of buzz about a lot of AI-related stuff at the moment, and although Adobe has used PR relentlessly since March to help boost its stock price, the situation isn't (IMO) as simple as you suggest.
An analyst commenting on the inclusion of Firefly beta in Adobe Express a couple of months ago talked about Adobe wanting to paint itself as one of the AI "winners" versus "losers". Investors had been worried that if AI made images and did designs, no one would be buying Adobe's creative product subscriptions any more. Hence Adobe's hoopla about how AI was going to grow their business instead of eliminating it.
This is a short blurb from today wondering if the run-up in the stock price has gone as far as it can
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/09/20/adobe-stocks-ai-lift-is-wearing-thin-time-to-buy-t/ (https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/09/20/adobe-stocks-ai-lift-is-wearing-thin-time-to-buy-t/)
-
Can we please, please, lose the blue notification bar? Every time on my phone I have to dismiss it to see my sales total.
-
+1 It's super annoying on the phone
-
Can we please, please, lose the blue notification bar? Every time on my phone I have to dismiss it to see my sales total.
Noted and shared with the larger team. Thank you!
-Mat
-
Can we please, please, lose the blue notification bar? Every time on my phone I have to dismiss it to see my sales total.
For the love of Pete, LOSE THE BLUE BAR!!!! ARRRGH!
-
It’s gone!
-
It’s gone!
:D
-
It’s gone!
Yes it is. The bar is gone. The information is still available however. Check the statistics dropdown and you'll see a new line item "other payments". Moving forward, this is where you will see payments that don't fall under the traditional activity category.
-Mat Hayward