Author Topic: Announcing bonus payment for Adobe Firefly training (Read 15283 times)

Injustice for all · « **Reply #75 on:** September 18, 2023, 17:05 »

Quote from: karmalama on September 18, 2023, 14:17

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.

goober · « **Reply #76 on:** September 18, 2023, 18:11 »

Quote from: cascoly on September 18, 2023, 14:29

Quote from: goober on September 17, 2023, 19:19
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.

goober · « **Reply #77 on:** September 18, 2023, 18:36 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 18, 2023, 17:05

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.

karmalama · « **Reply #78 on:** September 18, 2023, 18:57 »

[deleted]

karmalama · « **Reply #79 on:** September 18, 2023, 19:15 »

[deleted]

Injustice for all · « **Reply #80 on:** September 18, 2023, 21:48 »

Quote from: goober on September 18, 2023, 18:36

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 18, 2023, 17:05

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!

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!

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #81 on:** September 19, 2023, 01:38 »

Quote from: mino216 on September 18, 2023, 16:29

(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.

Oewkio · « **Reply #82 on:** September 19, 2023, 03:32 »

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.

Artist · « **Reply #83 on:** September 19, 2023, 06:49 »

Quote from: Oewkio on September 19, 2023, 03:32

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?

Injustice for all · « **Reply #84 on:** September 19, 2023, 09:28 »

@karmalama:

yes of course,it could also be that in 2025 aliens invade the earth!

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.

Oewkio · « **Reply #85 on:** September 19, 2023, 09:37 »

Quote from: Artist on September 19, 2023, 06:49

Quote from: Oewkio on September 19, 2023, 03:32
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.

cosus · « **Reply #86 on:** September 19, 2023, 11:10 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 18, 2023, 17:05

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!

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.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #87 on:** September 19, 2023, 14:03 »

Quote from: cosus on September 19, 2023, 11:10

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 18, 2023, 17:05

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!

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.

mino216 · « **Reply #88 on:** September 19, 2023, 14:09 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 19, 2023, 01:38

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.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 19, 2023, 01:38

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.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 19, 2023, 01:38

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).

cascoly · « **Reply #89 on:** September 19, 2023, 14:36 »

Quote from: goober on September 18, 2023, 18:11

Quote from: cascoly on September 18, 2023, 14:29

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.

karmalama · « **Reply #90 on:** September 19, 2023, 18:44 »

[deleted]

goober · « **Reply #91 on:** September 19, 2023, 20:26 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 18, 2023, 17:05

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!

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!

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.

goober · « **Reply #92 on:** September 19, 2023, 20:37 »

Quote from: Artist on September 19, 2023, 06:49

Quote from: Oewkio on September 19, 2023, 03:32
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.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #93 on:** September 20, 2023, 05:54 »

@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.

cobalt · « **Reply #94 on:** September 20, 2023, 07:56 »

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.

cosus · « **Reply #95 on:** September 20, 2023, 07:59 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 20, 2023, 05:54

@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.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #96 on:** September 20, 2023, 08:48 »

Quote from: cosus on September 20, 2023, 07:59

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 20, 2023, 05:54
@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.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #97 on:** September 20, 2023, 10:02 »

Quote from: cobalt on September 20, 2023, 07:56

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #98 on:** September 20, 2023, 11:18 »

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.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #99 on:** September 20, 2023, 11:53 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 20, 2023, 10:02

Quote from: cobalt on September 20, 2023, 07:56
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Announcing bonus payment for Adobe Firefly training (Read 15283 times)

Injustice for all

goober

goober

karmalama

karmalama

Injustice for all

Her Ugliness

Oewkio

Artist

Injustice for all

Oewkio

cosus

Injustice for all

mino216

cascoly

karmalama

goober

goober

Injustice for all

cobalt

cosus

Injustice for all

Her Ugliness

cobalt

Injustice for all

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors