MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Announcing the Adobe Stock policy on generative AI content  (Read 36971 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: January 26, 2023, 13:19 »
0
Maybe he is upset because the stock agencies are coming after him to legally license the content.

He seems beyond naive when it comes to copyright.

If he scraped the entire internet and then charges people to use his ai he is a true hypocrit.

Yeah, same thing came to my mind, that he is upset at Getty coming after him, plus more users/buyers = more possible copyright problems, lawsuits and so on. And yes, definitely it is hypocritical, if he thinks it wasn't necessary to pay artists for using their images, then everything created with AI should also be free or at least available for personal use only.

@Lina

I doubt mj can restricting usage terms like dont sell on stock agencies if mj just stole it all from the internet. They hold no usage right to the training files, so I doubt they can restrict the sale of the remix.

Looks like a feast for Getty Lawyers.

Yeah, that might be possible.


« Reply #126 on: January 26, 2023, 14:44 »
0
@Lina

I doubt mj can restricting usage terms like dont sell on stock agencies if mj just stole it all from the internet. They hold no usage right to the training files, so I doubt they can restrict the sale of the remix.
...

1. you have no evidence they stole anything
2. you have no proof they lack usage rights other than your opinion

so your conclusion is illogical, but rather an ill-informed opinion,

« Reply #127 on: January 26, 2023, 15:30 »
+1
Out of curiousity, if people are convertiing AI PNG images to illustrations , how are you doing this?

I use Gigapixel ai from topazlabs. Upsizes and converts to jpg. Works for me.

« Reply #128 on: January 26, 2023, 16:26 »
+1
COBALT.


Thanks for the reply.

« Reply #129 on: January 26, 2023, 16:36 »
+1
@Lina

I doubt mj can restricting usage terms like dont sell on stock agencies if mj just stole it all from the internet. They hold no usage right to the training files, so I doubt they can restrict the sale of the remix.
...

1. you have no evidence they stole anything
2. you have no proof they lack usage rights other than your opinion

so your conclusion is illogical, but rather an ill-informed opinion,

Did you read the interview???

Quote

There isnt really a way to get a hundred million images and know where theyre coming from. It would be cool if images had metadata embedded in them about the copyright owner or something. But that's not a thing; there's not a registry. Theres no way to find a picture on the Internet, and then automatically trace it to an owner and then have any way of doing anything to authenticate it."

that is what he said.

If the ai was trained on perfectly legal content, he would have stated that by now, wouldnt he?

Would remove all doubt if mj files were legal to use for commercial purposes.

But everything in the interview makes it obvious he doesnt care about copyright at all and just scraped the internet.

You are the one suggesting he used legally suitable files, but Holz never mentions that. And it would have been an easy thing for him to do.

A feast for lawyers.

« Reply #130 on: January 26, 2023, 16:39 »
+1
I really hope Adobe is working on their own AI. One that is even better than all that is out there now. Would keep them independent and they understand the media design business perfectly.

They can use the files we upload now as a bench mark and make sure their AI is superior.

ADH

« Reply #131 on: January 26, 2023, 23:53 »
+1
I really hope Adobe is working on their own AI. One that is even better than all that is out there now. Would keep them independent and they understand the media design business perfectly.

They can use the files we upload now as a bench mark and make sure their AI is superior.

If the have their own AI, what do they need the AI "artist" contributors for?

« Reply #132 on: January 27, 2023, 00:12 »
+1
David Holz, midjourney CEO, said less than an hour ago that he doesn't like midjourney-generated images being put up for sale through stock agencies. He said that he is seriously considering banning the sale of midjourney-generated images through stock agencies.

Where?
Yesterday in a town hall meeting he organizes every Wednesday in discord from 12 noon to 4 pm. Pacific time
Very interesting meetings with David Holz, they also talked about the new /blend mode, with results almost of photography quality
Everyone can now use the /blend mode, it is amazing

This person is talking garbage.
First he built a tool which disrupted the market and many people lost their job.

And now he is afraid that with stock agencies the market is getting disrupted.

« Reply #133 on: January 27, 2023, 02:09 »
0
David Holz, midjourney CEO, said less than an hour ago that he doesn't like midjourney-generated images being put up for sale through stock agencies. He said that he is seriously considering banning the sale of midjourney-generated images through stock agencies.

Where?
Yesterday in a town hall meeting he organizes every Wednesday in discord from 12 noon to 4 pm. Pacific time
Very interesting meetings with David Holz, they also talked about the new /blend mode, with results almost of photography quality
Everyone can now use the /blend mode, it is amazing

This person is talking garbage.


Have you seen the discord chat the person was talking about? Because I haven't and he apparently has. So why dismiss something as garbage if you weren't there to witness it?

And nowhere did he say David Holz was afraid that with stock agencies the market was getting disrupted. I doubt Holz is worrying about much other than his profit.

But stock agencies suing him because he used their images to train his AI without byuing licenses - That seems kind of a not too far fetched reason to consider banning the sale of midjourney images on stock agencies? Don't you think?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2023, 02:12 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #134 on: January 27, 2023, 02:12 »
+2
I really hope Adobe is working on their own AI. One that is even better than all that is out there now. Would keep them independent and they understand the media design business perfectly.

They can use the files we upload now as a bench mark and make sure their AI is superior.

If the have their own AI, what do they need the AI "artist" contributors for?

The ai is not a magic machine.

Somebody needs to create the useful content for the customers. That will be us.

Ai is a creative tool that designers and creators use in their workflow. It will probably have a Photoshop integration in some way.

The customers all have cameras and still buy our content. Some will use ai as well, but it will always be faster to just type in a keyword and then look at thousands of options to download, then to endlessly generate and tweak your prompts until you get what you need. there are so many possibilities for any theme.



« Reply #135 on: January 27, 2023, 02:13 »
+1

The customers all have cameras and still buy our content.

That's because, contrarary to popular believe, creating a good photo is more than just pushing a button on a cheap camera.  ::)

Unlike with midjourney, where everyone can enter a sentence.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #136 on: January 27, 2023, 13:33 »
+1
A feast for lawyers.

That's for sure.

And now as an advocate for the other side. (opposing what I wrote yesterday)

Just because someone used LAION-5B which is free and public domain that doesn't mean the images in that 5 Billion images with data set are actually public domain.

In fact I could argue pretty easily that they are not. Not just because each one would have to be verified or that scraping is legal or illegal, or that artists styles are being copied or any of that.

The way they get these images with text is scraping for Alt-Text along with the images, then checking relevance, removing duplicates. But... someone entered that Alt-Text for the image. That means that if the website is copyrighted, which they are, then the text is also protected information, so the entire data set of LAION-5B  is illegal and violating copyright laws.


The customers all have cameras and still buy our content.

That's because, contrarary to popular believe, creating a good photo is more than just pushing a button on a cheap camera.  ::)

Unlike with midjourney, where everyone can enter a sentence.

Anyone CAN just push a button on a camera, same as anyone CAN just enter a sentence. There's more to entering a text prompt with the right requests and then there's editing after that as well.

AI is terribly flawed in so many ways that the people who want to demonize it, find obscure examples of good images and ignore hundreds of thousands of images that are flawed scrap. Faces, hands, body parts, machines, balance, physical logic, physics, and all kinds of other parts of AI images are flawed an impossible.

I can go to Midjourney (If I had access and an account) and enter the exact words and someone else and I won't get the same image. I won't get a finished work of art either. Just like I can own the same camera and lens and same settings and stand in the same place and... oh darn, I would get the same identical image, wouldn't I, just by pushing a button?

A feast for lawyers.

Yeah, worth repeating. That's who will decide all of this, then the courts and the appeals and after millions of dollars paid for that? Nothing we think or write here will change a speck of what will happen in the legal system in the future.

ADH

« Reply #137 on: January 27, 2023, 18:16 »
0
David Holz, midjourney CEO, said less than an hour ago that he doesn't like midjourney-generated images being put up for sale through stock agencies. He said that he is seriously considering banning the sale of midjourney-generated images through stock agencies.

Where?
Yesterday in a town hall meeting he organizes every Wednesday in discord from 12 noon to 4 pm. Pacific time
Very interesting meetings with David Holz, they also talked about the new /blend mode, with results almost of photography quality
Everyone can now use the /blend mode, it is amazing

This person is talking garbage.
First he built a tool which disrupted the market and many people lost their job.

And now he is afraid that with stock agencies the market is getting disrupted.

He said it in January 25th, 2023. I did not invented. In "office hours" town hall meeting David Holz said several times that he does not like mid journey images in stock portals and he is seriously considering to ban the sale of Midjourney generated content in stock photo web sites. I AM NOT LYING. He said it in front of more than 1000 mid journey members.

« Reply #138 on: January 28, 2023, 00:38 »
+1
David Holz, midjourney CEO, said less than an hour ago that he doesn't like midjourney-generated images being put up for sale through stock agencies. He said that he is seriously considering banning the sale of midjourney-generated images through stock agencies.

Where?

Yesterday in a town hall meeting he organizes every Wednesday in discord from 12 noon to 4 pm. Pacific time
Very interesting meetings with David Holz, they also talked about the new /blend mode, with results almost of photography quality
Everyone can now use the /blend mode, it is amazing

This person is talking garbage.
First he built a tool which disrupted the market and many people lost their job.

And now he is afraid that with stock agencies the market is getting disrupted.

He said it in January 25th, 2023. I did not invented. In "office hours" town hall meeting David Holz said several times that he does not like mid journey images in stock portals and he is seriously considering to ban the sale of Midjourney generated content in stock photo web sites. I AM NOT LYING. He said it in front of more than 1000 mid journey members.


I am not pointing you. I am mentioning David Holz as an Idiot.
He is talking rubbish.
It funny to see that the AI makers are now afraid that with the use of AI the market is dirupting. As if they did a very generous job by inventing this.

I have people in my network who got fired by companies as their job is done by AI now. They are undergoing depression as their skills are taken over by AI.
I am not mentioning AI in images as particular in above case.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2023, 04:53 by Artist »

« Reply #139 on: January 28, 2023, 14:17 »
+2

The customers all have cameras and still buy our content.

That's because, contrarary to popular believe, creating a good photo is more than just pushing a button on a cheap camera.  ::)

Unlike with midjourney, where everyone can enter a sentence.

sure- but how many images have you sold that were created with 1 sentence and no additional work on your part?

Glendower:  I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur:      Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                         But will they come, when you do call for them?

― William Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part 1


« Reply #140 on: January 28, 2023, 15:45 »
+1
@adh

I fully believe he said he might want to ban selling mj files on stock sites.

But the question is - if he has not licensed the training files for his ai and then for commercial use of the product, how can he legally stop anyone from uploading?

the pixels need a clear copyright track record.

And he is charging artists money for commercial use.

We had the example of 3d render companies that don't allow the reselling of the finished product, only for single client use.

But they hold the rights for their 3d models. Completely different situation.

the easiest thing would be is if mj license files for training purposes, the way dalle has done apparently, or other ais as getty claims have licensed from them for training.

then he can establish a track record that allows commercial use in a proper way.

but if he does not have the licensed legal rights for remixing pixels...then he is selling hot air. and mj might be liable themselves. In quite a big way.

We will see, the courts will settle this.

But since some companies have already properly licensed files, the technology can be used. there will be a legal protocol that all these ai companies follow in the end.

eta

if he is regularly online, why not ask him on the training files for his ai. Did mj legally license the files to remix pixels and offer fresh images for commercial use??

the way other companies have??

should be an easy question if he has his legal pathway in order.

gettyimages alone has over 700 million files, don't they? Together with a few other agencies there are certainly over 1 billion well keyworded, described, high quality images that can be licensed for commercial training of ais.

Very, very simple thing to do.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2023, 15:53 by cobalt »

« Reply #141 on: January 29, 2023, 02:22 »
+1


if he is regularly online, why not ask him on the training files for his ai. Did mj legally license the files to remix pixels and offer fresh images for commercial use??

the way other companies have??

should be an easy question if he has his legal pathway in order.


He has been asked this already and officially admitted that no, they did not legally license any of the images. He basically said he would have loved to compensate artists, but there just, very sadly, was absolutely no way for him to find out whom the images he used to train his AI belonged to.

Yep. He seriously claimed that.  ::)

Here is the original quote, from an interview with David Holz with forbes:
Quote
No, theres really no way to get a hundred million pictures and know where theyre coming from. It would be nice if the images had embedded metadata about the copyright owner or something. But it doesnt matter; There is no registry. Theres no way to find a picture on the internet, and then automatically trace it to an owner and then do whatever it takes to authenticate it.


If only there was something like a huge image library with millions of images where each owner can be traced and compensated if his image was used. Oh, well, too bad there is not....  ::) There is really nothing David Holz could have done to compensate artists. Man, he really tried!
« Last Edit: January 29, 2023, 12:19 by Her Ugliness »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #142 on: January 29, 2023, 13:10 »
0
The training material. Here's where the files came from.  https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/

Does anyone read or understand?


« Reply #143 on: January 29, 2023, 14:19 »
0
The training material. Here's where the files came from.  https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/

Does anyone read or understand?

LOL - how can you possibly expect trolls to RYFM?

« Reply #144 on: January 30, 2023, 09:34 »
+5
And where does it say that the datasets were created with files licensed from the copyright owners to be used for commercial purposes??

"To address this problem we present LAION 5B, a large-scale dataset for research purposes consisting of 5,85B CLIP-filtered image-text pairs"

It just says for "research purposes" and gives no explanation how the creators of the content were compensated or that they agreed to have their files used for datasets for training ai.

So they scraped the net and created datasets.

They explain their process in great detail, how they used a common crawl to scour the internet and downloaded files without asking anyone for permission, then refined the process to try and minimize files with visible watermarks.

But absolutely nowhere do they ask creators for licensing rights.

And did they exclude all the personal profile pics, family photos people post publicly on their social media pages? Or images of copyrighted products, designs and technology? Drawings of architectural plans??

Imagine downloading all music clips and sounds you can find on the internet, pairing it up with description text.

Obviously you can set up programs to do that.

But it doesn't make it legal.

"I found it on the internet so I can use it any way I like" .... it doesn't work that way.

Like I said, a feast for the lawyers.

They have zero rights to the files. And then they "distribute" the images they stole with a cc license...just makes it worse...they claim coypright on something they don't own.

It exactly matches the interview of the ceo of mj, who claimed it would be impossible to compensate creators or identify and properly license 100 million files.

Looks like these companies are walking DODOs, they committed the largest image theft in art history and are bragging about it on the internet...

« Last Edit: January 30, 2023, 10:18 by cobalt »

« Reply #145 on: January 30, 2023, 10:25 »
+6
Just look at how they talk about watermarks

"Watermarked images are a big problem when training generative models like DALL-E or GLIDE. To tackle this problem we trained a watermark detection model and used it to calculate confidence scores for every image in LAION-5B. Therefore we created a training dataset consisting of 90.000 images with 50% watermarked and 50% clean images. The majority of the watermarked images have been extracted from the LAION-400M KNN index through the use of several text prompts like clip art watermark, cat watermark or landscape watermark."

It is just a nuisance to them, no awareness at all of the legal reasons watermarks exist to protect files from theft.

And also no awareness that images without watermark are not free to steal and abuse, but are usually files professionally licensed, so that they can be used and shown without a watermark.

They could have easily licensed files for training, paid for it and gotten beautiful images without a watermark.

No, this is not funny at all.

ETA:

It is a solvable problem. they need to license files properly and when they make people pay to create files for commercial use, make sure the remixed pixels only come from licensed files.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2023, 10:27 by cobalt »

« Reply #146 on: January 30, 2023, 14:30 »
0

They could have easily licensed files for training, paid for it and gotten beautiful images without a watermark.
 
...

It is a solvable problem. they need to license files properly and when they make people pay to create files for commercial use, make sure the remixed pixels only come from licensed files.

if it's so solvable why have none of the critics actually proposed how such a system might work?

  • how do you find out who owns the rights to each image?
  • how do you contact the owners, if any?
  • how do you track owners' responses? ie, how do you create a database of artists? attaching a copyright doesn't usually include contact info, and few images even have that minimal information.
  • how much should be paid to artists?
  • how are payments calculated? per image at tiny fractions of pennies?
  • how is payment made with knowing details such as paypal, bank acct or physical address?  will a bank process checks for < a penny?

if you're going to complain and allege criminal liability you need to at least make a minimal effort to present a solution than can actually be discussed otherwise it's just more (redundant) hot air adding nothing to a conversation.  and it is th e responsibility of the plaintiff to prove they have a case with hard evidence of wrongdoing

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #147 on: January 30, 2023, 17:24 »
+2
And where does it say that the datasets were created with files licensed from the copyright owners to be used for commercial purposes??

I just wrote the same a couple days ago. They used a public domain database, which was created by by matching alt-text tags with found images, and none of the images were licensed. Also I'd question using the alt-text description as web pages are copyrighted? Alternative text (alt text) is descriptive text which conveys the meaning and context of a visual item in a digital setting, such as on an app or web page. Just for anyone who doesn't know what that means

Looks like these companies are walking DODOs, they committed the largest image theft in art history and are bragging about it on the internet...

The courts will have to decide.

But there are different kinds of AI and the one that just uses data to train and the ai creates new images from what it has been trained, is creating new images. No infringing because they never used the original image. You can't sue someone for reading the dictionary, or a book, and using what they learn to write something new.

The software that makes collages and uses part of other images, is a different question. Is the new image a derivative, or based on fair use, because it's transformative? A bunch of lawyers are going to get rich on this.

« Reply #148 on: January 31, 2023, 02:39 »
+5

They could have easily licensed files for training, paid for it and gotten beautiful images without a watermark.
 
...

It is a solvable problem. they need to license files properly and when they make people pay to create files for commercial use, make sure the remixed pixels only come from licensed files.

if it's so solvable why have none of the critics actually proposed how such a system might work?

  • how do you find out who owns the rights to each image?
  • how do you contact the owners, if any?
  • how do you track owners' responses? ie, how do you create a database of artists? attaching a copyright doesn't usually include contact info, and few images even have that minimal information.
  • how much should be paid to artists?
  • how are payments calculated? per image at tiny fractions of pennies?
  • how is payment made with knowing details such as paypal, bank acct or physical address?  will a bank process checks for < a penny?

if you're going to complain and allege criminal liability you need to at least make a minimal effort to present a solution than can actually be discussed otherwise it's just more (redundant) hot air adding nothing to a conversation.  and it is th e responsibility of the plaintiff to prove they have a case with hard evidence of wrongdoing

Uhm. The solution is: License images from microstock agencies.
Or are you trolling? Because it's hard to imagine you could not come up with that solution yourself. As a microstock contributor. In a microstock forum.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2023, 03:21 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #149 on: January 31, 2023, 02:42 »
+4

They could have easily licensed files for training, paid for it and gotten beautiful images without a watermark.
 
...

It is a solvable problem. they need to license files properly and when they make people pay to create files for commercial use, make sure the remixed pixels only come from licensed files.

if it's so solvable why have none of the critics actually proposed how such a system might work?

  • how do you find out who owns the rights to each image?
  • how do you contact the owners, if any?
  • how do you track owners' responses? ie, how do you create a database of artists? attaching a copyright doesn't usually include contact info, and few images even have that minimal information.
  • how much should be paid to artists?
  • how are payments calculated? per image at tiny fractions of pennies?
  • how is payment made with knowing details such as paypal, bank acct or physical address?  will a bank process checks for < a penny?

if you're going to complain and allege criminal liability you need to at least make a minimal effort to present a solution than can actually be discussed otherwise it's just more (redundant) hot air adding nothing to a conversation.  and it is th e responsibility of the plaintiff to prove they have a case with hard evidence of wrongdoing


Serious?

I've heard rumours that there are companies (called stock agencies) who are in the business of selling licenses of images. The seem to have solved the problem of identifying and paying respective image owners.

So how about starting the whole thing not by just scraping the internet to create an image database?

But yes, that would have cost money...
It's so much easier to just do the illegal (?) thing and after the fact just say "oh, it's so impossible to track down all those copyright owners, sorry..."


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
147 Replies
27391 Views
Last post November 02, 2023, 06:35
by synthetick
10 Replies
2980 Views
Last post April 28, 2023, 00:15
by wordplanet
34 Replies
6144 Views
Last post June 27, 2023, 06:46
by stoker2014
52 Replies
8157 Views
Last post July 13, 2023, 06:15
by Justanotherphotographer
7 Replies
2706 Views
Last post October 09, 2023, 15:07
by cobalt

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors