Author Topic: genAI images of the 9/11 destruction in New York - seems wrong in multiple ways (Read 2564 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **on:** September 25, 2023, 12:42 »

I saw an image of the Sept 11 2001 attack in New York City when looking at new approvals in Adobe Stock's genAI collection today.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=211304520&order=creation&k=%22september+11%22+-flag

I first noticed the theatrical "explosions" in the scene. I noticed the buildings didn't look like New York. I noticed that One World Trade Center - which was built after the twin towers were destroyed - was featured in several of the images supposedly from 2001.

Then I thought some more about this being on another level of unacceptable from the thousands of other accepted images supposedly of other places which are unreal and inaccurate. This just feels exploitive - it's a cheap imitation of something very real and still painful for so many people. I think all of these images should be removed.

Anyone else have an opinion on this type of content? I realize as contributors we have very little input on Adobe Stock's policies, but possibly they haven't thought about it either and possibly it just needs to come to their attention?

Here are just a couple to look at

And there's this one - careless and stupid, but not offensive in the same way

dragonblade · « **Reply #1 on:** September 25, 2023, 13:05 »

I agree. I think this is rather poor taste. I don't know why we need an artificial recreation of something that was so horrific and still strong in some peoples memories. I can't visualise any editors using these images.

Mir · « **Reply #2 on:** September 25, 2023, 13:26 »

This feels so wrong.

Kenneth_17 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 25, 2023, 13:31 »

Totally agree. Shameless.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #4 on:** September 25, 2023, 13:33 »

I'm right there with you, I feel it's fundamentally wrong to exploit such sensitive issues with AI.
Search for "war Ukraine" or other catastrophes, AI seems to gain the upper hand as well.

Interesting also the portfolio linked by you, 700 versions of the hindhu god ganesha - similarity seems forgotten with AI.

Apart from the ethical aspect, I see Adobe increasingly problematic from another point of view.
As a buyer, I would be totally annoyed. If I only get the terms "9/11" and "Ukraine war", the results from Shutterstock, for example, look much more appealing (which is probably the wrong expression in this context) and, above all, more realistic - and of course that doesn't just apply to the disaster themes, but pretty much to everything.

But that might just be the view of someone who is a bit old school.

everest · « **Reply #5 on:** September 25, 2023, 15:15 »

Truly disgusting......

Whats next jews gas chambers recreation with explicit fake images, hutu and tutsi fake images....

This has to stop and I hope that companies that accept this kind of content get hit hard or by laws or by boycott

Truly disgusting....

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #6 on:** September 25, 2023, 15:47 »

Wrong on so many levels

MZP · « **Reply #7 on:** September 26, 2023, 07:50 »

Not only this is morally wrong, but it's also against the rules, which state clearly that you are not allowed to submit work depicting real places or identifiable property: "Don’t: Submit works depicting real places, identifiable property (e.g., famous characters or logos), or notable people (whether photorealistic or - even caricatures)."

cobalt · « **Reply #8 on:** September 26, 2023, 09:11 »

Quote from: MihaiZaharia on September 26, 2023, 07:50

Not only this is morally wrong, but it's also against the rules, which state clearly that you are not allowed to submit work depicting real places or identifiable property: "Don’t: Submit works depicting real places, identifiable property (e.g., famous characters or logos), or notable people (whether photorealistic or - even caricatures)."

Exactly this.

„terrorist attack on urban center“, while distatsteful, could probably work.

but any mentioning of new york, september, trade center is prohibited.

so…how did this get through inspections?

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** September 26, 2023, 11:56 »

While I agree that the submission requirements do say it shouldn't have identifiable locations/people/etc - so in this case - I would say this should have not gone through according to the current specs...

However, making a reason to reject based on something that could be construed/potentially "offend" someone - while yes, of course tragic/etc, and definitely very tragic for anyone personally affected - it would not be right to reject something because someone could be potentially offended, otherwise, where do you stop? Slippery slope. Some people might not like pictures of cows (i.e., vegans, east indians, etc). Some people might not like pictures of churches, or conversly mosques, (i.e., they "feel offended" by a particular religion), etc. Some might not like political parties, political stances, etc. Some people might not like 'black' people, others might not like 'white' people, others might not like 'asian' people, etc, etc. So 'feeling offended' is not a good reason to reject. (Total aside - last 3 years should have been an eye opener for many in terms of what really happened then, as well as what really happened WWII/etc - people are deliberately having their emotions/thoughts manipulated - but entirely different topic).

cobalt · « **Reply #10 on:** September 26, 2023, 12:19 »

agencies are not safe spaces

there is all kinds of war imagery, difficult content dealing with sexual abuse etc…there are very legitimate reasons why this kind of content is needed by clients in certain situations

they still have regulations, no outright pornography, nudity of children etc…

but it is a cruel world out there and now we have a war in the center of europe

terrorist attacks are a horrible reality in many places

but you cannot base the content on a real and horrible event

Injustice for all · « **Reply #11 on:** September 26, 2023, 12:24 »

ugly images,bad from every point of view.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #12 on:** September 26, 2023, 12:48 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on September 26, 2023, 11:56

While I agree that the submission requirements do say it shouldn't have identifiable locations/people/etc - so in this case - I would say this should have not gone through according to the current specs...

However, making a reason to reject based on something that could be construed/potentially "offend" someone - while yes, of course tragic/etc, and definitely very tragic for anyone personally affected - it would not be right to reject something because someone could be potentially offended, otherwise, where do you stop? Slippery slope. Some people might not like pictures of cows (i.e., vegans, east indians, etc). Some people might not like pictures of churches, or conversly mosques, (i.e., they "feel offended" by a particular religion), etc. Some might not like political parties, political stances, etc. Some people might not like 'black' people, others might not like 'white' people, others might not like 'asian' people, etc, etc. So 'feeling offended' is not a good reason to reject. (Total aside - last 3 years should have been an eye opener for many in terms of what really happened then, as well as what really happened WWII/etc - people are deliberately having their emotions/thoughts manipulated - but entirely different topic).

For me, it's not the subject itself, i.e. an exploding building in a big city, for example. Whoever likes that, let them do it.
My personal problem is the reference to a named real horrible event. The whole thing then also with bad unrealistic pictures. This is in bad taste and respectless from my point of view, not to mention that it violates Adobe's guidelines.

It reminds me of the mentality of cell phone gawkers during accidents.

yuriy · « **Reply #13 on:** September 26, 2023, 14:54 »

it's only really exploitative if someone uses it. my hunch is these will live at the bottom of the heap of 0 times downloaded images. can't imagine anyone in their right mind using these.

Wilm · « **Reply #14 on:** September 26, 2023, 15:39 »

Quote from: everest on September 25, 2023, 15:15

Truly disgusting......

Whats next jews gas chambers recreation with explicit fake images, hutu and tutsi fake images....

This has to stop and I hope that companies that accept this kind of content get hit hard or by laws or by boycott

Truly disgusting....

1000% agreed!

Wilm · « **Reply #15 on:** September 26, 2023, 15:43 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on September 26, 2023, 12:48

Quote from: SuperPhoto on September 26, 2023, 11:56
While I agree that the submission requirements do say it shouldn't have identifiable locations/people/etc - so in this case - I would say this should have not gone through according to the current specs...

However, making a reason to reject based on something that could be construed/potentially "offend" someone - while yes, of course tragic/etc, and definitely very tragic for anyone personally affected - it would not be right to reject something because someone could be potentially offended, otherwise, where do you stop? Slippery slope. Some people might not like pictures of cows (i.e., vegans, east indians, etc). Some people might not like pictures of churches, or conversly mosques, (i.e., they "feel offended" by a particular religion), etc. Some might not like political parties, political stances, etc. Some people might not like 'black' people, others might not like 'white' people, others might not like 'asian' people, etc, etc. So 'feeling offended' is not a good reason to reject. (Total aside - last 3 years should have been an eye opener for many in terms of what really happened then, as well as what really happened WWII/etc - people are deliberately having their emotions/thoughts manipulated - but entirely different topic).

For me, it's not the subject itself, i.e. an exploding building in a big city, for example. Whoever likes that, let them do it.
My personal problem is the reference to a named real horrible event. The whole thing then also with bad unrealistic pictures. This is in bad taste and respectless from my point of view, not to mention that it violates Adobe's guidelines.

It reminds me of the mentality of cell phone gawkers during accidents.

So true!

Noedelhap · « **Reply #16 on:** September 27, 2023, 11:59 »

Terrible and tasteless.
These depictions of a real-life, horrific event should definitely be removed and prohibited...It's still relatively recent to many people, at least for many survivors and victims' relatives.

Adobe really needs to start following its own guidelines, right now it looks bad on them and it also dilutes the collection.

I think AI-contributors should just stick to basic harmless themes or concepts, like, I don't know, holiday themed artwork? Like this one, Happy Haipphpwerean!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #17 on:** September 28, 2023, 06:53 »

I am so happy to see that all these images are now gone - just 404 pages remain.

The deluge of fake city shots from all over the world - how many towers in tower bridge? How many Big Bens? - is still there, but one step at a time :

real people doing real things in real places...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2023, 11:49 »

Looking at today's approvals, I see these shots? W-T-F???

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211677655/graphix?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

Needless to say I won't be hiring them on Behance...

IMO these need to go too

yuriy · « **Reply #19 on:** September 29, 2023, 12:54 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 29, 2023, 11:49

Looking at today's approvals, I see these shots? what???

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211677655/graphix?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

Needless to say I won't be hiring them on Behance...

IMO these need to go too

what did the poor woolworth building do to deserve this?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: genAI images of the 9/11 destruction in New York - seems wrong in multiple ways (Read 2564 times)

Jo Ann Snover

dragonblade

Mir

Kenneth_17

RalfLiebhold

everest

PhotoBomb

MZP

cobalt

SuperPhoto

cobalt

Injustice for all

RalfLiebhold

yuriy

Wilm

Wilm

Noedelhap

Jo Ann Snover

Jo Ann Snover

yuriy

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors