MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: MatHayward on April 26, 2023, 17:04
-
Hi Everyone,
A quick update to let you know that as promised, we have added a search filter for generative AI images for Adobe Stock customers.This can be discovered in the filter panel on the left of the search results.
It is very important if you are submitting images created with generative AI software, that you click the check box when indexing to confirm it is generative AI. All other generative AI submission guidelines remain in place, including metadata requirements and submitting all generative AI images as illustrations regardless of whether they are photo-realistic or not.
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
Sounds good!
Hope this brings us a lot more downloads.
Do you think the queue for inspections will remain at over 20 days, or do you think it can be brought down?
I mean I am trying to focus more on christmas instead of summer and also adding more non seasonal content.
But it is also simply more fun, if files go online quickly.
-
It is very important if you are submitting images created with generative AI software, that you click the check box when indexing to confirm it is generative AI.
Worrying admission from Adobe that they are not even able to decipher a real photo from an AI generated image.
The only rule is and will be money... forget loyalty, preservation, conscience, truth, honesty...
See this : https://stock.adobe.com/fr/contributor/211252585/robert-meyner
All those named "portrait photography" in description and keywords, that are not, (but no issue for Adobe?) and maybe even accepted in priority compared to true real models photographies. ??? :-\ >:(
Searching "human photography" keyword and you get or will get tons of AI generated images...
Why did Adobe not create a "photography" section for non AI images? Maybe their interest to finaly get rid of real photographers royalties.
Maybe there could be more "I want real photography image" than "I want AI generated image"
-
https://stock.adobe.com/fr/contributor/211252585/robert-meyner
seeing all these images next to each other, you quickly realize that these are not real people. I consider a maximum of 1% to be "buyable" and usable. AS should really select much more strictly. As a customer, I am annoyed by the other 99% because I have to scroll through them.
-
I think they are all perfectly usable.
And customers can now filter out ai images, so all is good.
The algorithms are very good in dealing with similar images, there are probably 100 000 similar looking sunsets uploaded every year. But the softwrae creates a useful mix based on customer preferences.
If you want someone to aggressive prefilter everything for you, the go to stocksy, westend61 or Adobe high end collections.
You have to pay more for curated collections where the artists are actually restricted.
Adobe gives the artist full control, a much better system.
Build yourself a linklist with your favorite artists and just check their ports once a month.
-
It's an interesting questions as to whether the AI images of people look real or not. There are a few clues if you look closely, but a large amount are certainly passable.
Mine clearly fool the reviewers because, despite being clearly marked and checked as Generative AI on the submissions page, I'm still being asked to supply model releases.
-
Did you add property releases?
Adobe requires a property release for real looking people that are not based on real people photographs.
-
Did you add property releases?
Adobe requires a property release for real looking people that are not based on real people photographs.
Thanks for that and, no, I didn't submit a property release - first AI generated people, and other site accepted them with 'fictitious person' in the description, so I forgot about the rule. I would have remembered if they were rejected for needing a property release, but the model release rejection threw me.
I'll resubmit later and attach the correct release.
-
It is very important if you are submitting images created with generative AI software, that you click the check box when indexing to confirm it is generative AI.
Worrying admission from Adobe that they are not even able to decipher a real photo from an AI generated image.
The only rule is and will be money... forget loyalty, preservation, conscience, truth, honesty...
See this : https://stock.adobe.com/fr/contributor/211252585/robert-meyner
All those named "portrait photography" in description and keywords, that are not, (but no issue for Adobe?) and maybe even accepted in priority compared to true real models photographies. ??? :-\ >:(
Searching "human photography" keyword and you get or will get tons of AI generated images...
Why did Adobe not create a "photography" section for non AI images? Maybe their interest to finaly get rid of real photographers royalties.
Maybe there could be more "I want real photography image" than "I want AI generated image"
I looked at the port. and I don't know the better AI sites. He can put the same persons face in different scenes and settings? That's pretty interesting. And they are AI faces?
After reading "Identify any generative AI art as illustration, even if it looks like a photograph - only content primarily created using a camera can be submitted as photos. " that's good, if artists follow the guidelines.
-
https://stock.adobe.com/fr/contributor/211252585/robert-meyner
Those are amazing images. Ironic that the stock business model that everyone was told to follow - shoot people - is going to be the first sector to be consumed by AI.
-
https://stock.adobe.com/fr/contributor/211252585/robert-meyner
seeing all these images next to each other, you quickly realize that these are not real people. I consider a maximum of 1% to be "buyable" and usable. AS should really select much more strictly. As a customer, I am annoyed by the other 99% because I have to scroll through them.
They all look related to each other in a weird way but if I didn't know I might not have realized many were AI - it was weird though I clicked on one randomly that looked like a woman in her late 60's early 70's and it said portrait of a satisfied woman in her 50's - I'd have been less than satisfied if I looked that old in my 50's LOL. But you're right, seeing them together there is something eerily not quite right about them, but seen alone, I'm not sure you'd notice it.
But I have to agree with @cobalt, at least in part, IMHO certainly well over half are quite useable as portraits, although they don't show people doing anything (smart choice since AI seems unable to do hands right).