MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My suggestion to Adobe Stock. "Suspend all sales and upload of AI images"  (Read 1991 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 27, 2023, 17:26 »
+21
until Adobe Stock has clear idea of potential legal ramifications of AI generated images and until Adobe Stock has sufficient reviewing system to reject images with potential problems.  That way, contributors don't have to worry about our years of works blocked and start uploading new images again.  Blocking contributors for uploading images that were simply rejected in the past is ridiculous.  It should be up to reviewers to decide they'll take it or reject it, and their responsibility too.  Also get rid of that scary disclaimer when submitting images.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2023, 20:20 by blvdone »


« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2023, 18:26 »
+6
I agree.  I think they way underestimated the number of AI submissions they'd get.

And that new pop-up checkbox just gives them a way out when accounts get suspended.

"Well, YOU checked that box, so....SUSPENDED!"

Mat should chime in, other than just regurgitating the official company policies and procedures, which apparently changes on a dime.

f8

« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2023, 18:57 »
+5
I agree. I don't do AI nor do I have any interest in doing so. What I have observed is that ever since the AI content came about my work has been rejected at levels that baffle me. My photos and illustrative editorial rejections are so random it's senseless based on my track record of having thousands of previous images accepted. My videos still go through with the normal/acceptable amount of rejections. And the wait time for inspections is a joke.

That scary disclaimer is also just that. I am so hesitant to upload anything, especially 'illustrative editorial' which does have logos and trademarks but the disclaimer does not address this.

My suggestion to Adobe is to get your shyte together. Before you get into full gear with AI, perhaps start using some I.

I am very concerned as a contributor.

f8

« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2023, 19:05 »
+10
I agree.  I think they way underestimated the number of AI submissions they'd get.

And that new pop-up checkbox just gives them a way out when accounts get suspended.

"Well, YOU checked that box, so....SUSPENDED!"

Mat should chime in, other than just regurgitating the official company policies and procedures, which apparently changes on a dime.

I don't think Mat has any say on this nonsense. Mat has an amazing track record for reaching out to contributors. I feel sorry for him in this current situation, he has always done a great job, but now I think his hands are tied.

That said, if you have any suggestive powers Mat, perhaps you could pass on the discomfort far too many contributors have with the recent actions of Adobe. It's no longer a comfortable environment for too many of us.

I am not one to have a hissy fit and threaten to close my account but I can say with certainty that I am debating to continue uploading to Adobe as the risks are far greater than the reward.






Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2023, 02:58 »
+1
until Adobe Stock has clear idea of potential legal ramifications of AI generated images and until Adobe Stock has sufficient reviewing system to reject images with potential problems.  That way, contributors don't have to worry about our years of works blocked and start uploading new images again.  Blocking contributors for uploading images that were simply rejected in the past is ridiculous.  It should be up to reviewers to decide they'll take it or reject it, and their responsibility too.  Also get rid of that scary disclaimer when submitting images.

They don't need to do any of this. You probably didn't notice but they've added a SECOND warning after the first now. AND it's in red. So problem solved.

But in all seriousness, AI is a way for these companies to employ less staff, not have to employ more to make sure images are properly reviewed and contributors are fairly treated.


« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2023, 03:52 »
0
Seems to be clear that the Company has a new political way. That's understandable. It seems to me rejections are the mode to put a limit to "out of order submissions". The honest way (if at this days its feasible) would be to warn with a message about the need for Adobe to cover its stock with another type of imagery. A manner to avoid the contributor a sort of continuous frustration with inconsistent rejections. Just a little respect. Who wants to hear.

« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2023, 04:29 »
+3
The majority of the ai content is fine, except for maybe distorted fingers etc...

Customers love to buy ready made ai content because it is THE big trend in visuals and if you look around current blog posts, articles, advertising... visibly looking ai images are everywhere.

So if you deactivate or stop ai, Adobe will lose a lot of money. This is the most important buying season of the year and customers have lightboxed millions of files for their projects.

And Adobe is integrating firefly into their products, so stopping ai would mean stopping Photoshop itself.

Banning ai completely is not necessary, but Adobe needs to deal with the problematic review process. Producers have been documenting the problematic files for months.

And a new group of incoming talent needs a better education what is acceptable for stock.

The problem is solvable, but the current blocking ports completely process is very extreme though.

I hope they do better.


« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2023, 16:16 »
+2
Im surprised to see all the support I got for this.  I thought I would be ridiculed by the usual haters.  Nice!!

« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2023, 02:46 »
+1
until Adobe Stock has clear idea of potential legal ramifications of AI generated images and until Adobe Stock has sufficient reviewing system to reject images with potential problems.  That way, contributors don't have to worry about our years of works blocked and start uploading new images again.  Blocking contributors for uploading images that were simply rejected in the past is ridiculous.  It should be up to reviewers to decide they'll take it or reject it, and their responsibility too.  Also get rid of that scary disclaimer when submitting images.

Exactly. Another issue is that it seems like you cant uphold copyright for AI generated images. They are like poblic domain - at least untill further court rulings.

On this homepage you can see if your images are used to train the system:

https://haveibeentrained.com/

« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2023, 02:52 »
+1

Exactly. Another issue is that it seems like you cant uphold copyright for AI generated images. They are like poblic domain - at least untill further court rulings.


That's not really a problem for Adobe though. They are not selling copyrights.
And many agencies do sell public domain images (even though they only seem to give the privilege to submit such content to certain account), so that has never really been an issue. The question you have to ask yourself is "Why are customers paying for images that are free to use?" But, again, not Adobe's problem.

« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2023, 14:17 »
+1
...

Exactly. Another issue is that it seems like you cant uphold copyright for AI generated images. They are like poblic domain - at least untill further court rulings.

On this homepage you can see if your images are used to train the system:

https://haveibeentrained.com/

not true - that ruling was just result in an isolated case and has been misunderstood & misrepresented -- see
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/generative-ai-collection-of-links-and-important-articles-videos-court-cases/msg591118/#msg591118

additionally, in the same notice that said AI works cannot be copyrighted, they qualified (and muddied) that notice with a statement saying "On the other hand, a work containing AI-generated material may be copyrightable where there is sufficient human authorship, such as when a human selects or arranges AI-generated material in a creative way or modifies material originally generated by AI technology. Ultimately, copyright protection will depend on whether the AIs contributions are the result of mechanical reproduction, or they reflect the authors own mental conception, the Copyright Office said. The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.


https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2023/03/can-works-created-with-ai-be-copyrighted-copyright-office-issues-formal-guidance

as an aside, the link for testing training images is useless for most of us as you can only check 1 image at a time!

« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2023, 14:31 »
+1
...The question you have to ask yourself is "Why are customers paying for images that are free to use?" But, again, not Adobe's problem.

  • Many users dont know how to find these images --- the Metropolitan Museum and others have made their images publicly available copyright-free, even commercially, under creative commons (due to required credits most agencies wont accept these images, but end users can)
  • or they dont know how to search images on google, (which doesnt separate free images)/li]
    • or they dont have the time to search to find what they need
    • others may have subscriptions making quick access to, public domain images cheap.

« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2023, 16:11 »
+2
That's not really a problem for Adobe though. They are not selling copyrights.
And many agencies do sell public domain images (even though they only seem to give the privilege to submit such content to certain account), so that has never really been an issue. The question you have to ask yourself is "Why are customers paying for images that are free to use?" But, again, not Adobe's problem.

No no no please sorry, it's exactly the opposite  ;D
For Adobe stock the problem IS EXACTLY "why someone is paying me to have this image?"

About image source: it can be original, or public dmain, or AI generated, it doesn't matter.
And it doesn't matter BOTH for AdobeStock and for the buyer!

The final goal is to have the necessary image, and to have it in the shortest time as possible. This is the reason to exist for stock agency.

We are complaining for lowing royalties from years... but from the business point of view, it's the SPEED the killerapplication for any agency, not the price: if I can find the image FASTER, I win. With no difference about the source.

TIME is the most important value now in this market. The buyers time!
Databases cover quite all of reality (and fantasy) subject. Yes there are still some niches of course... but as niches they will interest only a really few number of buyers.

In the mainstream, buyers want SPEED: the BEST image in the FASTEST time; and for this reason, a ready to use image will be always winner and faster than a "probably-I-Try-To-Obtain-with-AI"
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 16:15 by derby »

« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2023, 00:59 »
+2
I agree.  I think they way underestimated the number of AI submissions they'd get.

Agree but not sure how they managed to think that.

It was glaringly obvious once image generation from prompts appeared the vast sweat-shop image farms in various countries would just batch automate and industrialise this process.
Instead of creating an image which takes time they just need to mass feed simple text prompts.

It was absolutely obvious what would happen here.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4581 Views
Last post July 12, 2018, 08:25
by MatHayward
5 Replies
9989 Views
Last post April 10, 2021, 00:37
by Niakris
7 Replies
3737 Views
Last post January 16, 2023, 11:55
by Lowls
6 Replies
807 Views
Last post February 12, 2024, 06:35
by Faustvasea
15 Replies
450 Views
Last post March 17, 2024, 12:11
by stoker2014

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors