MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: blvdone on January 10, 2025, 20:13
-
I just noticed the keyword search on Adobe Stock excludes AI contents at default setting. Try doing a fresh search on a browser without any cookies and no log in. Do you see the same? My sales on AI contents are down this week suddenly. Maybe this is the reason. I wonder if Adobe Stock had any problem with customers buying AI contents without knowing these were AI generated.
-
removed
now having some test searches with excluded ai.
but it must be a glitch.
-
removed
now having some test searches with excluded ai.
but it must be a glitch.
I hope it's a temporary glitch. If not, AI sales will go down a lot.
-
they'll fix it. they wouldn't be taking in 5 million ai a week and then hide it in the search.
the ai content is what makes the adobe collection look very different and unique compared to the others.
-
Yes, well done Adobe!!! keep it going :)
Sure that AI sheeps are alrerady crying ;D ;D ;D
Next step:
- One section with real photography of real world, taken by photographers, excluding any AI images.
- Another section with AI generation engine directly used by customers, prompting themself what they want, maybe wih voice recognition (100% royalties for Adobe).
GOOD EXCITING NEWS!!!
-
my sales picked up yesterday. 2 real videos, rest ai content
Really curious how my income develops this year with adding 2000 camera video and camera photos
I am still processing ai daily, I have thousands of usable files. But I only prompt a tiny number every day, to keep the practice.
Only real camera material will generate money with ai training and ai royalties. So apart from just sales it is also a good longterm addition for a new revenue channel.
ai content cannot be used for training ai.
eta
Surprised the troll with no visible weekly rank or any success in selling stock is still supplying adobe.
Would have thought he is off to celebrating in "pure agencies" like shutterstock where he can take his rightfully worshipped place among his non ai peers.
Lead the way to enlightenment - leave adobe and close your port in protest....be a hero to the true camera believers, because only when you can push a button do you make art...
-
but why someone have to criticize those who produce AI content?Everyone does what they want,as if it were easy to produce quality AI content,it's not easy.
it makes no difference to me,only 22% of my port is AI.
However,as far as I know,AI content can also be used to train AI,information that comes from an official statement from Adobe,I don't want to misremember but I don't think so.
Who knows?Maybe it's not a glitch,maybe it's a choice to temporarily highlight the real contents.
Adobe's collection currently reports 401 million real content and 230 million AI content.
That's fine for me,it may be that I sell some real videos in the meantime,since I haven't sold one since November on Adobe,while in the meantime I sold some on SS,in November I sold several videos on Adobe,even a simple food video for 14 usd.
-
Actually, no, it's not a glitch - I just noticed the same thing.
It seems by default a number of search results are EXCLUDING genai - and you have to go explicitly "uncheck" that/rather check "include all" in order to see it...
And yes, I had noticed "ai" contents/sales seemed to be down significantly, and that could explain it... Hmm!
-
on the adobe stock community forum they say:
"Adobe's Buyers have been requesting this change since the advent of AI in the database. Some have threatened to cancel their Adobe Stock subscriptions because they don't want to have to sift through AI assets to find what they need. I suppose some followed through on that threat. This gives them a quicker way of accessing the Filter Panel. If Buyers are looking specifically for AI assets, they can still quickly find them."
-
that is fine. the search filter should simply be set to whatever the clients want.
-
on the adobe stock community forum they say:
"Adobe's Buyers have been requesting this change since the advent of AI in the database. Some have threatened to cancel their Adobe Stock subscriptions because they don't want to have to sift through AI assets to find what they need. I suppose some followed through on that threat. This gives them a quicker way of accessing the Filter Panel. If Buyers are looking specifically for AI assets, they can still quickly find them."
Seems like a poor judgement call then from Adobe to clutter their database with this AI rubbish. And they put so much work in it to get it there. Apparently customers are not keen on it. Ouch...
-
on the adobe stock community forum they say:
"Adobe's Buyers have been requesting this change since the advent of AI in the database. Some have threatened to cancel their Adobe Stock subscriptions because they don't want to have to sift through AI assets to find what they need. I suppose some followed through on that threat. This gives them a quicker way of accessing the Filter Panel. If Buyers are looking specifically for AI assets, they can still quickly find them."
Seems like a poor judgement call then from Adobe to clutter their database with this AI rubbish. And they put so much work in it to get it there. Apparently customers are not keen on it. Ouch...
it seems so ... buyers make the rules .. not adobe or us contributors ...
-
all my test searches now always included everything, including ai.
customers love buying ai, it would be weird to exclude the latest content by default.
but customers who want to have ai excluded most of the time should have an easy way to do that.
-
all my test searches now always included everything, including ai.
customers love buying ai, it would be weird to exclude the latest content by default.
but customers who want to have ai excluded most of the time should have an easy way to do that.
No, by default (at least for USA/Canada) - EVERY single "new" search now excludes "generative ai" by default.
(At least if you start from "stock.adobe.com" and perform a search there).
You have to explicitly enable it to see 'ai' content.
Tested several times, always the same result.
So it seems it resets it every time to exclude gen ai content.
-
I cannot currently imagine that this exclusion is an intentional setting, especially as all the filter settings are currently open ‘by default’.
It makes no economic sense to first bring more than 200 million AI images / AI videos onto the platform and then withhold them from paying customers, because let's be honest - most customers don't use these filters.
And yes, you can already see this ‘default setting’ in fewer sales at the moment - I myself have around 30k photos and 15k AI images in my portfolio with an account in its 8th year.
I'm curious to see whether an official will perhaps comment on this in the Adobe Discord, where the topic is already being widely discussed.
Let's see...
-
It must be some kind of glitch. It makes no economic sense to take 5 million fresh files a week and then hide them from the world.
Also if customers hated ai, they would have left for ss or getty in the last two years, but all we see is adobe picking up customers and having increased growth.
-
This is a very big stupidity, we need to convey to them that in order to make a flag in people's accounts to disable, for example, AI work and that's it, new clients will not look for where to turn on AI... they will simply leave, isn't it clear, and those who don't like it, go to the settings once, turn it on and that's it...
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
-
for those interested here is the old topic about this change ... dated 6 june 2023 .. so it's not a new "thing" ... How can I permanently disable AI-generated images showing up in my searches?
https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-ideas/how-can-i-permanently-disable-ai-generated-images-showing-up-in-my-searches/idi-p/13918799
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
Isn‘t that refering to all the ai people generate themselves, not bought on stock sites?
Because that stuff is often horrible and usually connected to fake news propaganda?
Customers need the option to choose with or wirhout ai and it should stick like any orher setting they prefer, like only with model released prople, only editorial, only vertical.
On Adobe the ai in a search looks normsl in a bedt match search.
-
Default needs to be no AI or better, a separate webpage and search entirely so buyers dont get confused.
I know first hand of quite a few buyers who have searched and bought only to find out its fake/AI and cant be used due to the defaults. Adobe is doing a terrible job separating what are 2 completely different disciplines.
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
I was watching a Youtube video the other day (and of course I forgot who I watched now) and they claimed that Youtube is not promoting videos with AI content but rather original human-sourced content. Now that is a simplistic recollection of what was said but I see that if this is indeed the situation and online creators have identified experiencing this, whether that is on Youtube or any other platform, then the demand for AI will naturally fall.
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
I was watching a Youtube video the other day (and of course I forgot who I watched now) and they claimed that Youtube is not promoting videos with AI content but rather original human-sourced content. Now that is a simplistic recollection of what was said but I see that if this is indeed the situation and online creators have identified experiencing this, whether that is on Youtube or any other platform, then the demand for AI will naturally fall.
i dont know if it's a new feature but yesterday i logged in my yt account to upload a video and there was a notice on top page saying that from now you can decide if your yt videos will be "given away" for ai training ... it's an option in the account settings ...
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
I was watching a Youtube video the other day (and of course I forgot who I watched now) and they claimed that Youtube is not promoting videos with AI content but rather original human-sourced content. Now that is a simplistic recollection of what was said but I see that if this is indeed the situation and online creators have identified experiencing this, whether that is on Youtube or any other platform, then the demand for AI will naturally fall.
i dont know if it's a new feature but yesterday i logged in my yt account to upload a video and there was a notice on top page saying that from now you can decide if your yt videos will be "given away" for ai training ... it's an option in the account settings ...
Yes I saw that too and your post just reminded to go check in studio settings it is not an opt out arrangement. Turns out it is set to opt in so left the check box blank. Seriously though, no earnings for creators to opt into this?
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
I was watching a Youtube video the other day (and of course I forgot who I watched now) and they claimed that Youtube is not promoting videos with AI content but rather original human-sourced content. Now that is a simplistic recollection of what was said but I see that if this is indeed the situation and online creators have identified experiencing this, whether that is on Youtube or any other platform, then the demand for AI will naturally fall.
i dont know if it's a new feature but yesterday i logged in my yt account to upload a video and there was a notice on top page saying that from now you can decide if your yt videos will be "given away" for ai training ... it's an option in the account settings ...
Yes I saw that too and your post just reminded to go check in studio settings it is not an opt out arrangement. Turns out it is set to opt in so left the check box blank. Seriously though, no earnings for creators to opt into this?
yeah i was wondering too ... they dont speak about what kind of revenue should we have ::)
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
I was watching a Youtube video the other day (and of course I forgot who I watched now) and they claimed that Youtube is not promoting videos with AI content but rather original human-sourced content. Now that is a simplistic recollection of what was said but I see that if this is indeed the situation and online creators have identified experiencing this, whether that is on Youtube or any other platform, then the demand for AI will naturally fall.
i dont know if it's a new feature but yesterday i logged in my yt account to upload a video and there was a notice on top page saying that from now you can decide if your yt videos will be "given away" for ai training ... it's an option in the account settings ...
Yes I saw that too and your post just reminded to go check in studio settings it is not an opt out arrangement. Turns out it is set to opt in so left the check box blank. Seriously though, no earnings for creators to opt into this?
here in advanced settings ...
Third-party training
Allow third-party companies to train AI models using my channel content
If you select this option, YouTube may share your videos with a third-party company provided that you and all other applicable rights holders have chosen to allow that company. The training permission status of all videos will be available through a publicly accessible interface. Learn more
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15509945?hl=en-GB
-
It must be some kind of glitch. It makes no economic sense to take 5 million fresh files a week and then hide them from the world.
Also if customers hated ai, they would have left for ss or getty in the last two years, but all we see is adobe picking up customers and having increased growth.
No offense meant. But where did you get your figures and your certainty?
I myself am experiencing significant growth at Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Depositphotos.
Maybe customers are running away from Adobe?
-
yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free ;D
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.
-
It must be some kind of glitch. It makes no economic sense to take 5 million fresh files a week and then hide them from the world.
Also if customers hated ai, they would have left for ss or getty in the last two years, but all we see is adobe picking up customers and having increased growth.
No offense meant. But where did you get your figures and your certainty?
I myself am experiencing significant growth at Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Depositphotos.
Maybe customers are running away from Adobe?
the only one I keep reading with an opposite trend is you :) Which I find interesting and encouraging for my real video/photo project for 2025.
all the stock groups I am in I read people seeing growth at adobe even if they upload little and very drastic drop in sales especially at shutterstock, with some reporting 70-90% crashes. real ports, real people, not amateurs.
about istock i read steady sales and those who regularly upload good content also growth but not as strong as on adobe.
just repeating what i see.
obviously every port is different
I am curious to see how this year develops for me with a focus on 50% camera video, some camera photos, and maybe 40% ai.
for ss there is also their published data which shows a drop in stock sales and stock subscribers. they have great ai growth and income to compensate but admit that their business is suffering even though they keep buying agencies and client contracts.
-
the only one I keep reading with an opposite trend is you :) Which I find interesting and encouraging for my real video/photo project for 2025.
Yes Jasmin, I hate being trendy and mainstream ;)
Thank you for your answer, which of course explains your point of view.
-
yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free ;D
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.
Yeh just went and read the information from your link above. I'm all for charity but for those who need it, not multi-million/multi-billion dollar third-party companies. What a joke.
-
yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free ;D
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.
Yeh just went and read the information from your link above. I'm all for charity but for those who need it, not multi-million/multi-billion dollar third-party companies. What a joke.
yes it's a joke ... more they have ... more they want ...
-
Doesn’t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let’s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).
I was watching a Youtube video the other day (and of course I forgot who I watched now) and they claimed that Youtube is not promoting videos with AI content but rather original human-sourced content. Now that is a simplistic recollection of what was said but I see that if this is indeed the situation and online creators have identified experiencing this, whether that is on Youtube or any other platform, then the demand for AI will naturally fall.
i dont know if it's a new feature but yesterday i logged in my yt account to upload a video and there was a notice on top page saying that from now you can decide if your yt videos will be "given away" for ai training ... it's an option in the account settings ...
Wow, interesting, thanks.
Details here:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15509945
-
yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free ;D
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.
YouTube is owned by Google. Maybe they are training Gemini for free?
-
yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free ;D
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.
YouTube is owned by Google. Maybe they are training Gemini for free?
not too far from reality ... maybe they have already taken videos for ai training for free from youtube users ... like the images taken from internet ...
Chathgp says: As of today, there isn't an exact and official number of videos on YouTube, as the platform is constantly expanding with millions of new videos uploaded every day. However, estimates suggest that YouTube hosts over 800 million videos.
Considering that around 500 hours of video are uploaded every minute (according to YouTube's official data), this number continues to grow rapidly.
-
the only one I keep reading with an opposite trend is you :) Which I find interesting and encouraging for my real video/photo project for 2025.
Yes Jasmin, I hate being trendy and mainstream ;)
Thank you for your answer, which of course explains your point of view.
You are not alone. While in 2023 Adobe was the clear winner for me (downloads and revenue), in 2024 it was surpassed by SS and IS regarding downloads. On revenue level Adobe was also surpassed by IS.
So I don't see this relative Adobe growth as well. Just the other way around actually.
This year (but is still early) this trend seems to continue. SS and IS are doing a lot better then AS.
-
then I must quickly upload more camera content to join the fun!
let‘s hope they keep royalties steady…
eta
so far this Sunday I have 4 sales…all are real photos.
Luckily I have a lot of real camera content for spring or simply isolated objects.
eta2
sale number 5 today is ai
-
It seems more and more buyers are fed up seeing AI images. Shutterstock says the same and Istock /Getty only shows real images.......it seems that leaving AI by default out will become the norm.
-
I sincerly doubt that because it sells so well.
ss keeps showing ai from their own generator and getty is continuosly pushing their ai tool in your face.
and in all reports ss favors the financial success of ai growth.
But it doesn‘t matter for me, because I do both types. And especially this year camera content is the main focus. I will just have to add more photos as well, not just videos.
eta
The reason istock is not yet taking ai created content by producers is because the legal situation with content created by midjourney and stable is murky.
They have said many times they are not against ai or ai content creation.
However their own ai tool is not capable to produce content in the quality of midjourney.
Neither does the SS tool, it is a joke not a serious ai tool.
But I suppose if they pool their ai resources, they might soon be able to offer a real midjourney competitor. And then they can allow producers to create content with their own tools.
Just like they offer "preshot images" as they now call it, they will also offer "precreated ai content".
The world is not going backwards.
All agencies will offer ai content, just like they offer camera content.
Plus - they can have an ai tool as a gamified app or website for the general public. Millions of people paying for ai generators.
Why should they not expand into this market.
And if they can offer fun tools where they can have millions of subscribers, then revenue from adataset licensing will also go up for the camera creation content producers provide.
Getty and SS are not a "safe heaven" for ai haters.
Ai content is coming to these platforms as well.
-
so was I right?it's not a glitch but a choice,the search still excludes AI content by default.
It's not necessarily a definitive choice,perhaps only temporary,on the other hand I think it also depends on the customers,many believe they prefer to see real content immediately,but others perhaps might prefer to see all types of content.
it is certainly difficult to please such a large audience.
I think that SS and Getty don't accept AI content because they simply want to create and sell it for 100% profit,they still need contributors for real content,but they are not interested in receiving AI content from contributors.
I don't think SS and Getty are worried about the legal implications of accepting AI,but they use this as an excuse to feed to contributors.
Adobe is the only agency that is truly interested in us being successful in our business/hobby/work,since Adobe is also the world leader in creating software tools for creativity and productivity.
but Adobe (in Arab culture) is also the mixture of clay,sand and straw dried in the shade,used by many populations in every era to build bricks! :D
-
so was I right?it's not a glitch but a choice,the search still excludes AI content by default.
It's not necessarily a definitive choice,perhaps only temporary,on the other hand I think it also depends on the customers,many believe they prefer to see real content immediately,but others perhaps might prefer to see all types of content.
it is certainly difficult to please such a large audience.
I think that SS and Getty don't accept AI content because they simply want to create and sell it for 100% profit,they still need contributors for real content,but they are not interested in receiving AI content from contributors.
I don't think SS and Getty are worried about the legal implications of accepting AI,but they use this as an excuse to feed to contributors.
Adobe is the only agency that is truly interested in us being successful in our business/hobby/work,since Adobe is also the world leader in creating software tools for creativity and productivity.
but Adobe (in Arab culture) is also the mixture of clay,sand and straw dried in the shade,used by many populations in every era to build bricks! :D
Since you are expert in Arab culture, is AI images generation halal or haram?
-
The reason istock is not yet taking ai created content by producers is because the legal situation with content created by midjourney and stable is murky.
There's actually nothing really "murky" about it - its actually quite black & white. Midjourney engaged in, and regularly engages in, massive, massive theft.
A lot of other so-called "ai" companies (i.e., even chatGPT) are basically thieves. They are thieves on a MASSIVE scale. They just want to hire expensive lawyers, & lobby to get the "laws" (which by no means are necessarily "moral") - but they want the "laws" to basically endorse their actions.
They COULD pay the authors they stole the works from in perpetuity going forward, as WELL as retroactively. They are hoping people don't realize that. SUPER easy to do.
The bigger picture most likely of what they are TRYING to do - is get "support" for it - by getting a lot of other people to benefit from their theft.
Kind of like a robber (aka midjourney/chatgpt) that robs 100 million from a bank - but as they leave the bank - every person they see on the street they give $1,000. When the cops come to investigate and say they need to recover ALL the money - the people that received $1,000 are much less likely to "give up" the robbers - simply because they benefited indirectly from the heist, may have already spent that $1k - and are reluctant to pay out of pocket the $1k they got.
THAT, I would say what midjourney/chatGPT + various other "ai" companies are REALLY doing. The "AI" is not a thinking machine, "TRAINING" is not "learning" - "TRAINING" is THEFT.
There is absolutely nothing "murky" about what they did, nor what they are doing. They are thieves on a very grand scale. They are simply trying to get support from other people - so it is less likely they get caught and/or in trouble.
It's pretty much EXACTLY the same playbook they used during convid (& yes, its the same group of people). They gave convid cheques to people around the world - so as they were printing literally BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to give to friends - they gave $2k convid cheques to people (which, lol they are trying to "recover" from people, so they are even trying to steal back the money they "gave" people). But because they printed all this money money money - a lot of people aren't looking at what REALLY happened - but focused on themselves.
It's the same thing here.
Incidentially - its the same reason most likely the shutterstock execs don't care about east indian theft. Because (a) they benefit directly from the theft of sales. and (b) if enough people complain about an account, they "seize" the funds and keep it for themselves, getting more MONEY. They don't give it back - they don't contact the people who purchased the assets and say 'Oooh, sorry, we found out you were sold stolen assets, so we are refunding your money'. No - they KEEP it. So the shutterstock execs LIKE east indian theft. Because it BENEFITS them. It is SUPER easy to stop the theft - one would be simply to reject east indian accounts. Second would be to simply compare new images to existing images in their database, and flag new accounts that upload similar/identical content for further investigation. Super easy. But they don't, because they don't want to.
"AI" - as it exists in its current form - is simply theft. Nothing "murky" - it's quite black and white.
Amazon is another company benefiting on a MASSIVE scale. They don't care if people use AI - in fact they LOVE it - because "millions" of people are trying to "get rich quick" selling "ai" books. What they care about is MONEY MONEY MONEY. As long as it doesn't affect their bottom line - they are all for it.
What is going on right now - is the people with the "AI" tools are trying to justify their theft, and trying to get away with it.
What the PROPER solution would be is:
a) Retroactively pay back ALL contributors who had 'ai generations' based on their works they stole. Programatically EASY to do.
b) Going forward, allow artists to opt in/opt out at the % revenue share THEY (the artist) specifies, for image generations, and be paid in perpetuity (i.e., regular daily cheques).
c) Have opt/opt-out models rebuilt DAILY, so if an artist every wants to opt out - quite simple to do - and the new 'trained' models do not include their data in generations. If the artist 'opt-in' again - then it is included in generations, and they are compensated in micro payments for any use.
That would be "ethical" AI.
The psychos running the "ai machines" don't want to do that because they greedy pyschotic sociopaths - but THAT would be an "ethical" solution. VERY feasible. And it will happen once enough artists start DEMANDING that they be compensated FAIRLY on terms THEY set for use of the stolen assets.
-
I don't quite understand the connection between covid and ai...
But the legal situation is NOT clear cut at all.
Robert Kneschke has been suing the LAION association that scraped the entire planet for content without asking anyone here in Germany.
And to everyones surprise on the first level the association won, the judge stated they have the right to do that.
They even countersued Robert who insisted to have his files removed from their "packages". You can actually download for free everything they "collected". They are demanding damages from him, because he wants to have his files removed.
Both parties are taking it to the next level.
There are also other court cases in other countries and also some attempts to make "data training material collection" legal in some countries.
It will take years to have a proper legal framework about ai training material that can be applied across the planet.
What you think is right and what courts see and apply can be very different things.
---
But "precreated ai content" will be coming to getty/ss, just like they offer "preshot images".
There is a reason for these new carefully crafted marketing terms.
The ai generator they offer is not as good as midjourney, but maybe if they combine the content from all their libraries and with the help of nvidia, they can perhaps come up with something with a similar level of quality.
Millions of people are paying 10-60 dollars a month to have fun with ai. Very few people have a professional stock subscription, but I now many who pay for ai every month. Just for fun as a hobby.
It might become just as popular as mobile phone photography and attract millions of amateurs.
The best apps/websites go viral.
There is a lot of money in this new market.
And for video ai creation it is best to have a starting image, real or ai.
Again money to be made with ai video fun.
So...getty and ss are not a "safe space" who are against ai. Both have made it clear they see ai as a huge financial opportunity and want to become strong leaders in that market as well.
They are just taking a different way to integrate ai.
ai media collections will appear on their platforms at some point. Probably they will require the use of their own ai apps, also to make money from the producers and to have a clear legal path.
But they need a high quality app first, which they don't have right now.
So that competition will hit all of us on these platforms as well.
-
so was I right?it's not a glitch but a choice,the search still excludes AI content by default.
It's not necessarily a definitive choice,perhaps only temporary,on the other hand I think it also depends on the customers,many believe they prefer to see real content immediately,but others perhaps might prefer to see all types of content.
it is certainly difficult to please such a large audience.
I think that SS and Getty don't accept AI content because they simply want to create and sell it for 100% profit,they still need contributors for real content,but they are not interested in receiving AI content from contributors.
I don't think SS and Getty are worried about the legal implications of accepting AI,but they use this as an excuse to feed to contributors.
Adobe is the only agency that is truly interested in us being successful in our business/hobby/work,since Adobe is also the world leader in creating software tools for creativity and productivity.
but Adobe (in Arab culture) is also the mixture of clay,sand and straw dried in the shade,used by many populations in every era to build bricks! :D
Since you are expert in Arab culture, is AI images generation halal or haram?
and who told you that I am an expert in Arab culture?
Did an elf pass by and whisper in your ear? :D
or much more simply does it seem nice to you to to annoy me?
actually if I have to tell you I'm not very interested in the answer,but if you want go ahead,I'm for freedom,after all this is freedom too!
although there is a saying that your freedom ends where mine begins! :)
-
I expect an exciting development like we se currently in the politics.
I have always pointed out the flood of artificially generated images and warned that Adobe needs to take control of this flood.
I think the merger of Getty Images and Shutterstock will put Adobe under massive pressure and force them to finally clean up their fragmented collection of AI-generated images.
Since Getty and Shutterstock have not accepted AI-generated images and their merger will make their image collection even larger than Adobe's, which is not poisened by AI images with generative errors, the risk for Adobe will become very high that many customers could switch.
Considering Open AI's announcement that we will be close to achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in 2025 and AI agents will be working on a human mental level (compare statements from Microsoft's CEO, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.), it is likely that Adobe will replace all human reviewers with AI agents and start controlling the flood of AI-generated images. Artificial images labeled as "real" will be easily detected and all images with generative errors will be automatically rejected.
How old images will be handled is very questionable. If the pressure from the merger of Getty Images and Shutterstock becomes too high, Adobe will have to perform a "reset" with their datebase.
What this will look like one can only speculate at this point.
-
Shutterstock is filled with ai content generated by them or customers and is very low quality.
And both companies have loads of undeclared ai, especially Shutterstock has many portfolios that consist only of ai images and don‘t seem keen on cleaning it up.
Premade ai content will be part of all agencies, but it is possible that SS/Getty will generate that content with a team by themselves so they never have to pay royalty fees.
On the other hand, they could have also mass produced camera images with teams and kicked out amateur photographers.
But they never did.
Ai will soon be integrated into camera software.
How will agencies avoid ai then?
eta
ai still cannot generate reliable hands or feet and nature and animals are usually weird fantasy hybrids that do not exist in the real world.
ai is not self learning, changes in the last 4 years are very slow and incremental.
So it is very unlikely that ai can replace image inspectors if they cannot get the most basic things right.
-
Considering Open AI's announcement that we will be close to achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in 2025 and AI agents will be working on a human mental level (compare statements from Microsoft's CEO, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.), it is likely that Adobe will replace all human reviewers with AI agents and start controlling the flood of AI-generated images. Artificial images labeled as "real" will be easily detected and all images with generative errors will be automatically rejected.
This feels like more big talk aimed at investors than a realistic assessment of where we actually are. We’re still waiting for basic things like the winds to slow down so we can fight fires effectively. We can’t predict exactly where a seismic event will strike, and even our weather forecasts struggle to stay accurate beyond three days.
To say we’re on the edge of AGI waking itself up by 2025 is a huge leap. Sure, the idea is exciting, but the reality is we’re nowhere near solving even the foundational issues required to get there. Let’s be honest—this kind of claim is more about hype than substance right now.
-
Adobe Stock should put a "Turn on AI generated contents" button above the search results. Most buyers may not use the filter panel.
-
Adobe Stock should put a "Turn on AI generated contents" button above the search results. Most buyers may not use the filter panel.
No. Make it a "turn OFF" and leave it ON by default. Those that WANT it off will find it easily. Others will get the benefit of both.
-
Adobe Stock should put a "Turn on AI generated contents" button above the search results. Most buyers may not use the filter panel.
No. Make it a "turn OFF" and leave it ON by default. Those that WANT it off will find it easily. Others will get the benefit of both.
Yeah, of course that's better. I'm just surprised if so many buyers missed the "Generated with AI" description on every AI generated works on Adobe Stock. How can they miss that?
-
I don‘t think they miss seeing it, but too many files in the search are ai if you don‘t want ai.
It should be a simple button on top, no ai, so those who don‘t it can keep it ou.
Maybe a simple toggle switch and highly visible.
And sticky unless you change itß
fwiw, yesterday, sunday, I had 11 sales, 4 camera images, 7 ai.
Looks like a normal slow Sunday.
-
Recent top sellers list has only 2 AI creators out of top 10. Previous week, 7 out of top 10 were AI creators. It was a bad week for AI creators since Adobe Stock made this change.
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributors?start_date=2025-01-06
-
the point is that SS and Getty not only want to pay us low royalties but also compete with us with AI,this is the truth.
I agree that in any case MJ had to pay the agencies and the agencies had to pay us their percentage for the AI training,this would have been fairer,but it didn't happen and it will never happen,this is the world we live in,a world where justice the real one is just a word and nothing more.
I clearly agree with having an opt out,it's just right.
SS is also the agency that lowered the minimum royalties to 0.10 in the midst of the pandemic,it is a lack of respect and consideration for our work,as is the non-exclusive 15% of Istock.
Even today when I see 0.10 I feel bad,I will never get used to it,sometimes I see content where I worked for hours,going away at 0.10c is truly humiliating,it's a shame and this thing must be eliminated.
if SS restores the old royalty structure I will go back to uploading to SS too.
"we remain committed to supporting our contributors,our commitment to you remains a top priority".
says SS in his recent email update,and I say:"ok,I'm happy that you have our interests at heart,so prove it,but with facts not talk!"
yes maybe it would be a good idea to have a "turn on AI" button in Adobe Stock at the top easily accessible and visible without having to go to the filter panel.
-
Recent top sellers list has only 2 AI creators out of top 10. Previous week, 7 out of top 10 were AI creators. It was a bad week for AI creators since Adobe Stock made this change.
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributors?start_date=2025-01-06
But….the bestseller list supposed to be based on sales of files from the last 3 months?
So how could a search change implemented in the last few days affect the bestseller list in this way?
Unless…there is something intentionally strange going on….
I always thought the bestseller list should be an editors choice.
This now looks like one.
-
It seems more and more buyers are fed up seeing AI images.
I am not an image buyer, but I read blogs and scroll through social media feeds... and I too am really fed up with these fake images and videos.
Also, 90% of AI images and videos are associated with poor-quality content, so now, if I see an AI image or video (and I usually recognize it), I skip to the next one.
Just look at the number of fake images and videos on X about the fires in Los Angeles. The web with AI is becoming a sewer.
Probably buyers who want to create quality content know this and therefore prefer to stay away from AI. I would do this ...
-
The majority of ai images online, especially the ugly ones, comes from people using free ai generators because they don‘t want to pay for stock images.
In addition ai fun is quickly becoming a popular hobby.
So…ai is not going away, you will probably see more and more ai being used online.
Using an actual camera to take your own pictures to illustrate your own blog and article might become as rare as listening to a vinyl record.
Before ai they were mostly using free image sites, stealing images online and occasionally taking images with their mobile phones.
Now ai writing apps supply you with text and images together and the social media marketers will churn out even more ai content.
Personally I am not worried. If customers want to buy more photos from agencies, fine by me, I supply camera content.
If they want nice looking ai and especially from a few useful niches, also fine by me because I have now learned how to create nice looking usable ai content.
And if they go all in on editorial, that would be excellent because that is my main video focus of the year.
Agencies because customers want to save time.
That advantage will always be there.
-
So…ai is not going away, you will probably see more and more ai being used online.
I agree, but given the speed at which AI content can be made, the web will be increasingly full of junk content.
And I think people will associate AI = junk.
If you were a customer and you have quality content, would you buy an AI image and run the risk of being associated with junk content?
I wouldn't.
So in the future we will definitely see a lot of AI content, but I think it will be used mostly by customers with medium-low budgets.
The web of the future will be dominated by "good enough" content ... and for me I don't think it's a good thing, in life I have always tried to learn with "the best" content on the market (books, courses, articles, blogs ...)
-
Recent top sellers list has only 2 AI creators out of top 10. Previous week, 7 out of top 10 were AI creators. It was a bad week for AI creators since Adobe Stock made this change.
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributors?start_date=2025-01-06
But….the bestseller list supposed to be based on sales of files from the last 3 months?
So how could a search change implemented in the last few days affect the bestseller list in this way?
Unless…there is something intentionally strange going on….
I always thought the bestseller list should be an editors choice.
This now looks like one.
Most recent top sellers list is based on the previous week's number of sales as far as I know.
-
You are right it is a mix, files from the last 6 month plus sales the week before.
But was the new filter applied all week?
I thought it only struck on Friday/week end
-
Recent top sellers list has only 2 AI creators out of top 10. Previous week, 7 out of top 10 were AI creators. It was a bad week for AI creators since Adobe Stock made this change.
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributors?start_date=2025-01-06
But….the bestseller list supposed to be based on sales of files from the last 3 months?
So how could a search change implemented in the last few days affect the bestseller list in this way?
Unless…there is something intentionally strange going on….
I always thought the bestseller list should be an editors choice.
This now looks like one.
Most recent top sellers list is based on the previous week's number of sales as far as I know.
I think the port size and % of sales to new files added recently may also be a factor. A lot of AI people are new contributors and as a result may well feature higher up in this. But...it's not really that important to be honest. I always pray to avoid those charts... and thankfully do and still rank from 75 - 800 through the year.
However, Adobe have made a conscious effort to change away from AI being the default. They won't have done it just for the heck of it and it'll either be driven by customer behaviour data (how many are switching it off for each search etc) or, they're receiving complaints from clients that they can't find what they want for the massive volume of AI imagery that is clogging up the search results. Either way, that's all I need to know from a business point of view for future planning. As with most fads / trends, there comes a point when the client (and their customers) become tired of a certain look and AI certainly has a "Look" that is easily spotted.
As was mentioned earlier, I believe AI imagery will stay around but will be used mostly by people who don't have a big budget or, by the masses who want an image to post in a forum, send to a friend or for a personal project. AI imagery in the broadsheets etc is now gaining a name as being junk, cheap and flooding the internet. It is the "Clip Art" of the future. As a designer or client, do you want to be seen using images that are viewed as cheap or fake by a large proportion of the general public who could also be your customers?
Personally, I still haven't used AI because it doesn't help me. It's another complication that requires a lot of processing, amending and fiddling around with to get it to do what I want. I just find it quicker to do it myself and at least that way I get what I want. It's about getting the idea from my head to the screen / page. I have a feeling a lot of the AI contributors it's like pulling the arm of a Slot Machine and hoping something interesting might turn up. They'll get lucky once in a while but mostly they'll produce stuff that will rarely sell... if ever. Hence the masses of junk landing all over the internet.
-
Maybe try some ai just to see what it is all about. It is a tool like camera or photoshop and not better or worse.
The reputation of junk/ai comes from the fact that most ai on social media comes from amateur users, playing with free ai. it is just as bad as the junk mobile phone shots.
As for photos being "real"...
High quality stock images are anything but.
The people images are fake as hell, using specific lighting, make up, styling and then post processing to create fake fantasy people.
"Professional" food images are created with motor oil, styropor ice cream, all kinds paints and a ton of post processing in photoshop.
Nature? Created with fake lenseflare, the sky exchanged for another image (now done with gen ai in photoshop), all kinds ditsracting elements removed or other elements added in collage style content, then overfiltered and overprocessed.
Stock photo images are not real. They are often just as fake as ai. But not clearly labeled as photoshop fantasy creations.
Only editorial is real.
With my buyer hat I would just use what looks good.
If the people are fake ai or fake overfiltered, makeup, processed monster creations - who cares?
If it carries the concept I want to promote, that is fine with me.
For travel editorial I would use real images on location, but if it includes people, the location might be real, but the models might be fake photoshop creations.
Customers should have a very easy way to sort content for their use. And it should be sticky.
But it is not possible to say the fake photoshop make up overfiltered "traditional camera stock" is more real than what producers create with ai.
-
A couple of months ago I had posted about the growth of the Adobe Stock collection over the previous 7 months (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/significant-growth-of-adobe-stock-collection-over-the-last-7-months/); essentially that the genAI collection had grown much faster than the human-created portion (82% vs 6.1%)
Separately from the issues of quality of accepted items, buyers' needs or number of buyers are not growing at anything like the rate that the AI collection is. In the last two weeks (Dec 30 to Jan 13), nearly 13.5 million genAI items have been added to the collection. 6.15% growth in two weeks
Human-made items have grown 0.39%, just over 1.5 million items
Another sobering thought is that now the genAI part of the collection is over half of the human-created part - 231,557,938 genAI and 401,987,228 human created. The genAI collection today is essentially the same size as the entire collection in Oct 2020 (232,291,841)
Adobe's thoughts are likely elsewhere - focused on the builk of their business and the role investors see AI playing in the company's future earnings. Adobe Stock is not a significant factor in that drama - it's all about monetizing AI add-ons to Creative Cloud subscriptions and banishing thoughts about all those subscriptions vanishing as creatives are replaced by AI tools.
While there are creative humans licensing content from Adobe Stock for their projects, giving them the best stuff at reasonable prices means sorting out search results is important. Not sure that accepting masses of content that you turn off in default searches makes any sense. Revisiting the policies for what genAI content you accept seems to make more sense - view the collection as a whole and target gaps you want to fill.
Edited to add links to a couple of Reddit threads where Adobe Stock customers were complaining about the genAI content being a problem for them. The first one is recent, prompted by the recent search change. The second is older but has some recent replies as well. There's definitely a theme that for some buyers, default being to exclude AI would be a plus
https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/199xe3a/does_anyone_find_it_messed_up_that_adobe_stock_is/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/199xe3a/does_anyone_find_it_messed_up_that_adobe_stock_is/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/1i09zlh/probably_adobe_stock_hides_ai_images_for/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/1i09zlh/probably_adobe_stock_hides_ai_images_for/)
Some quotes:
"I use adobe stock daily and it became my absolute nightmare. Not only it’s littered with AI photos most of them are absolutely garbage. Full of artefacts that you can only see once downloaded. Give me back 3d rendered graphics if anything please."
"I use stock images A TON so we're always looking at different stock photo/video options....we ventured over to Adobe Stock. * pointless venture. It's almost entirely AI generated stuff. If I wanted AI generated I would fire up Stable Diffusion and have it generate me an image. I want my stock site to give me real life photos."
"My company also has the subscription to Adobe stock. Downloaded an image, used it in my InDesign file, submitted it for review. At first glance this images seem normal but once you start working with them you notice nothing makes sense and the details are all messed up. If I was paying for the image I’d be pretty pissed. I know there is an icon for AI images but there is no quality control. They are a mess and when reviewing the thumbnail before downloading it’s easy to overlook."
-
All ai content is also made by humans.
it is just faster than creating images with many layers and images in photoshop.
And it is certainly not lower quality to all the amateur photos of nature, pets and beaches coming in.
Ai usually looks better because it has better lighting, colors and composition.
Adobe just needs to find a way to make their search sticky, but going by my own sales customers absolutely love ai.
Ai is clearly labelled and thus more honest than the fantasy collage creations of food with motor oil and models with 10 kilos of make up and photoshop frankenstein creations.
-
Maybe try some ai just to see what it is all about. It is a tool like camera or photoshop and not better or worse.
The reputation of junk/ai comes from the fact that most ai on social media comes from amateur users, playing with free ai. it is just as bad as the junk mobile phone shots.
As for photos being "real"...
High quality stock images are anything but.
The people images are fake as hell, using specific lighting, make up, styling and then post processing to create fake fantasy people.
"Professional" food images are created with motor oil, styropor ice cream, all kinds paints and a ton of post processing in photoshop.
Nature? Created with fake lenseflare, the sky exchanged for another image (now done with gen ai in photoshop), all kinds ditsracting elements removed or other elements added in collage style content, then overfiltered and overprocessed.
Stock photo images are not real. They are often just as fake as ai. But not clearly labeled as photoshop fantasy creations.
Only editorial is real.
With my buyer hat I would just use what looks good.
If the people are fake ai or fake overfiltered, makeup, processed monster creations - who cares?
If it carries the concept I want to promote, that is fine with me.
For travel editorial I would use real images on location, but if it includes people, the location might be real, but the models might be fake photoshop creations.
Customers should have a very easy way to sort content for their use. And it should be sticky.
But it is not possible to say the fake photoshop make up overfiltered "traditional camera stock" is more real than what producers create with ai.
I've tried it... it was worse for me. I was wasting a stack of time muck ing around with stuff I could do by hand properly in less time.
AI is not necessarily high quality, as you said, it's fast and fast + high quality rarely go together. Lighting is smooth but not necessarily real looking. It ends p too perfect and that's one of the many things that makes it stand out as AI.
-
Stock photo images are not real.
Only editorial is real.
No photograph is real, but is the result of the photographer's framing choices, the use of light, the choice of camera and lens used, and the final retouching in post-processing.
It is a transposition into 2D of a 3D scenario.
But, a photograph is still a sampling from reality, and if one does not make a collage, everything is in its place.
I do Travel and Landscape and for 15 years I have obtained excellent sales results because I try to be faithful to the original scene.
On the first page of Adobe Stock's London AI images there is this image.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/11/20/38/14/1000_F_1120381415_zTul2WUgXU03uRDKhziaPXtpU1PyXbrY.jpg)
When was the second Big Ben built? Tonight?
Today my Adobe Stock sales have taken off like a rocket and I will probably make my historical record of daily downloads. Back from vacation in Europe or the new search without AI?
I don't know. But it is a shame to see images like the one above. And there are so many in Adobe Stock's AI offer.
-
I have a feeling Adobe is preparing the frontend UI for separating the AI and the "real" collections by price. AI assets will be cheaper and the "real" ones will keep the current price. In this case it makes sense to show the customer the more expensive content by default, and allow him to see cheaper content by clicking a toggle. With their huge AI collection Adode doesn't need to pay the same amount as before to AI producers anymore - their work in growing the AI collection is mostly done.
-
I have a feeling Adobe is preparing the frontend UI for separating the AI and the "real" collections by price. AI assets will be cheaper and the "real" ones will keep the current price. In this case it makes sense to show the customer the more expensive content by default, and allow him to see cheaper content by clicking a toggle. With their huge AI collection Adode doesn't need to pay the same amount as before to AI producers anymore - their work in growing the AI collection is mostly done.
Eh... no. That is poor reasoning, one could say - eh, Adobe doesn't need to pay you any more, because they don't need you.
-
So images of pets, flowers and sunsets done with mobile phone should be more expensive than beautiful conceptual images done with ai??
Does anyone here ever look at what kind of crappy underexposed horrible stuff is being uploaded in the photo queue?
ai content, with proper inspection, looks much better than the usual amateur stuff.
All content is being offered for the same price, it does not matter to Adobe if it is an expensively produced series with paid models, location fees, mia and perhaps a few assistants or your pet cat sitting by the window.
One price for everything is a simple model.
I really don‘t get why people are pretending that camera stock is all high end 5 star macrostock being offered willingly at 10 cent prices.
The majority of content on the micros looks horrible and is mostly endless duplicates of duplicates.
And the same over all agencies.
—-
fwiw at the moment today I have 16 downloads, 10 camera images 6 ai.
ai is not disappearing from agencies.
The agencies that do not have an ai collection yet, will soon offer one as well.
Because giving the customer an ai tool to make their own ai images, is like giving the customer a mobile phone and telling them - take your own pictures.
Customers come to save time. Doing their own prompting does not save any time.
-
Ai results are back in search by default
-
Good.
Probably some people in the algo department were testing a few things in the interface on a slow week-end and are stunned it snowballed into such a shitstorm over the week-end…
The best protection is to supply many agencies and many media types.
I see zero drop in sales volume.
-
The majority of content on the micros looks horrible and is mostly endless duplicates of duplicates.
And the same over all agencies.
I agree with you, too many accounts with poor-quality images.
One of the problems of the stock industry (thought of a professional) came when the agencies started taking everyone by removing the entrance exam.
Today, over 40 downloads so far (my normal day is 15-20 downloads on AS, it's my third agency ...). All photographs, no AI in my portfolio.
However, I believe that it is due to the return from holidays of European customers.
-
Adobe's thoughts are likely elsewhere - focused on the builk of their business and the role investors see AI playing in the company's future earnings. Adobe Stock is not a significant factor in that drama - it's all about monetizing AI add-ons to Creative Cloud subscriptions and banishing thoughts about all those subscriptions vanishing as creatives are replaced by AI tools.
Exactly that. Stock is just a minor part of operations for Adobe. As a user of their apps I get spammed using AI and using photos that I can I adjust with all these new features they have. Remove something, add something, add a person, change the background, change the sky.
In the end the buyer doesn't need an AI generated photo by a contributor, they just need a good base to start from and add whatever they like with just a few clicks.
And those people that hold the Adobe subscriptions, to whatever the product they sell, are their clients not just the clients who buy ready to use images for copy and paste.
-
Ai results are back in search by default
Just confirmed it. Good to see Adobe has put AI works back in default search results. Probably their sales have gone down last week due to excluding AI works in default searches.
-
But my sales volume didn‘t change, neither did the ratio of camera to ai.
Ok, I am just one example, but if there was a gigantic drop or problem I would have seen that.
Adobe just played around with their UI on a quiet week-end with low sales time.
Then it snowballs into Adobe hates ai and weird dramatic articles are posted.
It does show a deep insecurity towards modern technology by all those who are not ready to adapt to changes.
Even though nobody is forced to use ai, if your sales are fine with camera content, that is ok.
All other agencies are planning to have their own ai Kollektion.
It is inevitable.
Customers buy from agencies because they don‘t have time to take their own pictures.
They also don‘t have time to do their own prompting and very happily buy ready made ai.
—-
ai is mostly a threat to people that don‘t really know how to use a camera, because their amateur images cannot compete with much better looking ai content.
Otherwise, as long as you do your research and offer content clients actually need you will always make money.
-
Adobe is loosing face and very quick with all this crap. I would not be surprised if very soon all contributors will receive a message that many of the AI images done by contributors that have those blatant errors will get deleted.
They cannot check one by one, so I have no clue on how they are going to do that, but this kind of weird stuff, and there is a lot of it, makes Adobe look very bad to buyers.......
Stock photo images are not real.
Only editorial is real.
No photograph is real, but is the result of the photographer's framing choices, the use of light, the choice of camera and lens used, and the final retouching in post-processing.
It is a transposition into 2D of a 3D scenario.
But, a photograph is still a sampling from reality, and if one does not make a collage, everything is in its place.
I do Travel and Landscape and for 15 years I have obtained excellent sales results because I try to be faithful to the original scene.
On the first page of Adobe Stock's London AI images there is this image.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/11/20/38/14/1000_F_1120381415_zTul2WUgXU03uRDKhziaPXtpU1PyXbrY.jpg)
When was the second Big Ben built? Tonight?
Today my Adobe Stock sales have taken off like a rocket and I will probably make my historical record of daily downloads. Back from vacation in Europe or the new search without AI?
I don't know. But it is a shame to see images like the one above. And there are so many in Adobe Stock's AI offer.
-
Here's another of Sydney from the top of the first page search results.
Since when did Circular Key vanish! ;D ;D ;D
I've posted an actual photograph below where you can see the blatant embarrassing error of this IA image and the equally blatant embarrassing acceptance of this in Adobe Stock's library...
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/jpg/07/22/95/59/1000_F_722955908_YovzT1GIGii4ePMg6D6GAgMYxUf9cDr0.webp)
(https://media.gettyimages.com/id/86963021/photo/sydney-aerial.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=Pt93gCOS_oRDrLoKqTPtry1KGSMYsxIsaxs8G1XNA5k=)
-
In the Adobe library this is clearly labelled as ai.
However it should not have a description claiming it is a real location. But the customer can easily see it is a fantasy image.
On Shutterstock you find entire ports consisting of ai images who have been accepted as camera content or handmade illustration, with no distinctions. Customers cannot filter them.
Adobe will certainly need to revisit their ai library and remove misleading content.
But if Adobe starts removing bad looking content, it will be removing lots of the ugly amateur photos first.
And all content is "sorted" by customer interactions.
You can always find ugly stuff to post here, but the reality is the ai collection is overall much better looking than the amateur content and mass duplicates being uploaded.
There is a reason ai sells so well.
And soon, you will have huge ai collections at all the other agencies.
It is inevitable.
-
If you were the editor of Lonely Planet or National Geographic would you risk buying AI images?
AI images and texts are the result of probabilistic and not deterministic algorithms. Errors are always around the corner.
With Photoshop and retouching, errors were very rare, but when they happened, magazines were laughed at. With AI, the probability of running into these errors increases a lot.
-
Here's another of Sydney from the top of the first page search results.
Since when did Circular Key vanish! ;D ;D ;D
I've posted an actual photograph below where you can see the blatant embarrassing error of this IA image and the equally blatant embarrassing acceptance of this in Adobe Stock's library...
OMG :o ... but color and light are perfect ;D
-
If you were the editor of Lonely Planet or National Geographic would you risk buying AI images?
AI images and texts are the result of probabilistic and not deterministic algorithms. Errors are always around the corner.
With Photoshop and retouching, errors were very rare, but when they happened, magazines were laughed at. With AI, the probability of running into these errors increases a lot.
Specific locations, I would prefer camera content. Probably real editorial to make sure nothing was edited.
But happy people hiking, at the beach, general city stroll, close up of a kid eating ice cream, families taking selfies at generic summer background, empty generic hotel room, generic airport with people travelling - for that ai will do perfectly well.
The reason ai is all over regular search results is because it has great response from customers.
Agencies always put customer interactions first.
That is why ai is mostly a "threat" to people who don't know how to shoot or process files properly.
No algo can force a customer to buy an ugly crappy "real camera" file if right next to it is a beautifully composed, well lit, great looking ai image.
But the editorial market will always be safe from ai and even with low quality amateur images people will still make money.
For generic commercial stock however...if you don't know how to produce professional looking content, the ai producers will eat your lunch.
-
that image of Big Ben for example can be corrected with a simple selection and generative fill,it doesn't take anything at all.
AI are not suitable for creating images of specific,real locations,but are more suitable for other types of work.
AI is not the problem,but who uses it.
Do you want to know how many AI images I created in the last week?(probably not but I'll tell you anyway! :D )
I created 17 AI images in a week and now I'm working on the eighteenth.
I'll start by saying that I haven't been working many hours a day lately,but still,creating quality AI content,correcting the face,teeth,eyes,using generative fills,blurs,and everything else takes time,if you really want to create AI content,interesting, different,quality and marketable,you have to dedicate time.
in my opinion creating quality AI content is more difficult than creating quality real content.
creating videos,in my opinion is easier than creating quality AI content,the only difference is that with videos you have to be in specific locations and you also have to have suitable equipment,but not necessarily,and it still depends on the type of video of course.
good to see AI back on track in the search.
and the blue bar is back! :)
-
1.337 / 5.000
How will misleading content in the Adobe library be removed? According to the examples given, everyone is knowledgeable about their own region.
I searched for "Istanbul" as artificial intelligence content in the Adobe library. I know very well because I live there. 85% of the images on the first page are misleading. How can an employee working at Adobe and living in another country know this?
Or how can I know whether the image about "Hamburg", which I have never been to, is misleading?
Actually, I wonder where exactly artificial intelligence images are used. Artificial intelligence images are definitely not used in magazines, newspapers, press and publishing websites in Turkey. It was used in the news of major newspapers a few times in the beginning. However, since the use of models that did not look like Turks in a news about Turkish Retirees was found quite ridiculous, the content of the news was changed immediately.
I am sure that the customer knows what kind of image they want. It is very good to separate Real Photo and AI in searches. But the selection tool could be in an easier place. It could be in the selection in the upper left corner.
(By the way, we can participate from Turkey, but Adobe is closed to Turkish customers. We can check our portfolio by changing the "tr" extension in the internet address bar to "fr". That's why the first page I see and the first pages you see may be different.)
-
More and more customers are being aware of this horror stories, and I am 100% sure that they will turn away or will be given instructions to stay away from this type of content or agencies that do not have solid ways to not have a solid way this crap slips through them.
Kudos so far for Getty to be very strict in this regard. They will kick out in an eye blink who ever tries to disregard this rules, and I think this time their are completely correct and protecting the library of those abuses. What they will do with the contaminated SS we will see, but I guess that large clients that want assurance they do not get horrid samples as those that have been posted here will have more motives to stay on the Getty library. At the end the Adobe IA acceptance move might be much more problematic than first expected.
-
1.337 / 5.000
How will misleading content in the Adobe library be removed? According to the examples given, everyone is knowledgeable about their own region.
I searched for "Istanbul" as artificial intelligence content in the Adobe library. I know very well because I live there. 85% of the images on the first page are misleading. How can an employee working at Adobe and living in another country know this?
Or how can I know whether the image about "Hamburg", which I have never been to, is misleading?
Actually, I wonder where exactly artificial intelligence images are used. Artificial intelligence images are definitely not used in magazines, newspapers, press and publishing websites in Turkey. It was used in the news of major newspapers a few times in the beginning. However, since the use of models that did not look like Turks in a news about Turkish Retirees was found quite ridiculous, the content of the news was changed immediately.
I am sure that the customer knows what kind of image they want. It is very good to separate Real Photo and AI in searches. But the selection tool could be in an easier place. It could be in the selection in the upper left corner.
(By the way, we can participate from Turkey, but Adobe is closed to Turkish customers. We can check our portfolio by changing the "tr" extension in the internet address bar to "fr". That's why the first page I see and the first pages you see may be different.)
The interesting question over AI is its potential impact on the stability and mental health of the general population. It's already been responsible for triggering civil disobedience via fake events generated accidentally and intentionally by local & foreign actors. The new battlegrounds of the future.
We're only at the beginning of AI really so without some sort of safeguarding, control or regulation to protect jobs and the truth, the internet is at risk of ending up as a mass of information that no one believe anymore. A lot of the fact checkers we see today are driven by companies with political agendas that use it as a way to push their own version of the truth by bending it here and there. In other words, who is going to control and provide you with the truth in the future?
For instance, if we look at the amount of AI imagery available at various agencies compared to real / photographic imagery, and, that they use the AI images as well as real ones when creating new datasets, the % of real imagery (correct data) will become less and less and potentially provide even less accurate results if things are not managed correctly. If the same happens with written facts online, people will start to doubt everything they see even if it was actually the truth.
AI has so much potential to do good things, to make a positive difference in life but if we're not careful, it could also do a lot of damage. Imagery, while important to us, is only a small element of the whole AI thing and I worry that our current crop of politicians etc are not really up to the job. They see $$$ signs first and fail to grasp the long term damage it could cause if not handled correctly, probably because they know they won't be around when the preverbal hits the fan and that'll be for someone else to sort it out.
For us older bods that only have a few years left to work it's probably not a major issue but for the younger generations that still have 20+ years left to work, they'll see jobs being wiped out with minimal replacements in return as businesses look to use the tech to slash more and more employees to improve their bottom as politicians try to tax them and the remaining employees more and more to make up for the shortfall in cash in the treasury coffers.
Of course, we don't really need to worry about it... our current crop of global leaders are bound to have it in hand 🙃
-
1.337 / 5.000
How will misleading content in the Adobe library be removed? According to the examples given, everyone is knowledgeable about their own region.
I searched for "Istanbul" as artificial intelligence content in the Adobe library. I know very well because I live there. 85% of the images on the first page are misleading. How can an employee working at Adobe and living in another country know this?
Or how can I know whether the image about "Hamburg", which I have never been to, is misleading?
Actually, I wonder where exactly artificial intelligence images are used. Artificial intelligence images are definitely not used in magazines, newspapers, press and publishing websites in Turkey. It was used in the news of major newspapers a few times in the beginning. However, since the use of models that did not look like Turks in a news about Turkish Retirees was found quite ridiculous, the content of the news was changed immediately.
I am sure that the customer knows what kind of image they want. It is very good to separate Real Photo and AI in searches. But the selection tool could be in an easier place. It could be in the selection in the upper left corner.
(By the way, we can participate from Turkey, but Adobe is closed to Turkish customers. We can check our portfolio by changing the "tr" extension in the internet address bar to "fr". That's why the first page I see and the first pages you see may be different.)
Adobe customers can also use generative edits to correct images however they want,and we also receive royalties if a customer edits and then downloads the result,to be clearer,if they modify your image and then download it you still earn.
actually AI contents are used everywhere,including in magazines,newspapers,and widely across the web.
Now I don't know specifically about Türkiye,I'm in Italy,and I read news every day and see images generated by AI every day.
customers know what they are buying because all AI content is labeled as AI and anyone who doesn't label it will be blocked in a short time by Adobe.
-
Adobe Stock should put a "Turn on AI generated contents" button above the search results. Most buyers may not use the filter panel.
No. Make it a "turn OFF" and leave it ON by default. Those that WANT it off will find it easily. Others will get the benefit of both.
Or flip that, those that need a legit image or asset benefit from having it off by default. Those that dont care if its artificial can easily find the turn on switch.
-
I think the reason we see so little AI content in Turkey is that Adobe, which has the most AI content, does not sell to Turkish customers.
For this reason, almost all of the stock images used are licensed through Shutterstock, Istock and GettyImages. Since there is no AI content in them, we do not come across them either.
However, I have been looking at AI images related to Turkey for the last 2 hours. Most of them are not prepared by Turkish users, but by citizens of other countries. Especially in images related to tourism and travel, they have had the AI create touristic places with high sales potential by entering words. But maybe they prepared images of places they have never seen, so they sent them without realizing that they were misleading. I am sure that the people who examined them accepted them because they did not know that they were misleading.
As Ramadan approaches, it seems that we will see mosques with missing or extra minarets in many images. Any user can understand a kangaroo with 6 legs, but they will not pay as much attention to Hagia Sophia with 3 minarets instead of 4 as a kangaroo.
Or those who choose Bodrum from Turkey for their summer vacation will think "Why isn't it like the Game of Thrones castle in Adobe" when they see the real Bodrum Castle.
Adobe does not only sell stock images, videos, etc. in Turkey. Apart from that, we buy Adobe programs under license.
-
Regarding the abundance of AI in the search results. I would think that is largely do to the unending flood of AI submissions....new items always start out high in the search. It would be an interesting stat to see the rate of new AI assets vs. the rate of new actual photo assets introduced into the collection.
-
ai must be clearly labelled, then the customers can decide what they want to do.
And ai cannot be described or claimed to be of a specific location or editorial event.
It is forbidden under adobe rules and usually will not accepted.
People who disobey the rules are at risk of having their ports closed for fraud, because that is what it is.
ai creation for stock is not designed to replace editorial photography.
Just like any photoshop art is not designed to replace editorial photography of a specific location.
---
Getty will take ai content when they are ready.
There is no question about that.
SS already has it, but made by their own team or customers. And it looks horrible so far. Then they have the ai from uploads that is not declared as ai and they don't seem to care...
I think Getty first needs to come up with an ai creator that can produce content on the same level as midjourney. Adobe is trying to do that as well, but firefly still cannot compete. Adobe is also more keen to integrate this tool into photoshop, which makes perfect sense.
Once Getty has that, an ai tool as good as midjourney, they can start offering that app not just to commercial clients but also the general public that enjoys ai as a hobby.
That is a gigantic market, millions of people paying midjourney or other ai companies every month just to have fun with ai.
Then they can offer a commercial version to create stock, that probably can only be sold on istock/getty.
This way, they control the legal path and...everytime such an ai image is sold, the original creators of the camera training content can also be paid a tiny amount of money.
At the moment they are testing this with the ai tool they offer. Customers can amend files with the getty ai tool and origianl creators get tiny amounts for how their work got included.
But once ai content "made by getty" can be sold as stock on istock, it will become a very different thing.
Also they will make money from the huge group of ai producers who must then pay for the getty app to produce content.
And they can also forbid selling their ai on other platforms. So the Getty ai content will be exclusive to their platform.
Legally also much safer than content on Adobe which is made by all kind of platforms that did not license content properly.
Perhaps adobe or getty will also buy companies like midjourney, or sora or flux.
But ready made ai content will be avaialable on all platforms just like preshot camera content.
-
Regarding the abundance of AI in the search results. I would think that is largely do to the unending flood of AI submissions....new items always start out high in the search. It would be an interesting stat to see the rate of new AI assets vs. the rate of new actual photo assets introduced into the collection.
If the content was crappy or unwanted it simply wouldn't sell and stay on the first pages. I do test searches every day and many files have held their positions for nearly two years now or even keep rising.
The reality is a lot of ai content is very, very good and much better than what amateurs upload.
Only professionals can compete with good quality ai.
The amateurs are suffering most from the competition.
Whereas if I upload normal photo content, it sells just as well as before ai.
There is of course also a lot of stupid ai, but that doesn't rise in searches. The examples posted here are not from the first pages of a search.
-
Only professionals can compete with good quality ai.
The amateurs are suffering most from the competition.
Yes, but amateurs with the earnings from stock are happy to buy a lens or a new camera, while professionals have to pay their bills,
So it becomes much easier for amateurs than professionals to compete against AI.
But if professionals can no longer make a living from it, what will happen to stock agencies? Will they only sell AI and snapshots of amateurs?
-
My thought is that even in the stock industry we are going towards the Cory Doctorow neologism "Enshittification" 8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification)
-
Here's another of Sydney from the top of the first page search results.
Since when did Circular Key vanish! ;D ;D ;D
I've posted an actual photograph below where you can see the blatant embarrassing error of this IA image and the equally blatant embarrassing acceptance of this in Adobe Stock's library...
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/jpg/07/22/95/59/1000_F_722955908_YovzT1GIGii4ePMg6D6GAgMYxUf9cDr0.webp)
(https://media.gettyimages.com/id/86963021/photo/sydney-aerial.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=Pt93gCOS_oRDrLoKqTPtry1KGSMYsxIsaxs8G1XNA5k=)
The funny thing is - actually in the submission requirements for "AI" - Adobe actually DOES explicitly state NOT to label "real place names, real landmarks".
So - in this case - it would be the fault of the contributor, so there is a very valid reason for removing that asset.
If they stated "Simulation of Syndey" or "Australian Style Landscape", that would be one thing. But if they are calling it "Sydney", which obviously it is not - then yes, that asset can be deleted/removed under the terms of submission they specified.
-
Regarding the abundance of AI in the search results. I would think that is largely do to the unending flood of AI submissions....new items always start out high in the search. It would be an interesting stat to see the rate of new AI assets vs. the rate of new actual photo assets introduced into the collection.
There is of course also a lot of stupid ai, but that doesn't rise in searches. The examples posted here are not from the first pages of a search.
the first page if searching "dragon" what is with his legs? what is with his tail? the spikes is completely mess
-
If you check for example “Mont Saint Michel” and display the latest photos, you will find Mont Saint Michel surrounded by mountains, lavender fields, in the middle of rolling hills.. and all those that I checked had this name of a real place in description. They are labelled as AI, but still... I see them as misleading.
https://stock.adobe.com/fr/images/a-drones-eye-perspective-capturing-mont-saint-michel-and-its-reflection-in-calm-tidal-waters/1172265712
-
Personally, I'd prefer AI to be off by default and I wish there was a way to turn off AI for social media, news, etc.
Maybe Adobe (and SS?) are hoping that at some point they can use AI to clean up the horrible AI images that completely litter the library. Or more likely it will be like spam keywords where a few of the most egregious get a little slap and the rest just sit there polluting everything. How can you expect them to fix AI when they can't even fix images that are labeled as multiple sites (like listing 10 national parks when it clearly can't be more than 1).
I do wonder about the drift when AI is used to train AI. Careful AI producers look at the images at full resolution and fix all sorts of things, others just post anything that looks good at thumbnail (or worse) scale.
-
Here's another of Sydney from the top of the first page search results.
Since when did Circular Key vanish! ;D ;D ;D
I've posted an actual photograph below where you can see the blatant embarrassing error of this IA image and the equally blatant embarrassing acceptance of this in Adobe Stock's library...
The funny thing is - actually in the submission requirements for "AI" - Adobe actually DOES explicitly state NOT to label "real place names, real landmarks".
So - in this case - it would be the fault of the contributor, so there is a very valid reason for removing that asset.
If they stated "Simulation of Syndey" or "Australian Style Landscape", that would be one thing. But if they are calling it "Sydney", which obviously it is not - then yes, that asset can be deleted/removed under the terms of submission they specified.
Not only should the image be removed the artist should get a warning.
If you can't use "In the style of Picasso" or some other artist, why should "Australian Style Landscape" be allowed. No names of real places, no names of real people, no names of artists styles or using a real famous or otherwise, personal likeness, as the basis for any image.
Whether people here agree or disagree about AI, as stock or art, I think most of us agree that labeling something AI with real tags, implying it's a real place or person, is supporting fakes and frauds. It's misleading.
My thought is that even in the stock industry we are going towards the Cory Doctorow neologism "Enshittification" 8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification)
Not going towards, already there.
-
Regarding the abundance of AI in the search results. I would think that is largely do to the unending flood of AI submissions....new items always start out high in the search. It would be an interesting stat to see the rate of new AI assets vs. the rate of new actual photo assets introduced into the collection.
go back to the previous page,I think Jo Ann has already answered this question. :)
-
@Uncle Pete
a difficult matter!
If you can't use the name of anything,how does anyone find this content?
it's different to write "in the style of Miyazaki" or "Australian style landscape" as you already know.
but if you can't write tomato because it's not a real tomato,how do you find the AI tomato? :D
and the same is also applicable to a name of a city or a country.
why set these limits?
if anyone wants to create a London with 2 Big Ben and insert the name "London", "Big Ben" and "Westminster" in the keywords,what's bad?
it doesn't matter at all because all the content is labeled as AI,so whoever buys it knows that it is AI content.
man has always been looking for new lands to explore,new borders to overcome,new discoveries,see what's on Mars and create gluten-free biscuits!
text to image AIs are simply the answer to a need that is innate in human beings,the need for something different,new.
-
Only professionals can compete with good quality ai.
The amateurs are suffering most from the competition.
Yes, but amateurs with the earnings from stock are happy to buy a lens or a new camera, while professionals have to pay their bills,
So it becomes much easier for amateurs than professionals to compete against AI.
But if professionals can no longer make a living from it, what will happen to stock agencies? Will they only sell AI and snapshots of amateurs?
buying gear and lenses does not make you a good photographer.
the amateurs are the ones who will be squeezed out by ai content.
the pros can always make it work and a lot of the best ai content comes from professional photographers or designers.
some amateurs are now switching to ai. this way they don't have to learn proper photography.
but i doubt that a newbie amateur photographer just starting hs uploads of underxposed flowers, pets and overprocessed sunsets has any reasonable chance of getting sales.
in the old days, you could start with low quality and gradually improve your skills and improve your sales.
the only thing left with o photography skills is editorial.
preferable niches and places not yet covered by the pros.
pros also have the option of combining a work for hire shot, for instance marketing material for a restaurant, with a stock shooting, the client pays less and they get material for their ports.
amateurs don't know how to do that.
-
Hey everyone here!
As part of our commitment to providing the best experience for both customers and contributors, we periodically test user functionality for a subset of our customers.
With the results of these tests, we continue to improve content discovery for our customers, enabling them to easily find the best content to meet their needs.
We will continue to keep the contributor community informed and engaged as we introduce new features and improvements.
-
@Uncle Pete
a difficult matter!
If you can't use the name of anything,how does anyone find this content?
it's different to write "in the style of Miyazaki" or "Australian style landscape" as you already know.
but if you can't write tomato because it's not a real tomato,how do you find the AI tomato? :D
and the same is also applicable to a name of a city or a country.
why set these limits?
if anyone wants to create a London with 2 Big Ben and insert the name "London", "Big Ben" and "Westminster" in the keywords,what's bad?
it doesn't matter at all because all the content is labeled as AI,so whoever buys it knows that it is AI content.
man has always been looking for new lands to explore,new borders to overcome,new discoveries,see what's on Mars and create gluten-free biscuits!
text to image AIs are simply the answer to a need that is innate in human beings,the need for something different,new.
I didn't mean tomato or cheeseburger and I never suggested that. You know that!
But putting Sydney Harbor on an AI image, is irresponsible. Putting Pope Francis on an image is misleading. We can't put down "in the style or" some specific artists name, and shouldn't. because the infringes on the artists known fame and styles. There are rights to personal likeness, which AI or not, are infringing.
No all AI images are not marked as AI, and you know that too.
Sure thing, make all the fake AI images anyone wants and of things and objects, scenes, mountains, woods, sliced tomatoes, any of that. But specific geographic places and names of a city, or a name of a real person, shouldn't be allowed. Then the fakery is spread, and who's to say that every AI image is also labeled as AI, once someone licenses it and uses it on their website. We can't even get proper credits for our work.
What next, fake news and fake editorial images? I'm not against making AI images, I opposed to making AI images that are deception or fakes, being passed off as something real.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yxGT4tv/Sliced-Tomato-Special-Stacked.jpg)
-
of course,I said tomato because writing “tomato” or “Roma” or “Italian style”makes no difference to me.
this is all fine as long as everything is represented in a generic way,if instead someone want to represent a real event or real news in Rome that actually happened,the matter is different,this cannot be done.
if instead I want to create a Roman Forum with 2 Arches of Tito,it's simply a dystopian,fictional Rome,so I label the content as AI,and in fact I also declare that the persons and properties are fictitious,and I definitely add the word “Rome” in the description and keywords,because the content always represents Rome,even if it's a fictitious Rome.
there is a difference between a real person,or a real artist and the name of a city or a country.
I don't create city AI content simply because I think AI is better suited to other types of content,but doing so is not a violation of any rule.
yes,I too have noticed content that I think is AI and that actually are not labeled as AI,this is definitely something to avoid,and this is our responsibility first of all and then also Adobe's responsibility of course.
I am more than certain that anyone who demonstrates repeat behavior in this sense will be permanently blocked by Adobe.
while if it happens once,due to distraction it can happen,it is blocked temporarily.
Given the amount of content added weekly,it's easy for something to slip through a first check,but I'm more than certain that Adobe performs more checks periodically than just the first review.
then once the file is downloaded everything is in the hands of the customer.
if I go in a gun shop and buy a gun and then go down to the street and start shooting people,no one will ever blame the gun shop for that!
Anyone can get a driver's license,but if someone enjoys spending the day trying to run over as many pedestrians as possible,what should we do?Take away everyone's license?
I have to index the content correctly then if someone uses AI content irresponsibly it is certainly not my fault because I wrote “Roma”.
-
of course,I said tomato because writing “tomato” or “Roma” or “Italian style”makes no difference to me.
I have to index the content correctly then if someone uses AI content irresponsibly it is certainly not my fault because I wrote “Roma”.
I say Sydney and you bring up some obscure similar name that could cause a problem in two languages, when translated. Nice try. Can you do that for Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, San Francisco, and 98% of the other city names, mountain names, people and fake AI images, that shouldn't use real names or real name places in their keywords and identification? Probably not.
I don't care if you make AI or not, that's your choice. I choose not to, and maybe if you did photos, you wouldn't shoot what I enjoy and upload. All OK with me.
I'm looking for a little integrity in what people upload, especially when it's a false representation, of a real place. Or a picture of someone, that's not that person. You can't make a fake AI sports car and say it's a picture of a Ferrari, and shouldn't because... It's Not What you claim it is. That's dishonest, just as labeling a Roma tomato as a watermelon, when it's not.
Yeah, it would be terrible if people got confused between a Roma and the city Roma and couldn't tell the difference in under 5 seconds. Yet you defend outright fraud in labeling a fake AI image as a real place? ;D :o
-
of course,I said tomato because writing “tomato” or “Roma” or “Italian style”makes no difference to me.
I have to index the content correctly then if someone uses AI content irresponsibly it is certainly not my fault because I wrote “Roma”.
I say Sydney and you bring up some obscure similar name that could cause a problem in two languages, when translated. Nice try. Can you do that for Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, San Francisco, and 98% of the other city names, mountain names, people and fake AI images, that shouldn't use real names or real name places in their keywords and identification? Probably not.
I don't care if you make AI or not, that's your choice. I choose not to, and maybe if you did photos, you wouldn't shoot what I enjoy and upload. All OK with me.
I'm looking for a little integrity in what people upload, especially when it's a false representation, of a real place. Or a picture of someone, that's not that person. You can't make a fake AI sports car and say it's a picture of a Ferrari, and shouldn't because... It's Not What you claim it is. That's dishonest, just as labeling a Roma tomato as a watermelon, when it's not.
Yeah, it would be terrible if people got confused between a Roma and the city Roma and couldn't tell the difference in under 5 seconds. Yet you defend outright fraud in labeling a fake AI image as a real place? ;D :o
I understand your concerns, and I partially share them,but i also know it's gone.
we now live in a dystopian world,because the innate need in human beings for something different,new,unreal world.
just look at tv shows,movies,among the most succesful there are several dystopian ones,which I also really appreciate.
AI text to image or video,are the perfect example of the need for something different,new,unreal.
I understand that you don't care in the slightest whether someone uses AI or not,you simply chose not to use them,and continue to do what you like best and do best,and in my opinion this is very nice of you because you value freedom.
but at the same time you try to cling to reality,real cities,real names,it is wrong for you to use the name of a real city and should not be used in the description or keywords.
I,however,think that there is a fundamental difference between using the name of a real person or the name of a city,location,country.
I use the keywords that are allowed,label the content as AI and simply do my job.
I don't defend fraud in labeling a fake image as real,in fact I label all my AI content as AI,but I still have to use the word "Rome" if I create a fictional Rome,how else should I define it?just city? :D
I am simply aware that I now live in a dystopian world,and I try to adapt to survival in this world,if I create a fake Roma,I have to put the word Roma,otherwise my content won't be found,and this doesn't change the fact that other dystopian Romes are found,so what changes?
I understand your concerns and partly share,but I don't think that all this can be stopped,the human need to distort reality,which in this historical moment is very strong.
-
Yeah, it would be terrible if people got confused between a Roma and the city Roma and couldn't tell the difference in under 5 seconds. Yet you defend outright fraud in labeling a fake AI image as a real place? ;D :o
There was a blog post a while ago from an academic or similar looking for Roman statues or ancient Roman artefacts. He was complaining that well over half the first page of search results were clearly unflagged and mislabelled AI. 3 arm statues, nothing genuine. All "in the style of" which from an accuracy point of view just wasted his time.
-
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Your Generative AI content prompts, titles or keywords:
May not contain names of artists, real known people, fictional characters, or reference to creative works that are still in copyright. Please see HERE for additional information.
May not contain names of people.
May not imply the content is a depiction of an actual newsworthy event.
May not contain names of government agencies.
May not contain references to third party intellectual property.
If a contributor violates this policy, we will review and take appropriate action, which may include removing the content or terminating the contributor's account.
2. Label content as Generative AI prior to submission.
Click the "Created using generative AI tools" [1] checkbox in the Adobe Stock contributor portal before submitting content created with generative AI software.
Click the "People and Property are fictional" box [2] if your image or video features a fake person or fake property.
Here is the HERE: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/updated-artist-name-guidelines.html
May not include or reference fictional characters
Creative work names such as a movie, franchise, comic, art, design, or architecture
May not include or reference other creative work, such as “...in the style of...”, “...inspired by...”, “...influenced by...”, “...in the tradition of...”, or “....drawing on...”
Not just me, it's in the Adobe Guidelines.
If someone wants to upload a fake cityscape, they could use, fictional Metropolitan Italian city , or fictional Australian port city with a harbor. ;D Buyers can find things, without using a proper name of a real place, for a fake and inaccurate image.
-
in fact,the point of discussion is the name of a city or country,We don't think the same way about this.
using the name of a real city or country is allowed.
the name of a city is not the name of a copyrighted architecture,the name of a city or a country are not protected,they do not have copyright,and can therefore be used freely,even in AI-generated content.
if instead it is architecture protected by copyright,clearly the name cannot be used.
-
Yes, well done Adobe!!! keep it going :)
Sure that AI sheeps are alrerady crying ;D ;D ;D
Next step:
- One section with real photography of real world, taken by photographers, excluding any AI images.
- Another section with AI generation engine directly used by customers, prompting themself what they want, maybe wih voice recognition (100% royalties for Adobe).
GOOD EXCITING NEWS!!!
Well Done Adobe.