pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Would you support a petition for Adobe to remove generative fill from PS beta until we are compensated?

Yes
No

Author Topic: People are using Adobe's generative fill for commercial use - we need to act.  (Read 4997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 07, 2023, 13:41 »
+2
I've come across multiple videos on youtube, instagram and tiktok of people using Photoshop's generative fill to create content and then make merch with that content and sell it. This is clearly against Adobe's guidelines for generative fill, which are outlined here: https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

Quote
4. No Commercial Use
While generative AI features are in beta, all generated output is for personal use only and cannot be used commercially.

Yet, people are still doing it. I feel like Adobe has covered themselves - they clearly state what is permitted and what is not - so is it up to us, the contributors, to find all content that has been created with the help of generative fill, and then sue? That seems impossible. So people just use the firefly model, the model built on our high quality stock imagery, and we are not compensated for it. This is clearly unfair.

My suggestion would be for Adobe to remove the generative fill from beta in Photoshop, since people are clearly misusing it, and there is no reasonable way to determine if someone has used generative fill or not. They can re-enable generative fill once we, the artists, are fairly compensated for training their underlying model, and commercial use can be allowed. This situation where Adobe is just like "yeah plz don't use for commercial use" but with no way to control for that, it's just not cutting it, to put it bluntly.

I suggest to organize and petition Adobe to remove generative fill from Photoshop beta until we are compensated, since our work is exploited by others who are in breach of Adobe's guidelines for non-commercial use. There is no reasonable way for us, the contributors, to know if any piece of content has been created with the help of generative fill or not, so this is something that is in Adobe's domain.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2023, 13:46 by spike »


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2023, 18:16 »
0
Maybe Adobe could put out a statement that they are obviously tracking all data used during beta and will add compensation when everything goes live?

Just because firefly/fill are being used while still in beta, does not mean that we will not be compensated.

I wouldnt be surprised if the beta phase is also used to determine a sensible payment system.

I am not sure a petition at this point is really worth the effort, firefly should be live for commercial use after the summer.

But a statement that we will get paid for use during beta would be appreciated.

« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2023, 20:36 »
+1
Those users don't know about licensing of copyrighted materials probably.  I don't think majority of users read disclaimer.

« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2023, 22:21 »
+4
Maybe Adobe could put out a statement that they are obviously tracking all data used during beta and will add compensation when everything goes live?

I don't know if I'm old and cynical, or if you're just an optimistic person.

After over almost 15 years in the stock industry, I can say I sincerely doubt that we will be compensated for firefly usage during the "non-commercial" beta phase.

I have a feeling that generative fill usage will be tracked in such a manner only after beta; creative cloud subscribers will likely get a certain number of "credits" to do a number of "free" generations, and all the other generations will be paid with extra credits. And we, the contributors, will get a percentage out of that.

Any percentage of 0$ (which is how much they charge generative fill at this stage) is also 0. So we'll get nothing in all likelihood. Therefore, I still think it's in our best interest to petition Adobe to remove generative fill until compensation has been resolved.

« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2023, 05:27 »
0
Those users don't know about licensing of copyrighted materials probably.  I don't think majority of users read disclaimer.

Suspect very few read it and even fewer care - its essentially unenforceable.

« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2023, 07:15 »
+4
Maybe Adobe could put out a statement that they are obviously tracking all data used during beta and will add compensation when everything goes live?
...
Any percentage of 0$ (which is how much they charge generative fill at this stage) is also 0. So we'll get nothing in all likelihood. Therefore, I still think it's in our best interest to petition Adobe to remove generative fill until compensation has been resolved.
one-time-payment only for sure
0.00004 USD per image   :)
Here is your 1 USD for your portfolio, we will delete your account , because now we can generate endless variations of your photos per click.
Hope iam wrong and just pessimistic

« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2023, 10:44 »
+1
Maybe Adobe could put out a statement that they are obviously tracking all data used during beta and will add compensation when everything goes live?

I don't know if I'm old and cynical, or if you're just an optimistic person.



I believe that Adobe is the only agency that actually needs us because we are their customers. I am sure they make a lot more money on us licensing their software and buying images for client projects than they ever pay out to us as producers.

They actually have a reason to keep us happy, we bring in customers and new clients, we buy files.

It is the only win/win relationship in the industry.

With many other agencies...I am sure the boardrooms are intensily debating how to replace us, how expensive it is to hire a prompting army working for them from india and how long it will take until the bloody ai does everything by itself and just cranks out bestsellers automatically.

They do still need premium content from real locations and editorial.

But normal, simple commercial stock...they will try as hard as they can to pay us less.

With Adobe I feel safer, so I hope they win out.


« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2023, 11:16 »
+4

I believe that Adobe is the only agency that actually needs us because we are their customers. I am sure they make a lot more money on us licensing their software and buying images for client projects than they ever pay out to us as producers.

They actually have a reason to keep us happy, we bring in customers and new clients, we buy files.

It is the only win/win relationship in the industry.


Define "we". You described 3 different types of people: Contributors who submit images, people who license softwear and people who buy images for client projects. But while these 3 can all belong to the same group of people, they don't have to and I don't think they do in most cases.
 I am a contributors. I would not buy an adobe softwear if I wasn't getting it for free, because I prefer one-time-purchase softwear to monthly subscription modes. I do not buy any images for any client projects, which I do not have. I am a full-time microstock photographer and I know that even for many people who only do microstock as a side-income, their main job often does not include any purchase of images from stock agencies.
And the way I see it, Adobe doesn't have much reason to keep me happy (anymmore), now that I have become replacable by AI. I am not their customer. I was their content provider and that was the only reason they ever needed people like me.

« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2023, 14:07 »
+4
Based on what I've been reading in the last few months, Adobe's focus has been squarely on the investment community and making sure they are seen as a significant and future-focused company as AI moves into the tech mainstream. There were analyst quotes to the effect that with its Firefly and generative AI announcements, Adobe had moved from the AI losers column to the AI winners column.

The investor community concern was that creatives would be many fewer in the future and thus put a huge dent in that lucrative subscription business. They now are mostly buying the idea that even if there's some dip in numbers, there's money to be made in all the extra AI services that go along with the non-expert (such as Adobe Express) subscriptions.

We're just the theoretical C-Y-A for the story about the genAI content being on a solid legal basis (and never mind all the Midjourney and Stable Diffusion AI content in the collection whose provenance is murky at best). There's no win for the contributor end of things in the long term story, IMO. I think Adobe wants a very broad-based subscription business - much more general that the current Photoshop, Illustrator or other specialist apps - that can show investors growth and that they're part of the next generation of tech businesses.

We do not factor in any way shape or form into Adobe's main business focus moving forward. We can make money in the meantime, but our content is a stepping stone for them, not a key part of their strategy (IMO)

Edited Jul 10 to add a quote from this article about an investment management company's positive views of (and increased investment in) Adobe:

"The company is protecting its leadership position by moving quickly into generative AI and license protection. It developed Firefly into a product that can be monetized, moving AI from a previously perceived risk into an opportunity."
« Last Edit: July 10, 2023, 09:11 by Jo Ann Snover »

Just_to_inform_people2

« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2023, 14:27 »
0
Based on what I've been reading in the last few months, Adobe's focus has been squarely on the investment community and making sure they are seen as a significant and future-focused company as AI moves into the tech mainstream. There were analyst quotes to the effect that with its Firefly and generative AI announcements, Adobe had moved from the AI losers column to the AI winners column.

The investor community concern was that creatives would be many fewer in the future and thus put a huge dent in that lucrative subscription business. They now are mostly buying the idea that even if there's some dip in numbers, there's money to be made in all the extra AI services that go along with the non-expert (such as Adobe Express) subscriptions.

We're just the theoretical C-Y-A for the story about the genAI content being on a solid legal basis (and never mind all the Midjourney and Stable Diffusion AI content in the collection whose provenance is murky at best). There's no win for the contributor end of things in the long term story, IMO. I think Adobe wants a very broad-based subscription business - much more general that the current Photoshop, Illustrator or other specialist apps - that can show investors growth and that they're part of the next generation of tech businesses.

We do not factor in any way shape or form into Adobe's main business focus moving forward. We can make money in the meantime, but our content is a stepping stone for them, not a key part of their strategy (IMO)
Well said Jo Ann and I think you are completely right. If Adobe would have to sell oranges instead of their current products, they would, in order to survive and stay on top of the market. Companies are profit seeking. That is the game after all. It's naive to think that contributors are of any importance once they are not needed anymore. It would be suicide for each stock company to focus only on the well being of the contributor and not think about their own future. Unless the contributor or the treatment of them has some big social meaning in society. You gotta to have likes of the community these days in order to survive as a company (climate neutral, diversity, gender respectful etc..). But I don't think the stock agency contributors fate is something the whole community is very concerned about.

« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2023, 19:13 »
0
Is there any other agency where the producers also license and use the agency products and pay them monthly fees?

No?

I dont know about you people, but I regularly send image suggestions to people looking for images and I obviously prefer agencies that treat us well.

So, especially also for the bottom line of Adobe, how much money is Adobe making from all the producers licensing their software? That includes lots of smaller users that dont upload much.

I doubt that we are an insignificant, useless group.

And in that respect Adobe is the only company where we are also clients.

So I do my best to support them.

Ive had my fare share of bad experiences and even got kicked out of places. Not exactly an adoring fan of stock agencies in general.

But for me Adobe is different and I wish I had uploaded a lot more over the last 10 years.

eta

Obviously I would appreciate if Adobe puts out a statement that we get paid for the beta phase. Could also be a lump sum for data licensing of the entire port etc
« Last Edit: July 08, 2023, 21:00 by cobalt »

« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2023, 21:17 »
+2
Obviously I would appreciate if Adobe puts out a statement that we get paid for the beta phase. Could also be a lump sum for data licensing of the entire port etc

This completely backwards in the business sense.

Essentially, you're hoping that Adobe pays you for the beta phase. And if they don't, what are you going to do? Nothing.

It's a misstep on their part - we should have been compensated first, then then can do all their stuff with the generative fill in beta etc. Because, as it stands, people are using the product for commercial purposes, Adobe's legally clear, and we won't see a penny out of it. If that's ok with you, fine, but it's not ok for me.

« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2023, 22:16 »
0
Who said it was ok?

Adobe has not said anything except that they plan to compensate producers. They did not say they will exclude the beta phase.

You can have a directly negative attitude or give them a little time to get things right.

They are clearly overworked on many issues at the moment, so personally I am ready to wait a few weeks before going into attack mode.

Nothing wrong with pointing out the problem, though.

« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2023, 11:46 »
+2
..
You can have a directly negative attitude or give them a little time to get things right.
They are clearly overworked on many issues at the moment, so personally I am ready to wait a few weeks before going into attack mode.
...

"Maybe u get paid, but maybe not and maybe only 1 cent per hour. "
Btw your job is to train a robot that will replace you.  :P
No hate here, i love AS. That's also the reason why I'm a little upset.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2023, 12:19 by biibii »

« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2023, 18:25 »
+3
...They are clearly overworked on many issues at the moment, so personally I am ready to wait a few weeks ...

Adobe is not a small company with minimal or limited resources. In Q2 2023, they had just over $4.8 billion in revenue and nearly $1.3 billion in net profit. They were able to afford to buy back 2.7 million shares.

The execs have made choices about how to staff various parts of their operations and what to fund. They are clearly communicating their priorities by allowing the genAI content to flood in with little-to-zero enforcement of their stated standards.

I'm observing, taking notes, and trying to figure out how this can possibly end well - either for them or for us.

« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2023, 03:10 »
+1
Look at it from a business angle.

At the moment Adobe is the only major company offering their clients something really new and they have just thrown in legal indemnification to make customers feel safe.

There is power in numbers. The larger their new collection is, even if there is some junk inbetween, having 10 or 20 or 30 million files of completely new content this autumn is a huge advantage in attracting new clients.

Even if the other two big stock places were to start ingesting ai content now, it is too late for end of year client projects. Plus it takes months to ingest all the new files.

The ai collection gives Adobe a huge opportunity to take away a large amount of customers from the other two.

Plus they are now offering built in ai tools into photoshop and will have firefly ready for commercial use.

Between all that...they are probably already two years ahead of everyone else, because they have also now collected a lot of sales data and how clients use ai in design projects.

The algorithms can probably be counted on to make the lower quality content disappear into the void and the high quality will rise to the top as it gets lightboxed and downloaded.

So at least for me...their strategy makes sense.

And even if Adobe is a large place, the introduction of ai into Photoshop must be their biggest new project in years.

Even with their resources, i don't think it is an easy thing to do.

Just my personal take on it all.

ETA:

There is also a new group of producers coming in. Yes, we complain about the youtubers, but there are a lot of young people now coming new into stock. And some of them will improve their craft and become really, really good at it.

Adobe is the only place that is offering a real earnings chance. And if they like it there, they might not even upload elsewhere, even when Shutterstock and istock start taking ai content.

There are many producers with thousands of files who only upload to one agency. We saw that when SS went wild and people closed their 50 000 file port that they had never sent anywhere else.

There is a real opportunity to attract completely new talent together with the new medium.

I think they are making a lot of very smart choices.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2023, 03:22 by cobalt »

« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2023, 06:47 »
+3
What about crowd funding for a lawsuit? We are so many, if everyone gives 1-5 $ or - no big loss. The agencies and platforms claim fair use or experimental, but in fact all earn money with it besides us.  I mean, they have taken not only our images or parts but also our titles and keywords. Only thats why it is possible to make pictures from words. Without our images and keywords no single AI image could have been generated. In contrast to a person or even a child, who can paint or take photos by oneself not needing our stuff. So much about intelligence

« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2023, 10:35 »
+2
I found a great example of what I'm talking about.

Check this out:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cu7GlhAt0t3/

a reel showing how the graphic was created (generative fill)

https://shorturl.at/absuH

The product, on a shirt, for sale.

So the guy publicly shows that he's using generative fill to create the graphic, and then sells it, despite adobe saying that's not allowed. And will Adobe react? Yeah, sure.

Instead of figuring out who to contact and lobby, just petition adobe to remove generative fill beta until we have been compensated. This is theft.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
234 Replies
32668 Views
Last post May 27, 2023, 12:12
by cobalt
10 Replies
2481 Views
Last post April 28, 2023, 00:15
by wordplanet
1 Replies
1298 Views
Last post May 24, 2023, 09:56
by MatHayward
3 Replies
4280 Views
Last post September 18, 2023, 11:27
by Injustice for all
15 Replies
1388 Views
Last post October 25, 2023, 13:02
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors