Author Topic: Significant growth of Adobe Stock collection over the last 7 months (Read 2119 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **on:** November 21, 2024, 15:36 »

Contributors to Adobe Stock won't be surprised to hear that the genAI content in the collection has been increasing faster than the human-made content.

Over all, the collection grew 32% between the end of April 2024 and today, but the genAI portion of the collection grew 82% versus the human-made portion grew 6.1%.

The human-made video collection shrank over that period - by over 3 million images; 16.8%. I assume that means some content left - does anyone know about that? It's not the Pond5 content which was much larger and left in July 2022.

I have no sales data, obviously, but I would guess that the genAI collection size is growing faster than genAI sales - too many kinds of content genAI isn't very good at and massive piles of similars for the things it is.

Possibly the ability to modify Adobe Stock items with genAI and then download will motivate buyers? It's a shame that we will only see "custom" in the royalties list so can't know - unless we find an image in use - if it's part of that program. I'll definitely be interested to see what impact that new feature has on our earnings.

As I don't upload genAI content, my sales would have evaporated if buyers have given up on traditional images. October 2024 was slightly ahead of October 2023 (my portfolio is small, just under 2500 images, and has grown very modestly this year. Nowhere near the 32+% growth in the collection).

Adobe Stock's total collection earlier today was 576,474,125 . For comparison, Shutterstock (as reported on the bottom of their landing page) went from 485+ million at the end of 2023 to 520+ million at the end of September 2024 - about 9.3% growth.

Anyone else have thoughts about Adobe Stock marketplace?

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2024, 17:08 »

Educated guess - the majority of 'new' contributors are east indian/south east asian spammers - and yes, I agree with you that it is simply spamming near duplicates of popular sellers. In that respect - I'd say it's a 'good' thing - because they (in general) aren't really that 'creative' (& they don't like "hard work", scamming is what they like) - its just basically massive theft & spam as fast as possible... so - if you have a more varied port with 'mid-level' sellers (i.e., like cobalt as said she does) - I think you'll be okay.

The spammers aren't really about "research" & "good quality" - they are about spam as fast as you can & get rich quick... eventually I'd say most will get to the point where they realize it's not worth all the effort to "maybe" try and get $100/month (my guess is the majority of them probably make less than $100/month)...

wds · « **Reply #2 on:** November 21, 2024, 17:54 »

I guess the good news for traditional contributors is that the huge growth in AI content doesn't seem to have had a proportional impact in reduced sales of traditional content. Of course without adjusting for overall sales growth, that may not necessarily be true.

As a side note, AI content is kind of funny...it is really a collaboration between the artist/prompter and the AI tool. The fact that everyone is using the same small set of AI tools in some sense leads to a lot of "similars"

DanielVisuals · « **Reply #3 on:** November 21, 2024, 19:56 »

In any saturated market, the key to success is to focus on quality. People will always be willing to pay premium prices for premium products.

I believe that with current increases in content due to AI, quality will be the determining factor in ones success.

davedigitalfx · « **Reply #4 on:** November 21, 2024, 20:10 »

i agree .. the majority of AI prompters are indian/asian spammers with no creativity, lack of knowledge about the basics of photography or graphic design .. just go to the adobe contributor forum, there is plenty of indians asking why their AI art is rejected .. and if you watch their images .. .are full of errors like aliasing, noise, oversaturation etc ... also the AI makes lot of errors like missing hands, wrong illumination, absence of realism etc ... and in my opinion all the images made with AI are very similar to one another, like if they were made by the same hand ... AI is really crap ...

It's 8 years i make my graphic and now im more motivated to improve my skills and the quality of my works ... these indian/asian spammers will end their AI art soon ... on adobestock they are waiting 4-5 months for their images to be reviewed .. actually i have a 1 day time review on adobe ...

davedigitalfx · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2024, 21:19 »

if you want to know if an image is AI generated use this cool tool:
https://sightengine.com/detect-ai-generated-images

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2024, 21:35 »

Quote from: davedigitalfx on November 21, 2024, 20:10

i agree .. the majority of AI prompters are indian/asian spammers with no creativity, lack of knowledge about the basics of photography or graphic design .. just go to the adobe contributor forum, there is plenty of indians asking why their AI art is rejected .. and if you watch their images .. .are full of errors like aliasing, noise, oversaturation etc ... also the AI makes lot of errors like missing hands, wrong illumination, absence of realism etc ... and in my opinion all the images made with AI are very similar to one another, like if they were made by the same hand ... AI is really crap ...

It's 8 years i make my graphic and now im more motivated to improve my skills and the quality of my works ... these indian/asian spammers will end their AI art soon ... on adobestock they are waiting 4-5 months for their images to be reviewed .. actually i have a 1 day time review on adobe ...

exactly... while some are "making BIG $$$" ("relatively" speaking) and brag about it to other east indians (to get clicks on their youtueb videos, then "BUY MY COURSE HOW TO MAKE BILLIONS FROM AI SPAM")... I think eventually they (in general) will get bored when untold riches aren't falling in their laps... right now the "get rich quick mentality" is still in high gear - but as more and more spam the crap out of it, I think eventually it will stop...

cobalt · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2024, 00:01 »

The best news is that people keep reporting a rise in sales on Adobe yoy, compared to other places. And even if they just upload very little and often without any ai.

This means Adobe knows what they are doing, they want to attract more customers and I suppose the customers enjoy browsing a large ai collection.

It also is a collection most other agencies don‘t have.

As long as the quality coming in is fine, is it really worse that the mobile phone snapshots that the amateurs are mass producing? Adobe at least has some standards but other places take literally anything and only filter out images with legal issues.

I think the algos on all agencies are very advanced. The clients who do their searches by newest content act as a second inspection layer.

Whenever they view or lightbox images, the best content gets filtered by them very quickly.

And like others have said, ai content has the advantage of at least being properly lit but is often extremely repetitive because they all use the same prompts.

But the duplicates of duplicates thing means…in the end there is not so much really new content coming in as the numbers suggest.

This is also true for normal photos.

If you think about how many different recipes there are on the planet, how many different professions, how many different festivals, culture and traditions, how many possible daily life situations that look geographically very differently, even 600 million files is extremely little to document the daily lives and creative concepts of 8 billion people.

The real competition are only the files that do the same niche as you. And I find that competition grows very slowly, because the genres are not on the radar of the spammers.

The youtubers don‘t seem to give any advice on what sells well. The examples they show are usually pretty looking files with little commercial value.

I suppose this is their way of protecting their income from their ports.

Get people to mass upload, but mislead on what customers actually buy.

Eventually the ai craze will get less.

However a reliable 100 dollars a month is a life changing additional income in countries where 300 dollars is a decent full time income.

Basically Adobe got etsyfied, it is now just one more online store where people try their luck.

Can‘t blame young people for trying to improve their circumstances.

And for every 10000 spammers there will be one person who really understands that ai can be a great tool and has a service oriented mentality and wants to understand the customer.

As long as our sales are growing, maybe we should put a little more faith into the Adobe sales team and their plans.

Faustvasea · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2024, 03:35 »

Well, i have some Ai images on Adobe but i stopped generating them as I don’t like it. There’s no joy, I like going out and taking images with my real tools. Also received an email from Freepik saying that they will remove duplicate Ai
Images from contributors, checked my account and I was down with 400 Ai images removed . Won’t be surprised if Adobe will follow as well. Can’t imagine how many duplicates Adobe will have.

slidewarrior · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2024, 09:59 »

I have heard reports that accounts are being 'frozen' and locked due to spamming (here's hoping)
However there are videos on youtube that try to provide a route to unlocking said frozen accounts

If there's a niche being filled, then some may do well for a while, however, I'd imagine conventional images probably don't fit into that niche, at least not available on adobe-stock

tätarätä · « **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2024, 15:26 »

There are around 40% AI portfolios, at the Adobe best sellers of the week,
So i think AI content is a big competition now and even more in future.
As Cobalt told, $100 more income a month can bee a game changer in some countries.
AI content Producers could reach this level within a few months.
So i think competition will grow a long time.
Its some kind of gold rush going on.

cobalt · « **Reply #11 on:** November 22, 2024, 20:55 »

There is something wrong with the bestseller lists, I think it is being manipulated.

It has a lot of weird ports.

Here is someone with extremely bad isolations/pngs

https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/adorable-white-rabbit-jumping-in-mid-air-with-a-transparent-background-illustrating-agility-and-playfulness/996237919?prev_url=detail&asset_id=996237919

How did these files ever get accepted and who would download that when the low quality can already be seen in the thumbnail.

The entire port is like that.

zeljkok · « **Reply #12 on:** November 22, 2024, 22:13 »

That image by Herr Mustafa is brutal

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2024, 06:52 »

I really don't get how these get accepted. I have given up submitting pngs to Adobe, because they got rejected so often, even though I could not see anything wrong with them. I even clean them up precisely with a graphic tablet. And then I see something like this gets accepted?

cobalt · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2024, 12:17 »

I am back to submitting simply on white because I cannot find the problem why my pngs get declined.

Then this port comes a long and is filled with just horrible stuff. Even a half blind person can see the problem.

And how can this port be in the bestseller list? I doubt customers will buy this stuff.

Look at the rest of the port, it is a cabinet of horrors. The base image itself is also often underexposed or has bad focus or other issues.

Why does nobody check the bestseller ports before the page goes live?

Should be easy for a member of the content team to look at them.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2024, 12:22 »

Quote from: zeljkok on November 22, 2024, 22:13

That image by Herr Mustafa is brutal

Scary almost.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on November 23, 2024, 06:52

I really don't get how these get accepted. I have given up submitting pngs to Adobe, because they got rejected so often, even though I could not see anything wrong with them. I even clean them up precisely with a graphic tablet. And then I see something like this gets accepted?

I haven't quite given up yet, but I agree with you, some things I see accepted are terrible, and some rejections, don't make sense. The distorted and bizarre AI that sneaks is, is another part that's unexplained.

Quote from: cobalt on November 22, 2024, 20:55

There is something wrong with the bestseller lists, I think it is being manipulated.

It has a lot of weird ports.

Here is someone with extremely bad isolations/pngs

English US version:
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208564524/mustafa?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

100 pages of 100% AI, which looks like it's from an image factory.

Reminder:

Recent top sellers are determined each week using the following process:

For each asset type we generate a list of 200 contributors who made the most sales in the previous week, only considering their uploads from the past six months. Then, we order the list based on each contributor’s uploads/sales ratio, and the top 10 contributors on this list are featured as “Recent top sellers”.

Contributors are eligible to be featured at most once every five weeks. This selection process is subject to change in the future.

Recent top sellers = most sales in the previous week, only considering their uploads from the past six months

cascoly · « **Reply #16 on:** November 23, 2024, 12:50 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 21, 2024, 15:36

...

Over all, the collection grew 32% between the end of April 2024 and today, but the genAI portion of the collection grew 82% versus the human-made portion grew 6.1%.

...

do we have actual numbers in each case? 6% of a very large number can be much greater than 82% of a much smaller number

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #17 on:** November 23, 2024, 14:28 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 23, 2024, 12:50

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 21, 2024, 15:36
...
Over all, the collection grew 32% between the end of April 2024 and today, but the genAI portion of the collection grew 82% versus the human-made portion grew 6.1%.
...
do we have actual numbers in each case? 6% of a very large number can be much greater than 82% of a much smaller number

Adobe Stock growth Apr 30 - Nov 21 2024; roughly 7 months

total collection: 139,801,939 (576,474,125 up from 436,672,186) - up 32%

genAI: 117,178,564 (181,469,399 up from 64,290,835) - up 82%

human made: 22,623,375 (395,004,726 up from 372,381,351) - up 6.1%

human made asset types

photos growth 9,936,406 (228,291,001 up from 218,354,595) - up 4.5%

videos shrunk 3,202,090 (15,884,530 down from 19,086,620) - down 16.8%

illos growth 1,990,088 (33,691,112 up from 31,701,024) - up 6.3%

genAI asset types

photos 49,408,590 (71,313,378 up from 21,904,788) - up 126%

illos 65,134,599 (106,056,450 up from 40,921,851) - up 59%

videos 846,305 (1,237,747 up from 391,442) - up 116%

gnirtS · « **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2024, 21:08 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on November 21, 2024, 17:08

Educated guess - the majority of 'new' contributors are east indian/south east asian spammers - and yes, I agree with you that it is simply spamming near duplicates of popular sellers. In that respect - I'd say it's a 'good' thing - because they (in general) aren't really that 'creative' (& they don't like "hard work", scamming is what they like) - its just basically massive theft & spam as fast as possible... so - if you have a more varied port with 'mid-level' sellers (i.e., like cobalt as said she does) - I think you'll be okay.

The spammers aren't really about "research" & "good quality" - they are about spam as fast as you can & get rich quick... eventually I'd say most will get to the point where they realize it's not worth all the effort to "maybe" try and get $100/month (my guess is the majority of them probably make less than $100/month)...

Id go with this based on multiple FB groups and elsewhere. Mainly subcontinent - Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Workflow seems to be mass text prompt spamming, often with stolen, hacked or acquired GenAI accounts, then feed them through a pirate or free upsizer, then feed into an AI keyword generator and upload. The entire methodology is bulk and speed, not quality. No checking, nothing, get it made, upsized and badly keyworded and upload, ideally hundreds a day.

wds · « **Reply #19 on:** November 24, 2024, 10:49 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2024, 12:17

I am back to submitting simply on white because I cannot find the problem why my pngs get declined.

Then this port comes a long and is filled with just horrible stuff. Even a half blind person can see the problem.

And how can this port be in the bestseller list? I doubt customers will buy this stuff.

Look at the rest of the port, it is a cabinet of horrors. The base image itself is also often underexposed or has bad focus or other issues.

Why does nobody check the bestseller ports before the page goes live?

Should be easy for a member of the content team to look at them.

Regarding your rejection problems with png's...I generally don't have an issue getting png's with transparent backgrounds accepted. One thing I do (working in Photoshop),
when I create the png, to in effect test it while still in Photoshop, I alternate a pure white layer and then a pure black layer behind the masked isolated subject and check for anomalies around the edges etc..

cobalt · « **Reply #20 on:** November 24, 2024, 14:43 »

I do exactly that, I test them against an alternate solid color layer, usually a bright red, sometimes other colors.

I also always isolated in photoshop manually.

I still have two pngs in the queue, but they have been there for over two months. If I do them on simple white they get accepted in 5-10 days.

I would like to do more pngs, but a waiting time of months is too frustrating. So I focus on normal on white now.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #21 on:** November 24, 2024, 15:14 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 22, 2024, 20:55

There is something wrong with the bestseller lists, I think it is being manipulated.

That portfolio is chock full of things that should never have been approved. But regarding the recent top seller list, it's by design a strange beast, so doesn't really tell us much of interest.

Here's the explanation text on how it's calculated:

"For each asset type we generate a list of 200 contributors who made the most sales in the previous week, only considering their uploads from the past six months. Then, we order the list based on each contributor’s uploads/sales ratio, and the top 10 contributors on this list are featured as “Recent top sellers”.

Contributors are eligible to be featured at most once every five weeks. This selection process is subject to change in the future."

So lots of images could be selling much, much better than the ones featured. If the huge sellers were uploaded 7 months or more ago then they aren't shown; and the total volume of sales from the 6 months or less group could potentially be very small.

When you consider the tsunami of genAI content being added of late, one would expect genAI-heavy portfolios to be well represented in that list.

And given the very erratic inspection speeds - some taking many months and some only a few days - the recent sellers list could become very skewed.

cobalt · « **Reply #22 on:** November 24, 2024, 15:35 »

It still requires a designer actually buying the files. But with the port mentioned, which customer would ever download this?

It is very unlikely that these are "natural" downloads for lack of a better word.

This also happens with a lot of other strange looking ports in other weeks that have content that doesn't look like customers would want this in high enough volume.

So two things are very weird - how could so much truly horrible pngs ever get accepted? And who are the mystery buyers who love torturing their clients with bad isolation files?

The bestseller list is not a law of nature.

At any time Adobe could manually pick ports by Editor selection every week.

wds · « **Reply #23 on:** November 24, 2024, 17:05 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 24, 2024, 14:43

I do exactly that, I test them against an alternate solid color layer, usually a bright red, sometimes other colors.

I also always isolated in photoshop manually.

I still have two pngs in the queue, but they have been there for over two months. If I do them on simple white they get accepted in 5-10 days.

I would like to do more pngs, but a waiting time of months is too frustrating. So I focus on normal on white now.

Oh, I mis-understood, I thought the issue was rejections not inspection time. I think for me, both jpg's and png's take equivalently agonizingly long to get inspected.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #24 on:** November 25, 2024, 05:04 »

It was definitely the right decision for Adobe to focus on AI content and push it.

But I still see an uncontrolled mass of images, of which only a fraction is needed.

The problem is that about 90% of the content is too artistic and therefore not suitable for the usual use as a photo replacement.

I still think Adobe should hire more trend analysts and report on current trends and forecasts based on previous observations in the monthly update. This would also save their review capacities.

In other words, Adobe should control the flood of content. What is already oversaturated and where there is still little content available.

cobalt · « **Reply #25 on:** November 25, 2024, 05:20 »

You are asking for all of Adobestock to be a controlled edited collection. Which puts additional burdens on the reviewers or would require content be sent to specialized genre reviewers.

This goes against the principle of micros being open platforms where anyone can join and upload as long as the technical quality is fine.

Agencies deal with the duplicates quite easily with the algos. That works much faster than expecting every image reviewer to also be trained as a needed style editor.

In addition, all agencies create beautiful trendy collections for customers that they promote on their websites and newsletters.

I don't think that the duplicate issues, whether with normal camera or ai, is as much of a problem as people think.

Adobe also has a premium collection for high quality and often very artsy content.

Because spammers focus on duplicating, we all have plenty of opportunities to make money because the genuinely truly new content coming is actually very little.

There is so much content that I am now doing with ai, that could have been very, very easily done with a normal camera over the last 20 years. Strangely many of these subjects are not covered at all, often less than 100 files in a theme affecting thousands of people around the world.

And since the ai spammers do no research, to me it feels like they are just uploading pretty flower decorations that do not compete with my files.

Just my 2 cents.

davedigitalfx · « **Reply #26 on:** November 25, 2024, 09:33 »

zeljkok: "That image by Herr Mustafa is brutal"

woooooowwww .. i didnt see that sh*t ...

... AI is raising the quality of Adobe collection

davedigitalfx · « **Reply #27 on:** November 25, 2024, 09:45 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 23, 2024, 12:50

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 21, 2024, 15:36
...

Over all, the collection grew 32% between the end of April 2024 and today, but the genAI portion of the collection grew 82% versus the human-made portion grew 6.1%.

...

do we have actual numbers in each case? 6% of a very large number can be much greater than 82% of a much smaller number

yes right .. .also if we consider the 80-20 law ... that the 20% gives the 80% of the profit .... and the other 80% gives the 20% of the profit ...

cascoly · « **Reply #28 on:** November 25, 2024, 14:14 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 23, 2024, 14:28

Quote from: cascoly on November 23, 2024, 12:50
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 21, 2024, 15:36
...
Over all, the collection grew 32% between the end of April 2024 and today, but the genAI portion of the collection grew 82% versus the human-made portion grew 6.1%.
...
do we have actual numbers in each case? 6% of a very large number can be much greater than 82% of a much smaller number

thanks! those are amzing numbers

Adobe Stock growth Apr 30 - Nov 21 2024; roughly 7 months

total collection: 139,801,939 (576,474,125 up from 436,672,186) - up 32%

genAI: 117,178,564 (181,469,399 up from 64,290,835) - up 82%

human made: 22,623,375 (395,004,726 up from 372,381,351) - up 6.1%

human made asset types

photos growth 9,936,406 (228,291,001 up from 218,354,595) - up 4.5%

videos shrunk 3,202,090 (15,884,530 down from 19,086,620) - down 16.8%

illos growth 1,990,088 (33,691,112 up from 31,701,024) - up 6.3%

genAI asset types

photos 49,408,590 (71,313,378 up from 21,904,788) - up 126%

illos 65,134,599 (106,056,450 up from 40,921,851) - up 59%

videos 846,305 (1,237,747 up from 391,442) - up 116%

th anks! those are amazing numbers

tätarätä · « **Reply #29 on:** November 25, 2024, 16:55 »

Shocking numbers.
AI photo uploads 5 times compared to real photos.
AI illustration uploads 33 times compared to real illustrations.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #30 on:** November 25, 2024, 17:42 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 25, 2024, 05:20

You are asking for all of Adobestock to be a controlled edited collection. Which puts additional burdens on the reviewers or would require content be sent to specialized genre reviewers.

This goes against the principle of micros being open platforms where anyone can join and upload as long as the technical quality is fine.

Agencies deal with the duplicates quite easily with the algos. That works much faster than expecting every image reviewer to also be trained as a needed style editor.

In addition, all agencies create beautiful trendy collections for customers that they promote on their websites and newsletters.

I don't think that the duplicate issues, whether with normal camera or ai, is as much of a problem as people think.

Adobe also has a premium collection for high quality and often very artsy content.

Because spammers focus on duplicating, we all have plenty of opportunities to make money because the genuinely truly new content coming is actually very little.

There is so much content that I am now doing with ai, that could have been very, very easily done with a normal camera over the last 20 years. Strangely many of these subjects are not covered at all, often less than 100 files in a theme affecting thousands of people around the world.

And since the ai spammers do no research, to me it feels like they are just uploading pretty flower decorations that do not compete with my files.

Just my 2 cents.

This is ambivalent thinking.

You often complain about copycats, but on the other hand, you don't want Adobe to control the flood of images.

The problem with the spammers comes from the fact that there is no control and that they orient themselves to the best sellers as the best guess.

If, on the other hand, they had some help, along the lines of: Look here, we still have gaps here, we don't have enough content on ESG, sustainable teaching in schools, special health topics, new creative seasonal images, etc.,

Then all the Indians, Thais and Eastern Europeans would suddenly do something useful and quickly fill in all the gaps. Then there would be far fewer copycats.

Why keep the old system running when you can optimize it?
Even back then, Shutterstock, for example, rejected content with too little sales potential. And Adobe should reintroduce this review system.

zeljkok · « **Reply #31 on:** November 25, 2024, 18:42 »

My opinion, for what it's worth:

It all comes down to basic thing that is just about to kill entire microstock industry: Flood of content.

At the beginning you had to have real camera and be a photographer --> 3 or 4 digit sales on places like Alamy
Proliferation of low cost gear, smart automatic mode - just point and shoot. Everyone becomes a photographer
Advancement of smartphones, with semi-decent cameras --> exponential increase of content, exponential decrease of overall quality
"Rise of Machines" (too many Terminator movies, sorry). AI age removes final requirement, need to have camera in the first place

I believe Adobe honestly wanted in the beginning to have "lean and mean" library - high quality, without similars, etc etc. But they just could not cope, just like everyone else, with floods. So they resorted to algorithms that simply push 'unwanted' content in the swamp, like most other agencies did as well. End result is near.

It's a shame, because there are lots of Rewards in Photography whatever the form one prefers. I can fully understand people disillusioned with with what stock industry has become pulling their entire ports out.

cobalt · « **Reply #32 on:** November 26, 2024, 01:16 »

Like I said, my thinking has evolved, I no longer worry about duplicates because the algos will handle that.

All agencies have newsletters and blogs with needed content. But I sincerly doubt the spammers would listen.

They want the „shortcut“ and believe copying the topselling files is the easy path to get rich quickly.

Adobe could try to do more, maybe a country specific youtube channel with content suggestions. But filling niches is a slow way to grow the port and income.

Whereas making copies of 1000 best selling files will initially bring faster results.

So…I will stick to the niches and not worry about the flood.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** November 27, 2024, 10:18 »

The default order when you do a search on Adobe Stock (at least in the US) is "Relevence". Many days and with many searches, the top half of the first page is almost all AI images. IMO the massive volume of new (and generally low quality) genAI acceptances means that leaving it to Adobe's software to sort it out is wishful thinking. That sort of thing used to work when collections were smaller, inspections actually meant something and new work was a smaller proportion of the total collection size.

In five days - from Nov 21 to yesterday afternoon (Nov 25) Adobe Stock's total collection grew by just over 6 million items (6,075,697).

Nearly 5.5 million (5,499,162) were genAI.

Let those numbers sink in. And think about the possibility that the genAI content will slowly drive away everything else, and then buyers will drift away when they're bored with the sameness of everything left. Forget what's in my best interests as an individual contributor; Adobe Stock is taking a huge gamble that (a) genAI nearly-like-real-life content is OK with buyers and (b) that if it is, in time buyers will be able to find cheaper places to get it (Freepik's genAI collection is now 168.18 million) or make it themselves.

I've been licensing stock for just over 20 years. I remember a big celebration at iStock when they reached 1 million images...

cobalt · « **Reply #34 on:** November 27, 2024, 11:14 »

Customers can deactivate and filter out gen ai content with one click...as long as that is possible I am really not worried.

I do hope Adobe at some point implements the "personal feed" option that I have been pitching to agencies for over 10 years.

It would make the search experience so much better if a customer could develop his own feed in addition to the standard search options.

With the high volume of ai coming in, the value of non ai might actually go up. And non ai is still selling very well.

Robert Kneschke just published a very interesting blog posts that ai companies might be forced to license non ai content properly simply because the internet is now flooded with ai and that content is "poison" to the training.

article is in German, but google will help

https://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2024/11/27/zerstoert-der-ki-hype-selbst-seine-zukunft/?fbclid=IwY2xjawG0JItleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVrWzzTNkGfgdSDRtjtYpdy-27r2t0HlpsFqr_yMnA0F__DPAIsV83Gkiw_aem_qhskGZVkaIMla26q7ALxdA

eta

With the high volume of ai coming in, that is a good reason to keep uploading good and high quality normal photos and videos. I think next year the pendulum will swing back, the novelty of ai will wear off and many customers will want to buy real images again, especially with people, food, locations, lifestyle.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #35 on:** November 27, 2024, 14:31 »

LAION owns the metadata and release as CC-BY-4.0
"We do not own the copyright of the images or text."
LAION 5B was completed in 2022 before AI had invaded most sites.
LAION 5B and the previous collections are Open Source

Any future training should exclude AI images. I'm not saying it will, but it should. Part of the problem of scraping for AI is more complicated when it comes to text and undisclosed writings that are created by AI. But here, I think we're concerned with images.

"AI has generated 150 years worth of images in less than 12 months, study shows" https://www.designboom.com/technology/ai-has-generated-150-years-worth-of-photographs-in-less-than-12-months-study-shows-08-21-2023/

Just for interest: LAION-5B contains 2.3 billion English samples, 2.2 billion multilingual samples, and 1.2 billion unknown language samples. Depending on bandwidth, it’s feasible to download the entire LAION-5B dataset in 7 days using 10 nodes.

I hope that answers some questions about the size and access. I think from what I've found, the dataset is free, and no one was charged or paid for the content. Non-profit funding was used for the gathering of the data.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #36 on:** November 28, 2024, 02:19 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 27, 2024, 14:31

LAION owns the metadata and release as CC-BY-4.0
"We do not own the copyright of the images or text."
LAION 5B was completed in 2022 before AI had invaded most sites.
LAION 5B and the previous collections are Open Source

Any future training should exclude AI images. I'm not saying it will, but it should. Part of the problem of scraping for AI is more complicated when it comes to text and undisclosed writings that are created by AI. But here, I think we're concerned with images.

"AI has generated 150 years worth of images in less than 12 months, study shows" https://www.designboom.com/technology/ai-has-generated-150-years-worth-of-photographs-in-less-than-12-months-study-shows-08-21-2023/

Just for interest: LAION-5B contains 2.3 billion English samples, 2.2 billion multilingual samples, and 1.2 billion unknown language samples. Depending on bandwidth, it’s feasible to download the entire LAION-5B dataset in 7 days using 10 nodes.

I hope that answers some questions about the size and access. I think from what I've found, the dataset is free, and no one was charged or paid for the content. Non-profit funding was used for the gathering of the data.

I don't know if anyone has taken a closer look at the LAION-5B dataset.

I don't remember any high-resolution images in there, just some thumbnails with watermarks.

I mean, if someone had painted the pictures, scanned them and then used them as training material, would anyone have complained?

For me, Robert is the epitome of hypocrisy.
He complains about the LAION-5B dataset, but generates his own AI images with Midjourney & Co.

Clown world.

cobalt · « **Reply #37 on:** November 28, 2024, 05:05 »

The question is simply copyright.

laion. and some ai companies are trying to make money by stealing other peoples copyrighted works.

That should be illegal.

Ai companies should properly license all their training material and many large companies do.

And it seems now they might be forced to do just that because ai images are poisoning their free scraping pool.

Karma is a bitch.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #38 on:** November 28, 2024, 05:46 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 28, 2024, 05:05

The question is simply copyright.

laion. and some ai companies are trying to make money by stealing other peoples copyrighted works.

That should be illegal.

Ai companies should properly license all their training material and many large companies do.

And it seems now they might be forced to do just that because ai images are poisoning their free scraping pool.

Karma is a bitch.

Ok, when you are talking about copyright it is not that easy in this case.
Is it forbidden to use an image protected by watermarks for the training of AI models and then no longer use it or no publish it as such?

From my point of view, the question is much more: how high is the reproducibility of the material used by the AI model?
In other words, can the image used be reproduced 10, 20, 50 or 99% as such with a specific prompt by the user?

A high percentage of reproducibility is technically known as overfitting of the model.
And this is exactly where the law should show limits.
Every developer should disclose its model calibration quality public, so that this specific issue can be evaluated.
Anything else is nonsense and not worth further discussing.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #39 on:** November 28, 2024, 14:53 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on November 28, 2024, 02:19

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 27, 2024, 14:31
LAION owns the metadata and release as CC-BY-4.0
"We do not own the copyright of the images or text."
LAION 5B was completed in 2022 before AI had invaded most sites.
LAION 5B and the previous collections are Open Source

Any future training should exclude AI images. I'm not saying it will, but it should. Part of the problem of scraping for AI is more complicated when it comes to text and undisclosed writings that are created by AI. But here, I think we're concerned with images.

"AI has generated 150 years worth of images in less than 12 months, study shows" https://www.designboom.com/technology/ai-has-generated-150-years-worth-of-photographs-in-less-than-12-months-study-shows-08-21-2023/

Just for interest: LAION-5B contains 2.3 billion English samples, 2.2 billion multilingual samples, and 1.2 billion unknown language samples. Depending on bandwidth, it’s feasible to download the entire LAION-5B dataset in 7 days using 10 nodes.

I hope that answers some questions about the size and access. I think from what I've found, the dataset is free, and no one was charged or paid for the content. Non-profit funding was used for the gathering of the data.

I don't know if anyone has taken a closer look at the LAION-5B dataset.

I don't remember any high-resolution images in there, just some thumbnails with watermarks.

I mean, if someone had painted the pictures, scanned them and then used them as training material, would anyone have complained?

For me, Robert is the epitome of hypocrisy.
He complains about the LAION-5B dataset, but generates his own AI images with Midjourney & Co.

Clown world.

I can't comment on anyone else, or hypocrisy, I don't know. I'm interested in the questions of law, AI and the output.

The way I understand things and I know there are people who disagree, the images are used for training, not for creation of new images. So the machine it trained to make a banana after looking at thousands of pictures of bananas, and learning the shape, color and bits of information of "what is a banana". Then when a new image is made, none of the original images are directly used, as the machine creates from what it has learned.

Also I see many posts and if I read things right, LAION 5B and the previous projects are licensed Creative Commons and they are Open Source, which I interpret to mean, they are FREE not licensed for a fee. Since those datasets are older and not continuous, completed in 2022, anything new that some AI software wants to add, to make the machine better, has to be paid for, from some other source.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Significant growth of Adobe Stock collection over the last 7 months (Read 2119 times)

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors