people were saying the same when the free agencies came out...and here we are still making money.

we sell time more than actual files. that includes saving time on prompting.
spend an afternoon prompting or 20 min browsing thousands of files, then tweaking the ones you find in photoshop to perfection

I've never knowingly used AI, maybe I should to get an idea of what it's like in reality. 

Question is if AI takes over and artists, creatives, bloggers etc are no longer seeing financial reward, or very little reward why would anyone upload anything of value to the internet.  AI companies must have thought this one through, do they really think people are just going to work for free or something. 

Sorry to be harsh but they sound like a self entitled bunch, lobbying governments, at least here in Britain, to weaken copyright laws.  Our silly governments are swallowing the line.

"AI" is nothing more than the most open and large scale copyright breach in human history and shoved into a database.
Every single generated AI image is effectively copyright theft as the models were all trained to various extents on media without permission.

Ultimately Adobes gamble seems dull.  NOW people are buying AI from stock.  It wont be long until they just make their own from a prompt in whatever editor they're using and have no further need to buy anything so that market vanishes.

Question is if AI takes over and artists, creatives, bloggers etc are no longer seeing financial reward, or very little reward why would anyone upload anything of value to the internet.  AI companies must have thought this one through, do they really think people are just going to work for free or something. 

Sorry to be harsh but they sound like a self entitled bunch, lobbying governments, at least here in Britain, to weaken copyright laws.  Our silly governments are swallowing the line.

IF? That has already happened and we are already to the point of no longer seeing financial reward for our work. People are still uploading to SS for dimes and the reset. People are still trying to sell on Getty for 15%. How could the financial reward be less? (I hate to ask that, maybe it could get worse?)

"AI" is nothing more than the most open and large scale copyright breach in human history and shoved into a database.
Every single generated AI image is effectively copyright theft as the models were all trained to various extents on media without permission.

Ultimately Adobes gamble seems dull.  NOW people are buying AI from stock.  It wont be long until they just make their own from a prompt in whatever editor they're using and have no further need to buy anything so that market vanishes.

Diminishes not vanishes.

The judges and juries and courts of the world, will decide if it's a breach of copyright, not artists who have a personal interest in the use and decision. Using public domain images, without permission isn't copyright breach. Training a machine with images, and then the machine creates new images, without using any part of the training image, is not a breach of copyright.

If you use a thesaurus, or dictionary, to learn what a word means or how to use it, is that a breach of copyright? Having a machine look at an image and learn is the same thing.

No I don't use AI, no I don't like it or what's happened to the photo market, but that won't make me ignore the facts or the laws behind how the images are used, just because I don't like machine learning.

Adobe is jumping in, just like all the rest. It's "The next big thing" and here we are. Let me mention Kodak, and how digital is just a novelty, film is always going to be better. Remember Blockbuster, who could have bought Netflix, but they didn't think digital or streaming was a threat. So why would Adobe, just sit and watch as the AI market booms, without taking a part and making a profit?

Quote from: angelacat on April 21, 2025, 05:52

Training a machine with images, and then the machine creates new images, without using any part of the training image, is not a breach of copyright.

That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative.

They are not derivatives, they are whole new creations. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) or diffusion models are used to learn patterns and concepts. Then the machine makes a new image, that does not use any portion or detail of any training image. Information or knowledge is not a derivative any more than knowing that water freezes at 32F or 0C is. A fact is a fact. Machine learning, is taught, not copying.

If the dumber "AI" systems, use bits and pieces of actual images, to make a new product, that's would be a derivative and can't be defended in any way.


ps the above message from Richard shows a quote tagged as me, and I didn't write "That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative."

Pattern and concept in many places is still derivative.  It doesnt need to use any part of it.

Thats why "in the style of" is causing so many issues currently.

Pattern and concept can't be copy protected.

You're right, in the style of should have been banned and prevented, from the start, that's infringing on a name and artists personal identity. Style might be questionable as you can't protect Art Deco or  Abstract, or Modernist. Lets say primitive for an example, anyone can do that. But you can't have AI making Grandma Moses Primitive.

Back to the bottom line, the machine learning doesn't use any portion of any specific image, it learns what a banana looks like and the possible colors, and creates a new image. The computer is trained on 10,000 bananas (as an example) is trained on the possible variations, and when someone types in the prompt using the word banana, the machine has a pattern that has been learned.

You can't copyright knowledge or facts.

They are not derivatives, they are whole new creations. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) or diffusion models are used to learn patterns and concepts. Then the machine makes a new image, that does not use any portion or detail of any training image. Information or knowledge is not a derivative any more than knowing that water freezes at 32F or 0C is. A fact is a fact. Machine learning, is taught, not copying.

If the dumber "AI" systems, use bits and pieces of actual images, to make a new product, that's would be a derivative and can't be defended in any way.


ps the above message from Richard shows a quote tagged as me, and I didn't write "That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative."

One thing you have to remember is words are like magic, and powerful. If "they", the small group of psychopaths pushing "ai" called it "machine theft" (which it ultimately is), people might clue in and say 'hmm, ain't theft wrong?'. But call it machine 'LEARNING'... and ooh, ahh - its 'LEARNING'. (No it's not, its STEALING).

This small group of psychos really is a consortium (if whose name is mentioned will make some people on this forum's head explode and froth at the mouth because of their pavlovian conditioning, or - perhaps they belong to same unnamed group - because that is the strategy they employ - screaming victimhood and attacking anyone who states the obvious, so for now - will not name that group, but feel free to PM if you want to know) -  this group LOVES MONEY. MONEY MONEY MONEY. That's really all it comes down to. MONEY. And they can swim in it, and pools full of it. They LOOOOOOOOVE money. But what they love MORE than money is POWER. The feeling of power it gives them. The ability to "ban" people at will, financially control people's live, make them BEG for scraps, and they can decide on a whim whether or not to throw them some crumbs. OOOOOOooh. They love that. And they are into some really sick messed up sh*t too.

But anyways - it is machine STEALING. "Training" is STEALING.

But it's funny - by using words like "learning" and "training", it sounds so "innocent" and benign. NO. IT IS THEFT. 1000% THEFT. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Otherwise, let's look at other euphamisms for other "professions".

A bank robber doesn't steal, he simply is a "financial planner" that "refinances other people's accounts".
A chop shop doesn't steal and put new VINs on cars and repaint them, they are simply "artists expressing themselves in creative ways".

IF someone breaks into a company, looks at trade secrets, and then "creatively makes their own" product based the information derived, didn't they steal? Or - are they just "creative artists learning patterns from random words arranged on paper", that just "happened" to make a new product totally unrelated to the original?

"AI" systems STOLE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. The MAIN PROBLEM they HAVE had is how to remove WATERMARKS - aka COPYRIGHT NOTICES. BOTH for images AND video. HOW did these "mysterious watermarks" get in outputted content? If one had permission to use said "training materials" - would they have been "trained" on images & videos with copyright notices?

"AI" is THEFT. Plain and simple. You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig. Nothing different here.

Now - they models have gotten much more sophisticated - but they were all based on THEFT.

And the ultimate "goal" of this consortium of a very tightly knit group - is to make you BEG to use their tools that was derived from stealing from you, so you can make a livelihood eeking out an existance - and on a whim - they can deny you access to these "tools" - effectively cutting off your income at the knees and making you poor, homeless and destitute. THAT is one of the main purposes of "AI". "AI" is not some mysterious "intelligent" machine (at least not what the public has access too).

It's a really fancy way, like REALLY fancy way - of the current power group figuring out how to steal all your hard work for you - and then make you PAY for the privelege of using your own work to 'get by'.

The "spammers" that use AI - for the most part - have no brains, don't know how to create. BUT - like monkeys - they can bang on keyboards all day going "generate! generate! generate!".

The SUPER BIG FUNNY IRONY is... the "ai" companies don't want YOU using sophisticated algorithms - ooh they are scared of that. In their license agreements they say "oh no no no! If you want to make an image or video, you must bang like a monkey on a keyboard! If YOU figure out how to write a computer program to use our services - OMFG! thats STEALING!"... haha - EXTREMELY funny in an f'd up way.

"THEY" have these tools that steal BILLIONS with the click of a button. BUT. For you to "generate" - they want YOU sitting in front of a keyboard like a trained monkey, banging on keys MANUALLY.

If you stole a pile of gold coins, gold jewelry, silverware, etc, etc... Melted it all down - and then say made your own gigantic gold coin.
Does that mean you 'didn't steal' the gold, simply because you "trained" and "learned" from the gold, and didn't use a "specific portion of any specific gold coin", because it was "trained" on 10,000 gold coins... and you simply learned the "pattern" for "gold coins"... does that now magically mean you didn't steal the gold?

THE CURRENT "AI" systems are 100% THEFT BASED tools.

I agree with limits on AI uploads - it would also help make the insane review times better.

I uploaded around 130 AI images early on - not a lot but a little more than 10% of my small portfolio - and they were selling really well at first but after Adobe switched to letting customers remove AI from their searches, dls of those AI images dropped significantly - nearly all my dls are now photographs. And earnings this year to date are up 18% from 2024, so no loss.

I know I have a small portfolio at Adobe - 1,049 images - but I've been tracking my dls carefully for years - and I think this actually bodes well for real photographs. My earnings are up over 35% at Alamy & ss too - so I'm less worried about AI than I was. I've also stopped experimenting with it. It was fun and fast but I'd rather take real photographs.

I'm hopeful that the initial interest is more a fad. I also shoot a lot of work that ends up in publications and they are less likely to use AI than commercial users.

I had a significant drop in dls & earnings in the first two weeks of the month at Adobe - but those are spring break weeks in the US - now it's back to normal. No drop elsewhere, though, wo maybe not the reason why - but hopeful whatever the cause, it was a two week blip.