MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: Artist on April 19, 2025, 02:05
-
This month is going bad and I am seeing a sudden downfall in download number.
What could be the reason and is this only me?
-
easter holidays in many countries. schools and businesses closed.
-
easter holidays in many countries. schools and businesses closed.
If he doesn't have any easter content that would be a plausible reason.
But I believe that Adobe also had some major ranking algorithm shifts.
-
I know someone who uploaded 20,000 images from summer 2023 to summer 2024 and earned $31,000,which is about $2,500 per month.
This is probably why many of us are unable to earn as much as we should in a pre-AI situation.
Unfortunately I cannot verify if this information is true,but it is likely true.
if it's true,In my opinion this is wrong and should be avoided,Adobe shouldn't allow a single contributor to upload 20,000 images in a year,that's just too much.
but this happened at the beginning,now something like this can't happen anymore,Adobe is already fixing it by cleaning up the library for example,and should probably try to stop accepting content from people who uploaded that much,or just remove at least half of the content from people who uploaded more than 1000 AI content per month,while it should give more space to those who upload less content more regularly.
It seems to me that Adobe has already started this policy,which is necessary for the future of Adobe Stock,so things should improve in the future.
At the moment we are still suffering the impact of this flood,but soon I hope and believe it should get better.
I hope the review team has a chance to see who uploads this content and HOW MANY they have already uploaded.
I'm sure the Adobe Stock team knows better than us what they're doing and I hope things will get better soon.
as far as I'm concerned,lately the review seem right to me,I have nothing to complain about,i have approved content and rejected content in a normal level.
I will also spend Easter Sunday working and the future of this work for me with Adobe Stock will depend a lot on what happens in the next 2 months at most,for some reasons that I won't write here.
I will soon know what my future will be,for now I just have to keep working.
Happy Easter to all of you fellow contributors and the entire Adobe Stock team! :)
we need a better future,help us make it happen!
-
I will also spend Easter Sunday working and the future of this work for me with Adobe Stock will depend a lot on what happens in the next 2 months at most,for some reasons that I won't write here.
You been saying this for quite some time now. I refer to your post below from July 27, 2024, in particular the bold sentence, and the quote below that one on July 29, 2024.
So did you achieve your 80% growth in sales numbers at the end of 2024?
If not, have you revised your forecasts and expectations since then?
Link to below quote at https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-quarters-and-years/msg605199/#msg605199 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-quarters-and-years/msg605199/#msg605199)
I did some calculations,and came to some conclusions.
I calculated the number of sales,because in my opinion it is the most important data,of course the earnings are what count in the end,but in the microstock the earnings can vary depending on the licenses sold,so the only thing that in my opinion can give a solid data is the sales number,this number must absolutely increase year after year if I work actively.
here is the percentage increase of the number of the sales in my first 2 quarters between 2023 and 2024:
1Q +36,2%
2Q +18,8%
I wanted to have an even broader vision,and I calculated the percentage of annual growth,even if I had always calculated the differences between years,I had never calculated the percentages in detail.
here are the growth percentages in the number of sales since 2019:
2019-2020 +60,9%
2020-2021 +62,12%
2021-2022 +22,8%
2022-2023 +110,6%
2023-2024 +27,5% (half-year)
so considering the situation in general,I think Adobe Stock can be a gold mine if you have time on your side,because I believe that we also need to make a projection into the future and see if we will then have time to enjoy the fruits of this work.
then in the end it's all subjective,it depends on what you're looking for in the microstock,I'm looking for a solid income,certainly not to become rich,but to earn enough.
so as i said,in my opinion,Adobe Stock can be a gold mine if you start at 30 years or maximum 40 years,because you still have more time,over 40 years instead,it depends on what you are able to produce,and in what quantity,because the time left to enjoy the fruits of labor is less,you simply have less time,it's not negativity,it's simply a fact,reality.
so in conclusion,as far as I'm concerned,if I can have an annual growth in number of sales of at least 80% every year for the next 4 years,in 4 years I can start to have a good income from Adobe Stock,if instead the this year's growth percentage or some of the next 4 years will be less than 80% I don't think I can continue,not actively,maybe some uploads if I feel like it a couple of times a year.
so for the moment until the end of this year I will continue consistently,and then at the end of the year I will evaluate,if I can achieve at least 80% growth in sales numbers,I will continue next year too.
Link to below quote at https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-quarters-and-years/msg605241/#msg605241 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-quarters-and-years/msg605241/#msg605241)
I did some calculations,and came to some conclusions.
I calculated the number of sales,because in my opinion it is the most important data,of course the earnings are what count in the end,but in the microstock the earnings can vary depending on the licenses sold,so the only thing that in my opinion can give a solid data is the sales number,this number must absolutely increase year after year if I work actively.
here is the percentage increase of the number of the sales in my first 2 quarters between 2023 and 2024:
1Q +36,2%
2Q +18,8%
I wanted to have an even broader vision,and I calculated the percentage of annual growth,even if I had always calculated the differences between years,I had never calculated the percentages in detail.
here are the growth percentages in the number of sales since 2019:
2019-2020 +60,9%
2020-2021 +62,12%
2021-2022 +22,8%
2022-2023 +110,6%
2023-2024 +27,5% (half-year)
so considering the situation in general,I think Adobe Stock can be a gold mine if you have time on your side,because I believe that we also need to make a projection into the future and see if we will then have time to enjoy the fruits of this work.
then in the end it's all subjective,it depends on what you're looking for in the microstock,I'm looking for a solid income,certainly not to become rich,but to earn enough.
so as i said,in my opinion,Adobe Stock can be a gold mine if you start at 30 years or maximum 40 years,because you still have more time,over 40 years instead,it depends on what you are able to produce,and in what quantity,because the time left to enjoy the fruits of labor is less,you simply have less time,it's not negativity,it's simply a fact,reality.
so in conclusion,as far as I'm concerned,if I can have an annual growth in number of sales of at least 80% every year for the next 4 years,in 4 years I can start to have a good income from Adobe Stock,if instead the this year's growth percentage or some of the next 4 years will be less than 80% I don't think I can continue,not actively,maybe some uploads if I feel like it a couple of times a year.
so for the moment until the end of this year I will continue consistently,and then at the end of the year I will evaluate,if I can achieve at least 80% growth in sales numbers,I will continue next year too.
In the past we had folks claiming 100% gains but they went from like $20 USD per month to $40 USD. I am assuming you make over $2,000 USD per month thus you're doing a great job. If you make more than $5,000 a month than I am inspired by your work and results!
i am afraid that you assume wrong! :D
If I earn 2,000 USD a month I wouldn't have any problem!
that's why I will need to earn at least 80% more every year for the next 4 years.
if instead I earn 40% more every year,it will still take 8 years before I have a decent income from Adobe,and with a growth of only 20% per year it will take 16 years!
hence my considerations,this is why I absolutely must proceed with a growth of at least 80% more every year at least for the next 4 years,then this percentage can also decrease,once I already have a good income every year,I can have a growth of even 20% per year is fine.
-
no,my expectations have not changed,I did not reach my goal last year,but I decided to take responsibility and do everything in my power to change things,and above all try a new path.
but basically I haven't changed my expectations,in fact we are still in April,and in 2 months from now I will know if things can change for me or not,for reasons that as I said I don't intend to discuss here.
then I don't know why you have to waste time looking for sentences written by me a year ago in a completely different situation,don't you have anything better to do? :D
-
Well Adobe could be a gold mine if there would be no algorithm / ranking shifts or rejection rates / deleting of images.
You can't plan with Adobe for the next months or years.
You can only try to squeeze the last dollars before the coming big collapse in some years.
2500 USD / month (just 625 USD / week) with 20000 images sounds very managable. One member named half_full is making 1000 USD / week with the same sized portfolio.
But I guess the problem is more that you won't upload that much content so fast as in the last years anymore because Adobe will increase massively the rejection rate.
-
Well Adobe could be a gold mine if there would be no algorithm / ranking shifts or rejection rates / deleting of images.
You can't plan with Adobe for the next months or years.
You can only try to squeeze the last dollars before the coming big collapse in some years.
2500 USD / month (just 625 USD / week) with 20000 images sounds very managable. One member named half_full is making 1000 USD / week with the same sized portfolio.
But I guess the problem is more that you won't upload that much content so fast as in the last years anymore because Adobe will increase massively the rejection rate.
and here we disagree.
I think the fact that they are cleaning ibrary is better,while you think it's not.
then you think about the great collapse that according to you will happen in a few years,I instead think that there won't be one,in my opinion there will be an evolution,not a collapse.
imo we are only experiencing a first phase,in which things have to settle down.
I agree instead on "no algorithm / ranking shifts" but unfortunately this is not possible,and you know very well why,but clearly this too can be improved and will surely improve in the future.
as for "rejection rates" it seems to me that the review have become more efficient and have already had a taste of the "evolution" I was telling you about.
we are in the midst of a microstock revolution,which until 3 years ago was a completely different job,imo nothing more than this.
-
Well Adobe could be a gold mine if there would be no algorithm / ranking shifts or rejection rates / deleting of images.
You can't plan with Adobe for the next months or years.
You can only try to squeeze the last dollars before the coming big collapse in some years.
2500 USD / month (just 625 USD / week) with 20000 images sounds very managable. One member named half_full is making 1000 USD / week with the same sized portfolio.
But I guess the problem is more that you won't upload that much content so fast as in the last years anymore because Adobe will increase massively the rejection rate.
and here we disagree.
I think the fact that they are cleaning ibrary is better,while you think it's not.
then you think about the great collapse that according to you will happen in a few years,I instead think that there won't be one,in my opinion there will be an evolution,not a collapse.
imo we are only experiencing a first phase,in which things have to settle down.
I agree instead on "no algorithm / ranking shifts" but unfortunately this is not possible,and you know very well why,but clearly this too can be improved and will surely improve in the future.
as for "rejection rates" it seems to me that the review have become more efficient and have already had a taste of the "evolution" I was telling you about.
we are in the midst of a microstock revolution,which until 3 years ago was a completely different job,imo nothing more than this.
;D AI prompters trying to predict the future of microstock, so pitiful...
Next step for you: bye bye the lazy unskilled sheeps!
-
@DiscreetDuck happy Easter! :D
then,as I was saying,they are two completely distinct things,what I think about the future of microstock and what I think about my future in microstock.
about the future of microstock I have no doubt that things will recover,and rejections especially for content similar compared to what is already in the library will decrease,because new ways will be found to show content to customers so that everyone can show their work,in equal measure.
regarding my future in microstock instead,everything will depend on what will happen in the next 2 months,and that's what I'm stressed about,I hope I don't have any nasty surprises,and I won't explain why here,but there are some very specific reasons why this is the case,as far as I'm concerned.
-
If somebody uploads 20k files, no matter what media type and customers love the content so much he earns 2500 a month...good for him/her and everyone.
Why should adobe stop the uploads of someone who understands what customers like?
I see a bigger problem with people uploading 100k files and sales of 25 dollars a month....
But even then, these ports can be dropped down by algos and usually they do because of a bad sales to size ratio.
All problems we notice can be easily solved by intelligent upload limits.
That whole crazy ai is simply not needed at all.
-
Well Adobe could be a gold mine if there would be no algorithm / ranking shifts or rejection rates / deleting of images.
You can't plan with Adobe for the next months or years.
You can only try to squeeze the last dollars before the coming big collapse in some years.
2500 USD / month (just 625 USD / week) with 20000 images sounds very managable. One member named half_full is making 1000 USD / week with the same sized portfolio.
But I guess the problem is more that you won't upload that much content so fast as in the last years anymore because Adobe will increase massively the rejection rate.
and here we disagree.
I think the fact that they are cleaning ibrary is better,while you think it's not.
then you think about the great collapse that according to you will happen in a few years,I instead think that there won't be one,in my opinion there will be an evolution,not a collapse.
imo we are only experiencing a first phase,in which things have to settle down.
I agree instead on "no algorithm / ranking shifts" but unfortunately this is not possible,and you know very well why,but clearly this too can be improved and will surely improve in the future.
as for "rejection rates" it seems to me that the review have become more efficient and have already had a taste of the "evolution" I was telling you about.
we are in the midst of a microstock revolution,which until 3 years ago was a completely different job,imo nothing more than this.
;D AI prompters trying to predict the future of microstock, so pitiful...
Next step for you: bye bye the lazy unskilled sheeps!
Haha, very funny. Not. Are you already making money or are you just talking nonsense in this forum?
If yes, just focus on your content and shut up? If no, let the adults finish speaking and shut up.
I think we will actually see a big boom before the big crash. The problem is, the customers are still from the old generation.
When the stingy greedy young TikTok kids grow up, the model will collapse because they will generate the content themselves.
But I think we still have about 7 to 10 years to generate unique content and satisfy the old customers. So, we can still make some money.
By the way, since today is a holiday, happy Easter!
-
... Are you already making money
;D I did well during almost 20 years, and I still do, sorry for you!
... I think we will actually see a big boom before the big crash ...
Andrej.S.: "I see a big boom coming..." - 2 months later... - "Oh Nooooooo, it was the big crash!" ;D
-
@Cobalt "Why should adobe stop the uploads of someone who understands what customers like?"
not to stop,but to limit.
in the absurd hypothesis that Adobe had done as I said in 2023,we would not find ourselves in this situation,do you agree?
I had proposed a limit of 500 AI contents maximum per month per contributor,but probably 1000 would be even more fair,but no more for each contributor.
come on,1000 contents per month accepted at most for each contributor I think is enough,and then it pushes people to be more selective.
but now,you,me and everyone are complaining (rightly,in this case imo) because Adobe rejects similar content,not only in comparison to its own port,but also to the entire library.
this,in addition to being wrong,because as you said,you no longer have control of your port,I agree with you,it is wrong,because if the content have quality and commercial value,I also have the right to sell this content,even if there are already millions similar on Adobe Stock.
so,as I was saying,besides being wrong,it is also counterproductive for a whole series of businesses that revolve around content generation,including firefly.
so here,in my opinion,the real problem is that we are still in a primordial phase,in which is not known how to manage such a large library.
That's why over time,Adobe will gain experience in managing this type of content,and experience in selling this type of content,and unfortunately we have found ourselves in the middle of this ongoing evolution.
but for me,the important thing is the will to solve problems,which I see in Adobe Stock,which is always there looking for new solutions and strategies,if there is the will,everything will be solved,unfortunately for us it takes time.
this fact of rejecting similar content in comparison to the library,is like trying to repair the cylinder head of an engine with electrical tape! :D
-
if it's true,In my opinion this is wrong and should be avoided,Adobe shouldn't allow a single contributor to upload 20,000 images in space a year,that's just too much.
Why not? While I agree nobody can produce more than a few hundred good images a month there are reasons.
If someone is already an established contributor, for example IS exclusive and decides to join AS then they can easily have 20,000 good images ready to go. Why ban them from doing so?
My upload is bursty - I go to months working away getting images. I then upload later so send nothing for 7 months then 5,000 in the space of 2 after that. Why rate limit it?
The problem lies in the lack of enforcement of standards. If they actively human reviewed submissions and kept the same standards of old along with account warnings and bans there'd be no issue. The fact they haven't opened the flood gates of unadulterated shite, some real but most text prompt AI spam. Now they're using desperate, ineffective methods with unforseen consequences to fix it.
Simple fix, completely separate real images from AI. Different website, different search engine, different review stream. This is better for contributors and customers.
Bluntly this entire mess was created by their unthinking headlong shift to AI. 99% of AI images are just people mass text prompt spaming (often with stolen credentials) using a free or pirate upscale service, using AI to automate and create a set of awful generic keywords and descriptions then just uploading in mass without checking or even looking at the output.
Its a zero effort, industrial scale production mindset.
Adobe do not and likely never will have the resources to handle this increasing river of crap.
-
"Simple fix, completely separate real images from AI. Different website, different search engine, different review stream. This is better for contributors and customers.
"
This is not better for buyers, I don't want to waste time checking two websites.
In a combined search I can easily pick the best from all media.
If I don't want ai, i just exclude it with one click.
If Adobe had normal upload limits, 1200-2000 a month, they can always offer exceptions to talented producers. And someone wanting to upload 20k files could just write to support for an exception.
However uploading 20k at once, will usually lead to low sales results.
We have practical proof when people left istock exclusivity in 2013.
Those that uploaded gradually and mixed old and new files and created an upload stream made more and more reliable money than those who dropped 20k files in one go.
The success of our ports comes from gradually being discovered and followed by buyers.
Dumping it all at once with little follow up is useless.
-
"Simple fix, completely separate real images from AI. Different website, different search engine, different review stream. This is better for contributors and customers.
"
This is not better for buyers, I don't want to waste time checking two websites.
Every single buyer i know doesnt want AI and is really angry by the time it takes to filter the crap out to get actual real images they need. I dont know a single one that likes the default of showing huge number of fake images burying real stuff without jumping through extra steps.
Its a completely different market. No connection at all.
However uploading 20k at once, will usually lead to low sales results.
Not really. Uploading the same 20k over a year will result on lower sales because you have far fewer images online.
We have practical proof when people left istock exclusivity in 2013.
No idea what you're on about. People leave and join exclusive at various agencies all the time. If you leave exclusive OR suddenly decide its worth trying a new agency you didnt bother with before you have a huge portfolio ready to go and upload. You're not going to drip feed it on over months or years. Theres no reason to do that.
The success of our ports comes from gradually being discovered and followed by buyers.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that is true at all.
-
@gnirtS I was talking about AI content,the scenario you describe is another story.
all this always in relation to the contents rejected for similar content because already in the Adobe Stock library,this is what I'm talking about.
What I'm saying is that it's simply not fair that contributors should have to pay the consequences for mistakes that others have made.
some/many were allowed to upload 20000+ AI contents in a year and now we have to pay the consequences of this,I think this is wrong.
I also believe that the solution to the problem is not to reject it but lies in the management of the library.
In my opinion,we should allow everyone equally,talent or not,to accept a maximum of 1000 AI contents per month,because 1000 are already a lot,or rather it should have been done before,now I don't think it's possible to have more than 1000 contents accepted per month.
I am not the one who allowed more than 1000 AI contents to be uploaded per month,so I am not the one who has to pay the consequences,and this applies to all contributors like me,who try to produce quality AI contents,at least try,they are not the ones who have to pay the consequences of this error.
finding a better solution is inevitable,I'm sure it will happen,I think that all this is just temporary,cannot last for many reasons,and I am sure that they will find a solution to the problem,or soon it will not be possible to upload anything anymore,because it will all be similar to content already present in the library.
-
I would also add that a limit of 1000 AI contents per month approved equally for everyone is a better choice also because the AI contents produced today are better than the AI contents produced a year ago,just as the AI contents produced in a year will be better than those produced today.
for this reason too,a more gradual growth of the AI collection would certainly be a better choice.
-
I remember a time when the first photorealistic Gen AI images were out and a lot of people were disheartened, because they understood that at some point AI would completely replace them and hardly any customers would go through the effort of searching a microstock database and paying for an image when they could just generate the image they needed themselves.
And then there were the people who insisted "No! Customers will be too lazy to create exactly the image they want with AI (but somehow, according to them, not too lazy to browse through hundrets of pages on microstock sites to find "exactly" the image they want, even at the risk that "exactly" the image they want does not even exist) and still buy microstock images! Ai is just a tool that helps us, it will not replace us or take away from our income in any way! Yada yada yada!".
And then, 2-3 years later, people are suddenly wondering "Why are customers downloading less? What is happening? I don't understand this at all".
Yes. I wonder, why are customers downloading less images form microstock sites? Big mystery.
-
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.
-
My earnings in Adobe have also dropped. It was consitent before but now less downloads. It begun about a month or so ago.
-
Over 321 million AI generated assets as of now, I believe what else could be the reason.
https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=0&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&order=relevance&limit=100&search_type=filter-select
-
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.
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
-
easter holidays in many countries. schools and businesses closed.
If he doesn't have any easter content that would be a plausible reason.
But I believe that Adobe also had some major ranking algorithm shifts.
Oh good, maybe my images will be favored now. If one shift causes people to go down, the same shift will cause others to go up. It's impossible to have "everyone" going down.
Otherwise seasonal changes are the best answer. Whether that means holidays, seasonal demands that change, or new competition. Much better than the old blame the algorithm. That's getting stale for an easy answer to falling sales.
Maybe they adjusted the fake pay quotas for everyone? Ask some people here and they will say, it's all rigged. Then there are the others who say, it's just luck. ::)
-
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.
-
No drop in sales here. It's actually been a strong month so far, best April ever & over a week left. The sales pattern is following its usual seasonal flow with fluctuations due to the dates of events. I don't submit any AI.
That said, there are too few contributors here to form any pattern at all. You'd need 1000's of views / input to be able to determine any sort of pattern after discounting outliers.
-
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.
"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.
This is bit harsh, but I won't disagree as I also believe AI is wrong.
But AI is just a tool, no more no less. It's people that are abusing the tool that make it bad.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
No, but you can methods and mechanisms behind the final output. Which as that the AI does. It's learnt and implemented from prior works. The output literally wouldn't be possible without it.
-
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 had a pleasant time reading you.
I completely agree with you. But we know well that AI prompters and promoters can rest easy because no one will ever come and steal their stupidity, incompetence, subservience... :P
THE CURRENT "AI" systems are 100% SUBSERVIENCE 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.
-
Big bad month of April. I wasn't expecting such kind of downfall.