MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The end for original content creators. Adobe officially allows use of img2img  (Read 2214 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 08, 2024, 03:59 »
+9
I want to share the results of my case. What responses did I receive from Adobe?

I will briefly describe the details of my case:
I found that one author (actually there are many), takes images from my portfolio, uses them as a prompt in Midjourney, Stable Diffusion or Adobe firefly (it can be any AI generator, where there is the possibility of img2img) and generates similar AI works, and then sells these images on Adobe Stock. Also he copies the description of my work. "n the attachment, you will find a picture with several examples.

In Adobe's rules, I found this information:
Your Generative AI content prompts, titles or keywords:
-May not contain references to third party intellectual property

If I understand correctly, you can't use someone else's images as a prompt and img2img.

I sent the DMCA notice to Adobe's Intellectual Property Agent (copyright-stock AT adobe.com), reached out to Contributor Support, and communicated with the Adobe team on Discord.

These are the answers I got:
Adobe Intellectual Property Agent: Thank you for your message. We are unable to take action on your report. The allegedly infringing content appears not to be substantially similar to your content.

Contributor Support: The team who handles and deal with these issues is the one who already reviewed your claim and responded back > [email protected] [nofollow]

I am afraid we can't help you from here. You are more than welcome to send them another message and see if they can review your case again, or provide more details. But if they reviewed your claim and determined that these content do not infringes copyright or other IP rights, then I am afraid there's nothing else we can do. Your case has been reviewed, a decision has been made and a response has been sent back to you already.

Adobe team on Discord: How can you prove the member took your photos and created a file with it? it has similarities, but it is hard to prove. Yes, I see a resemblance, but it's not a direct copy. Ai can really bring our various images. unless your design is exactly/part copied, then you can make an IP claim.


I'm a little confused and have a few questions:
- Adobe themselves have established rules on uploading AI content, where it is forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt for img2img. However, the original content author has absolutely no means to prove that their picture was used in img2img.

- Adobe should be aware of how AI works. It is not possible to generate such a similar picture to the original using only text prompts. Obviously, an image was used as the prompt here as well. For example, try writing a prompt in Midjourney or Adobe Firefly like "a young girl in a yellow hoodie and red pants riding a scooter" and compare the resulting image to mine. You won't get an image as similar as mine without using my image as a prompt for img2img."


We've received an official response from Adobe:
Anyone can take any picture from any portfolio, upload it to Midjourney, and use it as a prompt, then sell it on Adobe Stock. The original author will have no means to prove that img2img was utilized. Adobe doesn't recognize any infringement, despite its clear presence to me.
This situation significantly disadvantages original content creators, and it's not entirely clear how to proceed."


@MatHayward, I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. You've conducted podcasts and promoted AI content on Adobe in this manner. You've spoken extensively about the benefits of AI, but you haven't addressed the challenges and safeguards for original content creators. We continue to see millions of accepted images with six fingers, three legs, and other anomalies. Would you be interested in hosting a new podcast where you address issues like this? How does Adobe protect authors from img2img?"

I would like to hear the community's opinion. What are your thoughts on my situation? I may be mistaken in some aspects, and I would appreciate it if you could point out any errors in my reasoning.

Thank you for your attention.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 13:37 by Neo-Leo »


« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2024, 04:48 »
+3
Incredible!!!  >:(

If something like this goes through, copyright will be ruined forever!

« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2024, 05:28 »
+1
My advice is to run from Adobe as if your pants were on fire!!!!

« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2024, 05:31 »
+4

In Adobe's rules, I found this information:
Your Generative AI content prompts, titles or keywords:
-May not contain references to third party intellectual property

They refer to intellectual property like famous brands or artists. I do not think any stock agency has ever considered titles and keywords as "intellectual property". At least I remember cases from the past - long before AI - where contributors complained about others recreating their photos, using the same title and keywords and Adobe or other agencies never did anything when the issue was adressed to them.
This might be different in different countries, but from what I know, in most countries short phrases or expressions cannot be copyrighted, so there would technically not be any infrigment.




- Adobe themselves have established rules on uploading AI content, where it is forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt for img2img.


I have not seen any rule on Adobe where it says it was forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt.





Do not get me wrong, I think what is happening to you is very clearly moraly wrong (but this was absolutely to be expected with AI), but it's not explicitly against Adobe's rules.

Some people still seem to hold on to that romantic notion that Adobe actually cares about us. All they care about is to get fodder to train their own AI so that we can all be replaced and the sale. Whether it's happening on your account or on the thief's account - it's all the same to them.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 05:34 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2024, 05:40 »
+1
I have not seen any rule on Adobe where it says it was forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt.

I still interpret this note from Abode as a prohibition on using another author's image (img2img in AI).

Note: Please review our requirements before submitting content created using generative artificial intelligence tools. Reminder, you cannot submit content generated with reference to other artist(s) in the prompt.

I understand 'reference to other artist' to mean both the author's name and links to their works. Could I be interpreting this rule incorrectly?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 05:45 by Neo-Leo »

« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2024, 06:23 »
+5
omg.. this is too similar.. The guy has definitely used img-2-img for these generation.
The situation is really f**ked-up.

« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2024, 06:38 »
+4
I have not seen any rule on Adobe where it says it was forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt.
Do not get me wrong, I think what is happening to you is very clearly moraly wrong (but this was absolutely to be expected with AI), but it's not explicitly against Adobe's rules.

This is forbidden by Adobe in several ways.
There is the warning that we all get that you can't use other artists' work as a reference in your prompt when you upload an image.
Furthermore the Adobe Stock Generative AI guidelines state "Dont: Use an image, vector or video you dont have the rights to as a parameter for your generative AI prompts." (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html)
Also in the Adobe Stock contributor Guidelines (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html) under "Prohibited Activities", there is listed "Copying other artists files or keywords".
Also in Adobe Stock's license agreement (https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Stock-Additional-Terms-en_US-20200615.pdf) they prohibit the use of watermarked comp images for any purpose other than "for previewing how the Stock Asset may look or sound in a production or Project."
And even if someone licenses the images from Adobe they are still not permitted to use it for any AI purpose: "You must not:.. use the Stock Assets.. for any.. machine learning or artificial intelligence purposes."

Imo, I think you are wrong to suggest that this is "not explicitly against Adobe's rules".
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 07:59 by synthetick »

« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2024, 06:45 »
+5
I sympathize, it's sad such bad faith and betrayal on the part of Adobe.  :-[
(You should have clarified that your images were 3D renderings, not AI-generated images in the first place).
Proof that Adobe has no desire to protect its authors. And this can also be done from photos...

Some AI ​​prompters here will say that we must know how to adapt, that there is no point in refusing technological developments.  >:(

« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2024, 08:51 »
+1
I have not seen any rule on Adobe where it says it was forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt.

I still interpret this note from Abode as a prohibition on using another author's image (img2img in AI).

Note: Please review our requirements before submitting content created using generative artificial intelligence tools. Reminder, you cannot submit content generated with reference to other artist(s) in the prompt.

I understand 'reference to other artist' to mean both the author's name and links to their works. Could I be interpreting this rule incorrectly?

What they mean is you are not allowed to submit AI images generated with a promt like for example "Young woman painted in the art style of Neo Rauch"
This is something that was explained by Mat here when the new rule was introduced.

« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2024, 08:55 »
+1
I have not seen any rule on Adobe where it says it was forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt.
Do not get me wrong, I think what is happening to you is very clearly moraly wrong (but this was absolutely to be expected with AI), but it's not explicitly against Adobe's rules.

This is forbidden by Adobe in several ways.
There is the warning that we all get that you can't use other artists' work as a reference in your prompt when you upload an image.

I do not know the original text in English, as Adobe is in German for me, but for me it explicitle says I cannot use other artists' s names in the promts, which is something completely different and also how Mat explained it here.
What they mean is you are not allowed to submit AI images generated with a promt like for example "Young woman painted in the art style of Neo Rauch".
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 09:03 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2024, 09:39 »
+8
I think you got a case to bring Adobe to court. I think it is so blatantly obvious that any judge will rule in your favor. You have here a golden ticket to retirement if you play your cards well but I would ask not only for statutory damages , copyright infringement but also for a lack of compliance on Adobe part to respect the author's copyright. The sum you can make out of such a case is astronomical if you win. Talk to a lawyer.

« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2024, 12:23 »
+4
I do not know the original text in English, as Adobe is in German for me, but for me it explicitle says I cannot use other artists' s names in the promts, which is something completely different and also how Mat explained it here.
What they mean is you are not allowed to submit AI images generated with a promt like for example "Young woman painted in the art style of Neo Rauch".

It clearly says about image, not the author's name:
Dont: Use an image, vector or video you dont have the rights to as a parameter for your generative AI prompts.

I look forward to hearing what Mat has to say.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 12:52 by Neo-Leo »

« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2024, 12:53 »
+2
Copying someone else's work closely has always been a problem for stock images, and drawing the line on exactly how close is not OK is hard. Which doesn't mean that the agencies get to throw up their hands and allow anything.

Regardless of whether someone copied you - not pixel-for-pixel stealing but close - with genAI or other means is really beside the point. Inspiration is OK; virtual duplication isn't. Eons ago iStock took down some work where they found it was a unique studio shot almost perfectly duplicating someone else's work.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

Looking at Adobe Stock's rules for genAI submissions: The section on artist's names - "May not contain artists' names whose work is still in copyright". Someone using one of your images to generate a prompt to replicate it isn't mentioning your name, just using your work as a template. What they were targeting was using "in the style of Andy Warhol" and the like.

In section 5, they say:

"Dont: Use an image, vector or video you dont have the rights to as a parameter for your generative AI prompts."

They don't say how someone who believes their work was used this way is supposed to get this dealt with, especially if it's not someone famous (a Banksy mural) but another hard-working stock contributor. It seems you were just told to shut up and cope. There needs to be some sort of enforcement mechanism or the rule is worthless.

On the other hand they're still letting through so much stuff that's mangled nonsense, perhaps they're just concerned about getting the collection size up and not paying attention to what's actually in it :(

« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2024, 13:38 »
+3
Post updated.
I found another contributor who uses my work to generate AIs.

« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2024, 13:56 »
+3
The first copy of the black doctor has three arms, yours has two, which is proof that there was no plagiarism ;)

Personally, I no longer look for all the thefts and copies of my images, because this is very discouraging. I stopped the day when on Shutterstock, by clicking on one of my top sellers, more than 10 identical images in thieves' portfolios appeared. They don't care, they take the money.

[Edit]: Don't go clicking on your best sellers on Shutterstock. I just did it again, it's incredible, we could spend whole days reporting thieves. I am disgusted. And they do nothing.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 14:05 by DiscreetDuck »

« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2024, 14:00 »
+4
This is terrible. Its so obvious that someone is copying your portfolio. If that will go on, I agree that creative artists will leave Adobe after the same situation will happen to them and they will get tired of slowly generating original ideas that are then quickly copied by other contributors. Profits will get diluted, frustration will grow.

Its up to Adobe to make an educated decision if similarities are accidental (2 pink flamingos in the same pose) or if similarities are intentional (usually if intentional similarities are greater than 60% its an infringement) and there is no question that your whole portfolio is intentionally being copied. Adobes response is quite disappointing and telling.

Unfortunately, I saw similar situation with CafePress in 2010 - they also allowed copying of popular images.  CafePress market got flooded with similar images, creative artists got upset and left. Without new ideas from creative artists, CafePress stock tanked tanked and never recovered

Adobe has a long standing creative brand to protect. I hope it will choose a right path.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 18:25 by Mifornia »

« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2024, 22:49 »
0
Lol - both sad & funny.

It's one thing to outright steal someone's work - it's another to be sooooooo lazy to not even try and disguise it... is it/was it a "straight" portfolio copy? i.e., did that person copy 'every' single image in your portfolio?

Not sure what to say...

a) I've been seeing (on amazon) a new "east indian business model" (actually last 3-4 years) - where basically they steal all the images off of pexels/freepik/etc - and they are SOOOO lazy, they do the bare minimum to "make a book" (i.e., the images are sideways, don't fit right - but just to meet the bare mininum specifications for a 'book') - then sell it dirt cheap (i.e., $10) as their own works, no attribution/etc - just passing off the "free" images as their own.

b) apparently - they also do that for various 'clothing' sites/etc (i.e., steal people's images, make 't-shirts' print on demand/etc)...

Of course - it is very easy/possible to rectify this:
a) if an account originates in east india, don't allow it.
b) and/or - do more due diligence.

Of course, blackrock/vanguard controlling the WEF/UN/etc are trying to push the "digitalID" crap (id2020) "for your safety & protection", which of course has absolutely nothing to do with safety nor protection, but rather for survelliance&control... so of course reject the id2020 crap...

Just do more due diligence to make sure the images/content aren't stolen before allowing the account to be created, as well as apply simple heuristics (i.e., if it's an east indian account, high probabability of it being stolen content). Credit card companies do that - easy to implement for websites as well.
(Of course -it's not "just" east indians, there are some arabic nations, some african provinces/etc, and of course 'local' people that do that too) - but easy to apply a simple heuristic algorithm to prevent that kind of stuff...

« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2024, 03:39 »
+3
I completely sympathize with OP, copycats are despicable but Adobe's reaction is outrageous. Img2img is way worse than using names in prompts. Creating a whole portfolio so blatantly based on someone else's should be an immediate ban.

Some years ago I found part of my portfolio available for download in hi-res on one of those russian sites. I notified Adobe support since the files still had their Adobe ID numbers. Their response was similar to the one given to OP - how could I be sure the files were downloaded from Adobe. It was like talking to a brick wall...These days they don't even bother to answer. The fact that you have to go through Discord to escalate speaks for itself. Soon they'll go the Shutterstock way and cut all communication channels

« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2024, 04:17 »
+1
My advice is to run from Adobe as if your pants were on fire!!!!

and run to go where?I'm curious,tell me,where would you like to run? :)

you can run as far as you want,but you won't find any other agency out there that is on Adobe's level,in every way.

what I see here is simply that every opportunity is a good one to throw mud on the only serious agency that remains,the only one that still makes microstock possible.

I frankly advise you to look more at what you do rather than look at what others do.

It seems to me that Adobe has blocked and investigated so far a huge amount of portfolios that have violated or suspected of violating the terms,for whatever reason.

when I randomly find some account that for any reason is violating the terms or is behaving incorrectly,do you know what I do?nothing.

If anyone copies my work,I wish them all the luck possible,while it lasts,because this type of behavior does not last long.

I don't think contacting Adobe for these things is a good idea,don't worry,sooner or later all the problems will come to a head.

I do my job and let Adobe do theirs.

« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2024, 04:48 »
0
iStock Exclusive is better than Abode.

« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2024, 07:58 »
+3
Yeah, don't disregard or write off iStock/Getty. Currently I earn almost as much from them as I do from Adobe, despite the lower royalty rate, and despite having a smaller portfolio on iStock.

« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2024, 08:10 »
+3
iStock Exclusive is better than Abode.

Istock is the worst agency that exists,do you know that they deleted 4,500 contents from my portfolio,without any valid reason that could justify this?They just sent me an email to warn me of what they had already decided,based on pure assumptions and without even asking me anything before acting in this way?

when I responded to their email,explaining what they were doing wrong,what they had misunderstood,they changed the version of events and they started accusing me of stealing content from free sites.

Istock destroyed years of work in one click.

I can only hope that someone will do to them what they did to me,so maybe they learn a little respect for those who work.

« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2024, 10:03 »
+2
Yeah, don't disregard or write off iStock/Getty. Currently I earn almost as much from them as I do from Adobe, despite the lower royalty rate, and despite having a smaller portfolio on iStock.

yes but how many licenses do you have to sell to be able to make 100 usd on Istock?in general,forget about rare sales.

300?probably even more.

Istock is the bane of microstock,continuing to contribute to this agency is like shooting yourself in the foot in the long term.

Where are the Istock representatives?Here there was a long discussion about the Washington refund,has anyone come here at least to publicly apologize for what happened?To explain something?Has anyone ever come here from Istock?

I hope Adobe starts an exclusivity program so maybe many will decide to stop helping Istock ruin microstock.


f8

« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2024, 12:58 »
+1
iStock Exclusive is better than Abode.

Honestly, I never thought I would hear that from you. Does that mean you went back to being exclusive?




« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2024, 13:18 »
+1
Thread hijacking alert  ::)

« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2024, 14:26 »
+1
Adobe's reaction is disgusting. It doesn't bode well if this is how they treat (imo very obvious) copyright infringement...or at the very least a violation of their own AI policy.

I'm interested in what @MatHayward has to say about this. But I doubt he can or will respond to threads like this.

« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2024, 15:07 »
+2
You really don't have to be particularly clever or knowledgeable to realise that your portfolio has been copied here. This is not about a single image.
The answer from Adobe is, to put it kindly, a cheek.

If the current Adobe rules do not allow for any consequences here, then Adobe should adapt the rules to the current reality - which, incidentally, was promoted by Adobe in particular.

I can fully understand your frustration.

« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2024, 16:33 »
+2
what will happen in this case in my opinion is very simple.

sooner or later it will come to light that there are similar images,and Adobe clearly won't allow this,then going to verify who the real creator is,simply by checking the upload date,for start i think,and in this case it is more obvious because the thief's contents are generated by AI.

I really don't think Adobe Stock can allow a library full of duplicates,so the problem will be solved anyway,it's just a matter of time.

there are duplicates,thieves,those who have 10 accounts or whatever you want,they are there because unfortunately the procedures for checks and any actions take a long time,unfortunately time is necessary,as when an account is blocked it can unfortunately take a month or two,because they are simply procedures that take time.

« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2024, 01:50 »
+1
All libraries are full of duplicates. And duplicates of duplicates of duplicates

Ai just makes it a lot easier to copy and faster.

One thing we can do, is not use the actual prompt as the title or description.

Wont stop img2img copy, but at least makes it a little less easy.

But also with normal cameras there is absolutely massive copying happening every day.


« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2024, 14:36 »
+2
I appreciate the spirited discussion. Please know that we are regularly reviewing our policies and we are looking into this.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Mat, is this all you can say about my case?

We need to wait for when you are once again reviewing your policies. You will add to the rules: DO NOT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S IMAGES FOR img2img. And what will this change? If it can't be proven, then this rule won't make any difference.

Can you confirm that now Adobe allows using others' images as prompts for img2img? And these two authors will continue to sell works that I believe were generated unfairly.

The only thing Adobe has suggested to me is to prove that the images were used as prompts. But it's impossible to do. How can I defend myself in this case? And Adobe doesn't want to help me with this. But they could. Adobe could have asked the author for evidence of how they generated their AI images.

Maybe it's time to openly start discussing this issue. Not just making podcasts about how great it is to generate AI cartoon characters with seven fingers, but also podcasts, interviews, surveys about the issue of AI images on Adobe?




« Last Edit: May 10, 2024, 14:55 by Neo-Leo »

« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2024, 15:03 »
+2
I appreciate the spirited discussion. Please know that we are regularly reviewing our policies and we are looking into this.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

It's funny - ALL the "AI" systems (which are not actually "ai") are based off of massive theft. The "problem" midjourney, stable diffusion, dall-e, etc + "research" institutions have all had is how to remove "watermarks" (i.e., theft-deterrent devices). The "AI" is simply sophisticated theft + pattern re-arrangement. (And lol - as I was just "testing" some images now based on the above - midjourney actually did generate an image with a watermark, funny!)

a) If you were to remove all content where someone based a prompt (or a photographic concept with original/non-ai photography) off of someone else's work - you'd probably need to remove 95% of the portfolios.
b) I'd say probably also 95% of the accounts have at least one image (if not more) based off of other's prompts/images/ideas/etc, if not more.

HOWEVER:

a) I do agree from what was posted above that these images were designed to look "as similar" as possible to the original portfolio. I tested some of the same images/prompts in midjourney - and while 'similar in concept' - were distinct enough that you would not think they were the same artist. The sample above looks almost identical - such that yes - I'd say it was processed through something like img2img

b) Generally speaking, those that tend to be pretty 'bold' in their theft (and I don't just mean this example, I mean where entire portfolios are simply 'downloaded' from unlmited sites then re-uploaded under new names) tend to be from east-indian speaking countries, or those with east-indian sounding names. It's an accurate stereotype - because that is just how they "do business" there. A simple solution would be to either not approve east-indian accounts/east indian account sounding names - or - have a little bit of a 'probation' for new accounts from there to make sure they don't simply steal. (All you have to do is watch some of the "get rich quick" videos they make and you can see that is what the 'advise' to do). Of course, east indians aren't the only ones, you do get some malaysian, phillipines, afghani, as well as (smaller percentage) some ukranian, italian, russian, etc doing exactly the same thing.

c) As I've said before - the "real" theft is from companies like midjourney (+ 'chatgpt', etc, etc) whose (paid) business model is based off of theft, then disguising the theft and passing it off as original content. While the 'algorithms' to disguise the content may be novel - 'populating' those models is not. A big push should be made to hold THEM accountable - and it is actually very simple to do.

Quite simply, this is what you would do:
i) Since the data was scraped - it is quite simple to revise the scraping algorithm (if it wasn't already) to find out which authors the data was stolen from.
ii) Since sites like midjourney keep track of EVERYTHING (i.e., no generated image is actually 'deleted') - it is EXTREMELY easy to see which 'inputs' were used to create that image. AKA - see which "models" were used to create the composite image, and then see which original author images those composite models were created from.
iii) Micropayments should be attributed to all the authors (i.e., say 100 distinct authors were used to create an image of an orange, then 100 authors would get a % payment of what midjourney got from their generation. While of course just a fraction of a cent, those fractions quickly add up when millions of images are generated on a regular basis).
iv) Those micropayments then issued to authors whose works were stolen
v) Going forward - companies like midjourney (not just them of course, they just happen to be one of the most popular ones, there's about another 20 or so "startups" - lol - interestingly enough - many of them from the 'y-combinator' funding - so easy to see who is behind the theft) - basically going forward - ALL so-called "AI" companies make REGULAR PERPETUAL micropayments (i.e., monthly) for any derivative works that were generated - since of course, THEY expect to have perpetual income in the future (none of the stupid 'one-time' payment crap).

THAT is a real solution - and THAT is what should be pushed for. Then - authors are fairly compensated for the 100,000's of thousands of images that were created based off of their original works.

Going forward - original content creators should then also have the ability to 'opt-out' as well as re opt-in, as well as specify what % revenue sharing they would be willing to allow their assets to be opted in for - such that models are reconstructed with or without their data. Given the MASSIVE "data centers" that are being created, and already created - this is ALSO EXTREMELY EASY to do.

The companies may not "want" to do that - but that is what they should do - and what people should be pushing for. Push for THAT - get it, and then that will resolve a lot of issues and concerns.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2024, 15:08 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2024, 18:02 »
+2
An opt in or at least opt out should be the norm for use of our images in AI/to train AI. 

« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2024, 18:18 »
+1
An opt in or at least opt out should be the norm for use of our images in AI/to train AI.

True. However - how those "ai" tools were developed was just theft. They just 'took' it from the sites (it's called 'scraping') without asking. Then, they worked hard on figuring out how to get rid of watermarks.

« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2024, 05:10 »
0
I appreciate the spirited discussion. Please know that we are regularly reviewing our policies and we are looking into this.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Mat, is this all you can say about my case?

We need to wait for when you are once again reviewing your policies. You will add to the rules: DO NOT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S IMAGES FOR img2img. And what will this change? If it can't be proven, then this rule won't make any difference.

Can you confirm that now Adobe allows using others' images as prompts for img2img? And these two authors will continue to sell works that I believe were generated unfairly.

The only thing Adobe has suggested to me is to prove that the images were used as prompts. But it's impossible to do. How can I defend myself in this case? And Adobe doesn't want to help me with this. But they could. Adobe could have asked the author for evidence of how they generated their AI images.

Maybe it's time to openly start discussing this issue. Not just making podcasts about how great it is to generate AI cartoon characters with seven fingers, but also podcasts, interviews, surveys about the issue of AI images on Adobe?

I understand your frustration,but you were just told that the policies will be reviewed and that they are investigating the problem,so I think perhaps you should be more than satisfied?

the problem will be solved and most likely you won't be asked for any proof of anything.

Of course,there are problems,and there will be many more,but what matters is the will to solve these problems.

let's not forget that until last year AI content was not yet accepted,so it is a new path for Adobe too,and with time everything will certainly be regulated in a better way.

the important thing is the will to do it,and Adobe clearly has this will.








« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2024, 05:56 »
0
I understand your frustration,...

Talking about frustration seems quite contemptuous to me, this is about notorious incompetence on the part of Adobe, inability to master the tools they develop, total injustice for the people impacted by their catastrophic management of these technologies .
And we could also talk about the client side, the collection becomes a rather questioning mix.

« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2024, 07:31 »
+2
Earlier today someone posted on Discord a bad AI image that they had come across (bad in terms of both the image itself and the metadata) and Diego Gomez from Adobe responded that the image has already been deleted but if anyone finds others like this "please send us the details through the Contact Support link https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/contact, so we can review it." It's good to know that this avenue is open for reporting to Adobe.

« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2024, 16:19 »
0
Adobe Is The Worst!!! I had one single image where I used an element of another image that was clear of copyright and they deleted my whole folder including all of my video!!! I had a handful of images and would have been happy to delete them all but nooooo no response, just evil........FACT

« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2024, 18:41 »
0
Adobe Is The Worst!!! I had one single image where I used an element of another image that was clear of copyright and they deleted my whole folder including all of my video!!! I had a handful of images and would have been happy to delete them all but nooooo no response, just evil........FACT
So its possible for Adobe to take a swift action? Why that wasnt done in Neo Leoss case then, but it was done in yours? Seems subjective Do you know who from Adobe decides is it infringement or not?

« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2024, 19:01 »
+2
An opt in or at least opt out should be the norm for use of our images in AI/to train AI.
How many companies would you expect to opt out? All of them will never happen. Copyright watermarks are easy to fix with Adobe Photoshop. Then how would numerous AI companies police if its a personal image or someone elses image that is used img2img as reference? (Majority of people use AI to create selfies in different styles)
Thats not a right direction for requesting stronger infringement policies.

Adobe should train more knowledgeable customer support that will look not only on individual images and say its 50% different with no clear parts of copyrighted images, but customer support who can look at a whole portfolio and describe if its an intentional infringement.

Other agencies might not go extra mile for dealing with infringement, but Adobe definitely should: Adobe serves creative community, reputation matters
« Last Edit: May 12, 2024, 19:04 by Mifornia »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3730 Views
Last post November 13, 2013, 15:29
by Allsa
12 Replies
5137 Views
Last post May 16, 2019, 03:06
by georgep7
13 Replies
8560 Views
Last post June 20, 2019, 17:37
by cathyslife
7 Replies
3434 Views
Last post February 05, 2022, 17:54
by DnEEop
80 Replies
12967 Views
Last post January 08, 2024, 01:27
by Madoo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors