Author Topic: AI vs. Us - Should Our Pics Cost More? (Read 6629 times)

Petersnow · « **on:** June 24, 2023, 18:14 »

Hey folks.

Looking at all the buzz about AI-generated images, it's got me wondering. What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run? Sure, the AI stuff is easy to pump out, but it can't match the heart and soul we put into our work.

What if these sites put a higher price tag on our creations? Could this actually underline their unique value and make them more attractive to clients? Stick with me here...

I know it sounds counter-intuitive – upping the price might scare away some buyers. But let's think about the "premium effect". When something is priced higher, people often perceive it as higher quality, more unique or harder to make, right? So, our images could attract clients who want to pay a bit more for that authentic, human touch - something AI can't duplicate.

On the other hand, this could also make some clients lean towards cheaper AI images. It's a bit of a gamble, isn't it?

Now, for this to happen, sites would probably need to be stricter during the review process. Not all human-made images make the cut, right? What if they started having two categories - one for the usual price and another for a premium price? If they consider our image worthy during the review, they'd give us the option to only sell it for the premium price.

But here's the big question – are we fighting a losing battle against the ease of creating images with AI, or could this actually be an opportunity for us to be seen as more authentic and earn more? This could either revolutionize our field or push us to the sidelines.

What are your thoughts? I'm genuinely curious to hear your views on this.

cascoly · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2023, 18:55 »

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 18:14

Hey folks.

Looking at all the buzz about AI-generated images, it's got me wondering. What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run? Sure, the AI stuff is easy to pump out, but it can't match the heart and soul we put into our work....

buyers don't need no stinkin' 'heart & soul' - they want images they can use and could care less about the effort to create images created by the click of a camera or mobile button, or a great prompt. and what makes a mobile image 'unique'? esp'ly when it's a variation of hamburgers or tomato slices.

stock photography & fine art have little overlap.

Petersnow · « **Reply #2 on:** June 24, 2023, 19:09 »

Quote from: cascoly on June 24, 2023, 18:55

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 18:14
Hey folks.

Looking at all the buzz about AI-generated images, it's got me wondering. What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run? Sure, the AI stuff is easy to pump out, but it can't match the heart and soul we put into our work....

buyers don't need no stinkin' 'heart & soul' - they want images they can use and could care less about the effort to create images created by the click of a camera or mobile button, or a great prompt. and what makes a mobile image 'unique'? esp'ly when it's a variation of hamburgers or tomato slices.

stock photography & fine art have little overlap.

You're right, buyers want images that they can use effectively, and the source might not be their primary concern. However, when I mentioned "heart and soul", I wasn't implying that every stock photo needs to be a piece of fine art. What I meant was that human-created images, even those intended for commercial use, carry the "Made by Humans" trademark (which will probably be perceived as more valuable in the future) . Images created by us have the human authenticy that AI can't have . And there are people who appreciate and value that difference, and probably even more in the future when everyone can just create good quality AI images.
This whole idea of pricing human-made images higher is just a thought, though. Maybe there's another way we can emphasize the human touch in our images. I'm all ears for more thoughts and suggestions!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** June 24, 2023, 19:21 »

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 18:14

...But let's think about the "premium effect". When something is priced higher, people often perceive it as higher quality, more unique or harder to make, right? So, our images could attract clients who want to pay a bit more for that authentic, human touch - something AI can't duplicate....

We've already had an opportunity to see how something similar works, and the big issue is that the premium priced things have to be discernibly different and better for it to succeed. Also, the power of "good enough" at a low price is enormous.

The similar situation is the two iStock collections: "iStock Essentials (Lowest price) and Signature (Best quality)". The problem is that there are many items in the essentials collection that are way better than the least good items in the Signature collection, so buyers can't easily see why they should pay more.

Take a look at Essentials:

https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image?istockcollection=main%2Cvalue&phrase=tomato%20slice

versus Signature:

https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image?phrase=tomato%20slice&istockcollection=signature%2Csignatureplus

While I personally dislike the esthetic of lots of the AI work (too plastic-fantastic for my taste), the fantasy stuff is visually stunning and AI does much better at creating things you'd have a devil of a time staging in the real world. Plus, there's a ton of really boring and not terribly useful stuff in the human-created collections.

Dreamstime tried a pricing scheme where things cost more the more they sold, and they've all but abandoned it at this point. It was too complicated and put buyers off

I think if you wanted to create a premium collection that really meant something, it would have to be tightly curated and would not distinguish between creators (Offset, Adobe's 123rf, etc. premium collections are all just higher priced because of where they come from, not because the images are any better).

In the current cutthroat marketplace where Shutterstock and Adobe want to beat Canva and expand their "total addressable market" by appealing to non-traditional buyers, I don't see more than a small window for the high end curated content and I think Stocksy and Getty (and some local market specialists) have that taken care of.

In a word, "no"

Petersnow · « **Reply #4 on:** June 24, 2023, 19:42 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 24, 2023, 19:21

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 18:14
...But let's think about the "premium effect". When something is priced higher, people often perceive it as higher quality, more unique or harder to make, right? So, our images could attract clients who want to pay a bit more for that authentic, human touch - something AI can't duplicate....

We've already had an opportunity to see how something similar works, and the big issue is that the premium priced things have to be discernibly different and better for it to succeed. Also, the power of "good enough" at a low price is enormous.

The similar situation is the two iStock collections: "iStock Essentials (Lowest price) and Signature (Best quality)". The problem is that there are many items in the essentials collection that are way better than the least good items in the Signature collection, so buyers can't easily see why they should pay more.

Take a look at Essentials:

https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image?istockcollection=main%2Cvalue&phrase=tomato%20slice [nofollow]

versus Signature:

https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image?phrase=tomato%20slice&istockcollection=signature%2Csignatureplus [nofollow]

While I personally dislike the esthetic of lots of the AI work (too plastic-fantastic for my taste), the fantasy stuff is visually stunning and AI does much better at creating things you'd have a devil of a time staging in the real world. Plus, there's a ton of really boring and not terribly useful stuff in the human-created collections.

Dreamstime tried a pricing scheme where things cost more the more they sold, and they've all but abandoned it at this point. It was too complicated and put buyers off

I think if you wanted to create a premium collection that really meant something, it would have to be tightly curated and would not distinguish between creators (Offset, Adobe's 123rf, etc. premium collections are all just higher priced because of where they come from, not because the images are any better).

In the current cutthroat marketplace where Shutterstock and Adobe want to beat Canva and expand their "total addressable market" by appealing to non-traditional buyers, I don't see more than a small window for the high end curated content and I think Stocksy and Getty (and some local market specialists) have that taken care of.

In a word, "no"

I've seen alot of your posts through the years and I always appreciate reading your insights Jo Ann

What do we reckon the future holds for us photographers, illustrators, and designers in the non-AI world? Is this still gonna be a profitable gig? Any kind of new opportunity for us in the microstock world? And if the AI train is not stopping, do you guys see a way to incorporate it into our workflow and still make a living in the microstock business, or are we facing even harder times given how easy it's become to generate decent images with AI?

cobalt · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2023, 01:38 »

I only have 400 ai files on Adobe and certainly would love to see that magic button that would allow me to automatically create 30 000 perfect files with one click…

For now my ai files, mostly illustration style or watercolor, sell at the same rate as my photos.

But it is still a lot faster and easier for me to create photos with a camera than with ai. I get things exactly the way I want and can also do video at the same time.

What I am currently exploring is using my own photos as a starting point and transform them into ai illustrations.

Once the firefly generative ai fill is commercially available, I think that will become a steady part of my photo workflow, i.e. I will create content knowing how I will create other photo variations with the help of ai.

Simple example: two people outdoors, friends laughing together in summer park. Maybe enjoying a picnic or walking the dog together.

Then ask the ai to transform the same people into a similar location but in winter or autumn.

So If I do shoots in a beautiful or interesting location in summer, I could also get similars in different seasons from the same shooting.

Not sure if this would already be possible now with good enough photo quality.

or next year you can „redress“ the couple in new clothes, with a new hairstyle according to new color trends and also postprocess some leftover files from the series with a different lighting style which is the current hot trend.

etc…

Actually the ability to transform many legacy images into a modern variation is something I look forward too.

All the images of people with now outdated mobile phones, update them with ai to modern tech. Or futuristic tech like holographic communication devices.

So I welcome ai as a very interesting tool for post production. I think that will be even more valuable than just prompting content.

The other interesting thing would be ai animating my photos into usable video clips. It will probably be a few years before that can be done easily, but that would again allow me to make more out of the thousands of files I have.

ETA:

at least with what I do all my work is made by this human, irrespective of the tool I use.

Ai does not research trends or scans the agencies for content that is missing. I do that. ai does not decide what the image should look like that I try to create with a prompt. I do that. ai does not postprocess or change the ai image to make it commercially usable. I do that.

Just like photography is not ONE BUTTON PUSHING, ai images are created by a human using a tool.

So i expect the same pay for ai as for normal photo or videos.

A lot of work goes into researching trends and looking for missing content. That work, just like the actual production and processing and uploading, has to be paid.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2023, 02:18 »

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 19:09

You're right, buyers want images that they can use effectively, and the source might not be their primary concern. However, when I mentioned "heart and soul", I wasn't implying that every stock photo needs to be a piece of fine art. What I meant was that human-created images, even those intended for commercial use, carry the "Made by Humans" trademark (which will probably be perceived as more valuable in the future) .

Nope. For "made by humans" art to be valued more in the future, the end customer would need to even be able to distinguish between AI generated images and human created images.

It's already hard to tell what is a real photo and what is AI generated now. I know many people still think they can spot the difference, but they are only focusing on the images that look over-edited or have errors in them, just simply missing all the AI images that really look like normal photos.

In the future it will just get harded to tell them apart. How are people to value one more over the other, when really no one can tell which one is which? The stock agencies are already full of mislabeled AI generated images, even the ones that don't allow them. Apparently reviewers can't even tell. Why do you think customers and their customers will be able to tell the difference?

We have already reached the point where people upload AI generated images and just claim they were their real photos. So how can human created art be valued more, when everyone thinks AI generated contend IS human created?

Btw - I foresee a different development: Instead of making real photos more expensice, agencies that accept AI images will offer AI imaged for even cheape , instead of making real photos more expensice. You'll make like 1-5 cents for an AI image sale. Then you'll have what you want: Real photos will cost "more". Though soon there will be so many AI images, than no customers will even find the real photos and 1cent is all we will be getting.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #7 on:** June 25, 2023, 04:14 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 02:18

We have already reached the point where people upload AI generated images and just claim they were their real photos. So how can human created art be valued more, when everyone thinks AI generated contend IS human created?

True, and even worse: every buyer can think that the reality based uploaded content that is stunning is AI generated...

Truth is lost, real is discredited, the singularity of the human work is made invisible, acquired skill has become obsolete...
The people who think great photos come by simply pressing the shutter button on the camera are people who certainly don't have photos that stand out among the top ones out of hundreds of thousands on an Adobe Stock query. And these are the people who are passionate about AI, easy to guess why...

Developing skills, staging in the real world, getting or waiting for the good conditions for natural light, manage the hazards when it comes to photographing the living, waiting for the perfect moment, managing/choosing the necessary equipment, etc... takes too much work and time to be competitive with AI. And the motivation of those who got the fair compensation for a job that requires time and skill disappears.
My argument holds particularly for the photographers in whom I recognize a real talent, I am not self-centered and I will not speak of my gains in microstock as an argument of credibility. I've seen people do it, and I found it laughable. Humility has always been my engine to evolve, not an AI engine.

“The wind is rising!…We must try to live!” Paul valery/Miyazaki Hayao

[Edit]: And I anticipate the reactions of AI enthusiasts: This is not about creating art, but about producing stock images that stand out. Buyers have needs that go beyond images of a pasta dish!

Roscoe · « **Reply #8 on:** June 25, 2023, 04:48 »

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 19:09

Quote from: cascoly on June 24, 2023, 18:55
Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 18:14
Hey folks.

Looking at all the buzz about AI-generated images, it's got me wondering. What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run? Sure, the AI stuff is easy to pump out, but it can't match the heart and soul we put into our work....

buyers don't need no stinkin' 'heart & soul' - they want images they can use and could care less about the effort to create images created by the click of a camera or mobile button, or a great prompt. and what makes a mobile image 'unique'? esp'ly when it's a variation of hamburgers or tomato slices.

stock photography & fine art have little overlap.

You're right, buyers want images that they can use effectively, and the source might not be their primary concern. However, when I mentioned "heart and soul", I wasn't implying that every stock photo needs to be a piece of fine art. What I meant was that human-created images, even those intended for commercial use, carry the "Made by Humans" trademark (which will probably be perceived as more valuable in the future) . Images created by us have the human authenticy that AI can't have . And there are people who appreciate and value that difference, and probably even more in the future when everyone can just create good quality AI images.
This whole idea of pricing human-made images higher is just a thought, though. Maybe there's another way we can emphasize the human touch in our images. I'm all ears for more thoughts and suggestions!

Buyers don't care. As mentioned by others: it has been tried in the past, and without success.
Not sure if you're long enough around to have gone through the Shutterstock earnings slash back in 2019 if I remember correctly, which caused a huge upset and protest in the contributor community. Contributors disabled their portfolio's or pulled out completely, online campaigns were raised, alternatives were discussed, and none of it had any impact at all.
Shutterstock didn't care, and buyers either.

Stock photography is not about labels or fair use. It's a mass commodity, and very, very few customers care about the creators. Not even the creatives themselves. How many of us have a Spotify or other streaming service subscription? Same discussion. We should care, but we don't.

I don't really believe in premium pricing and collections either. Not in stock. For the same reasons as mentioned by Jo Ann. There will always be people who dump their premium stuff in cheap programs. Or give it away even for free. It's a fight you can't win.

And last but not least: what you are really trying to say is that AI can't compete with authenticity. And that is completely true. But stock is no place for art or authenticity. It's all about "good enough" to be useful. And if your content goes way beyond good enough, you will probably thrive at stock agencies, but also probably can do a lot better on other marketplaces or parts of the photography industry than stock.

cobalt · « **Reply #9 on:** June 25, 2023, 05:13 »

There are some places like stocksy and others that don‘t have a subscription plan and can generate a great income if you are a member.

But many artists there also have large ports on the micros, because the subs income is reliable income.

It is a big world, there is a lot of room for different models. There also are still some artists that only sell directly from their own website. But they spent years building up those customer connections.

On Getty there are many different collections with many different price points. Some customers are so large and pay so much money they can access everything for a small individual price. But many high end collections can only bought at serious high prices.

I think the biggest threat to us all…how many customers will stop having an agency plan and only use prompted images?

Personally I believe most customers would prefer to buy ready made content. I mean they all have cameras or mobile phones with great quality and they still buy from agencies, even simple snapshots they could easily take themselves.

But that is a real threat I worry about.

On the other hand, there are „agencies“ offering huge amount of „free“ files like Unsplash or pixabay.

And here we are, still making money.

Can ai be worse than free images?

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #10 on:** June 25, 2023, 06:56 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 25, 2023, 05:13

Can ai be worse than free images?

Sure!
here for example, where AI already manipulates your emotions. Nothing to do with Art here, but art of communication...
The buyer will want this image, not your real photograph which will be considered less expressive... the references change and this (d)evolution will make the reproduced real tasteless, insipid, hard to sell. Do honesty, authenticity... have no future?
Welcome to the brave fantastic/exciting new world.

https://stock.adobe.com/images/LetStandAgainstAI/611567956

[Edit]: and the lazy contributor did not even checked/corrected the image he uploaded...

Roscoe · « **Reply #11 on:** June 25, 2023, 07:21 »

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on June 25, 2023, 06:56

The buyer will want this image, not your real photograph which will be considered less expressive... the references change and this (d)evolution will make the real tasteless, insipid, hard to sell.
Welcome to the brave fantastic/exciting new world.

https://stock.adobe.com/images/LetStandAgainstAI/611567956

This is true, but I currently find it hard to predict the impact of tech on society. I think it will reach a tipping point, where people will come to the conclusion that they are being fooled by artificial imagery. Stock agencies were already calling out for authenticity long before AI came to market, and they will continue to do so.

Another example: shooting film is severely on the rise again. Ever wondered why?
Why do people love classic cars?
Why do travel agencies struggle in selling their all inclusive resorts?
Why do many people remove social apps on their phone, sometimes even abandon them, or at least start using them very responsible?

People embrace tech, but there is always room for the real deal.
It's what defines our identity, makes us human, is what's life is all about I guess.
Mastering and owning authenticity is extremely valuable.
But maybe not for stock. I honestly don't know.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #12 on:** June 25, 2023, 07:29 »

Quote from: Roscoe on June 25, 2023, 07:21

Stock agencies were already calling out for authenticity long before AI came to market, and they will continue to do so.

And then people will just create "authentic looking" images with AI.

(Btw. I never see any "authentic" looking images used online. It's still the same smiling business people in suits-type of perfect studio shots everywhere. And it's still these kind of images on the top of every microstock sites search results. The only thing that has changed is that now you see a lot more people of color in these photos, but they look staged as ever. I feel like agencies were trying to push the "authentic" images trend, but in the end that was never what customers really wanted.)

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #13 on:** June 25, 2023, 07:51 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 07:29

The only thing that has changed is that now you see a lot more people of color in these photos, but they look staged as ever.

But why pay attention to the color of people? It's something I don't pay attention to. Should we do it? Should there be color quotas?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #14 on:** June 25, 2023, 08:10 »

The authenticity of images is irrelevant. Only the appearance of authenticity. People don’t want authentic images. They want authentic looking images, or if their concern is a moral one (a tiny niche market) they want to think/ feel they are supporting artists, whether they really are supporting them is irrelevant to the market. If it becomes an issue it will be cheaper/ easier to simply stop labelling images as AI and bury the fact that images could be AI somewhere deep in the site terms. There might be one or two niche providers making a big deal about how they only provide real images, but these will be marginal cases.

cobalt · « **Reply #15 on:** June 25, 2023, 08:25 »

What is confusing about the dog with girl picture? And why is it more expressive than stock images???

The advantage of doing my own shoot first is I get everything absolutely exactly the way I want.

Ai cannot do that.

But I can use ai to transform my shooting. Different summer winter season, make models older, make models younger…maybe more diverse, less diverse, it greatly widens your options.

It will take time to integrate the workflow, but it will create endless possibilities.

I can also use ai for my mood boards. Usually I make little drawings, take pictures of the target location etc… now I can use ai to model different ideas.

etc…

cobalt · « **Reply #16 on:** June 25, 2023, 08:31 »

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on June 25, 2023, 07:51

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 07:29
The only thing that has changed is that now you see a lot more people of color in these photos, but they look staged as ever.
But why pay attention to the color of people? It's something I don't pay attention to. Should we do it? Should there be color quotas?

It depends on the customers you are targeting. For German customers you need a lot of caucasian turkish looking mix, for the usa maybe more black and caucasian and latin, for the uk a lot pakistani/indian origin mixed with the typical white brits, for france more northafrican, cauvasian white mix etc…

Customers want content that represents their local community mix.

Otherwise your brand does not connect.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2023, 08:44 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 25, 2023, 08:25

What is confusing about the dog with girl picture?

who told that? I wrote what I wanted to mean. I think that most people understand it.

Quote from: cobalt on June 25, 2023, 08:25

And why is it more expressive than stock images???

This image sold on Adobe Stock is not a stock image?

Quote from: cobalt on June 25, 2023, 08:31

It depends on the customers you are targeting. For German customers you need a lot of caucasian turkish looking mix, for the usa maybe more black and caucasian and latin, for the uk a lot pakistani/indian origin mixed with the typical white brits, for france more northafrican, cauvasian white mix etc…

Customers want content that represents their local community mix.

Otherwise your brand does not connect.

Therefore, you are looking for models of a certain color. And if a candidate does not have the right one, you tell him: "no thank you! you do not correspond to my search". Isn't that segregation?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #18 on:** June 25, 2023, 08:54 »

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 19:42

...What do we reckon the future holds for us photographers, illustrators, and designers in the non-AI world? Is this still gonna be a profitable gig? Any kind of new opportunity for us in the microstock world? And if the AI train is not stopping, do you guys see a way to incorporate it into our workflow and still make a living in the microstock business, or are we facing even harder times given how easy it's become to generate decent images with AI?

My crystal ball is broken, so I have no clear picture of where the AI-hype bubble will end up when things calm down. If I had to guess...

For social media posts, and other ephemeral, hyper-trendy work, design on the web from a template with AI assist is likely to be a big winner. Canva showed there was a market there and Adobe is apparently trying to beat them at their own game.

For some types of images, illustrations & video, pure fantasy AI creations will form a long term part of the agency collections. AI does the unreal, especially where specific details aren't significant, superbly well.

The economics of AI may be an issue over time as what I read suggests that the cost of processing requests is much higher than the prices charged to users - deep pocketed tech companies want to "win" the AI race and are subsidizing the costs to speed and spread adoption. In time, it may cost a lot more for a contributor to produce a genAI image than it does now, which might change the stampede of submissions to Adobe Stock to a more measured flow.

When I look at what sells for me (and I've been seeing really strong sales at Adobe Stock this year and June continues that trend) it's a lot of boring but useful stuff that many businesses can use on their web sites, marketing flyers, etc. For a whole series of remodeling images, these were shot during a real remodel and have all sorts of small details that need to be right (with plumbing, wiring, framing, etc) - stuff that right now AI is truly pathetic at getting right. The demand for those types of images won't go away until the businesses that use them do. Some businesses thrive on novelty, hyperbole, flash and sparkle - AI is perfect for that. Some businesses want to appear authentic, reliable and trustworthy; real images/videos are a much better fit for them.

FWIW, I did notice today that some new acceptances at Adobe Stock had the following phrase appended to their title "AI generated, human enhanced". Perhaps that's a way to market the importance of human involvement in what we're offering to license. But you have to be able to see the difference (and in this case I absolutely did not see any difference, but the idea is still worth considering).

cobalt · « **Reply #19 on:** June 25, 2023, 09:18 »

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on June 25, 2023, 08:44

Customers want content that represents their local community mix.

Otherwise your brand does not connect.

Therefore, you are looking for models of a certain color. And if a candidate does not have the right one, you tell him: "no thank you! you do not correspond to my search". Isn't that segregation?

[/quote]

Do you think in turkey the brands are looking for images with japanese models to represent a local turkish family?

or in Japan hire a latin family in kimonos?

It is called depicting the local community.

If I want to do a fully mixed shoot I would hire everyone. A friend of mine speciialises in that she has images with 20 people and only one ethnic German, everyone else is from anywhere else.

But customers need many different combinations for different target audiences.

Have you never created targeted content?

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #20 on:** June 25, 2023, 09:19 »

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on June 25, 2023, 07:51

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 07:29
The only thing that has changed is that now you see a lot more people of color in these photos, but they look staged as ever.
But why pay attention to the color of people? It's something I don't pay attention to. Should we do it? Should there be color quotas?

Don't know how it is where you live, but in my country diversity has become a huuuuge topic in the past years, so now every company tries to include people of color in photo they use and also more women.
It's just a image marketing thing, nothing more. Statistics clearly show that not much has changed and in regards of what people are mostly put in leading business positions and I can tell you: It ain't people of color and it ain't women. But companies like to at least keep up the pretense that they were including everyone, thus both images that portray a company as well as their products now includes diverse people more often than in the past.
Would actually be a nice thing, if it was meant honestly and not just a marketing spin.

f8 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 25, 2023, 11:54 »

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 18:14

What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run?

Thank you for my morning laugh, coffee almost came out my nose.

Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc. care about only one thing, their profits and keeping shareholders happy. We are only a necessary financial liability toward their profit.

Name one platform that has even increased the value of our work just to keep up with inflation.

Things will get interesting going forward, AI generated images are not eligible for copyright and rest assured this will be exploited in the long run.

I trust corporate structure as much as I trust any government.

Petersnow · « **Reply #22 on:** June 25, 2023, 14:12 »

Quote from: f8 on June 25, 2023, 11:54

Quote from: Petersnow on June 24, 2023, 18:14
What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run?

Thank you for my morning laugh, coffee almost came out my nose.

Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc. care about only one thing, their profits and keeping shareholders happy. We are only a necessary financial liability toward their profit.

Name one platform that has even increased the value of our work just to keep up with inflation.

Things will get interesting going forward, AI generated images are not eligible for copyright and rest assured this will be exploited in the long run.

I trust corporate structure as much as I trust any government.

You're spot on about the business motivations of platforms like Shutterstock and Adobe Stock. Their bottom line is, well, the bottom line.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy, far from it. But I do wonder if there's a future where our skills and understanding could be seen as valuable enough that we could keep our microstock jobs in a AI-saturated market. Or if not, if there's any possibility to adapt.

cascoly · « **Reply #23 on:** June 25, 2023, 18:16 »

Quote from: Roscoe on June 25, 2023, 07:21

...
Another example: shooting film is severely on the rise again. Ever wondered why?
Why do people love classic cars?
Why do travel agencies struggle in selling their all inclusive resorts?
Why do many people remove social apps on their phone, sometimes even abandon them, or at least start using them very responsible?

People embrace tech, but there is always room for the real deal.
It's what defines our identity, makes us human, is what's life is all about I guess.
Mastering and owning authenticity is extremely valuable.
But maybe not for stock. I honestly don't know.

you need some better examples! nothing about film is more 'authentic' - authentic is painting in caves. and film is never going to compete w digital.

people may 'love' classic cars, but that's not what they use to commute everyday or go on vacation

i deal in a tiny travel industry niche but many agent friends specialize in all-inclusives. the internet has allowed you to replace travel agents to create customized itineraries and the margin for travel agents to compete there decreases. but the upscale market for all-inclusive or high end cruises & tours appeals to a different cohort.

'authenticity' may be ONE factor that makes us human, but when discussing stock it's beside the point.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #24 on:** June 26, 2023, 00:54 »

Quote from: Roscoe on June 25, 2023, 07:21

People embrace tech, but there is always room for the real deal.
It's what defines our identity, makes us human, is what's life is all about I guess.

As said, when customers can't tell apart AI generated images and human created photos and illustrations, none of this matters.

Everyone can tell a classic vintage car from a modern Tesler. People buy it for prestige or sentimental values. No one would buy a classic car if they looked EXACTLY the same as modern cars and no one could tell them apart.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: AI vs. Us - Should Our Pics Cost More? (Read 6629 times)

Petersnow

cascoly

Petersnow

Jo Ann Snover

Petersnow

cobalt

Her Ugliness

DiscreetDuck

Roscoe

cobalt

DiscreetDuck

Roscoe

Her Ugliness

DiscreetDuck

Justanotherphotographer

cobalt

cobalt

DiscreetDuck

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

Her Ugliness

f8

Petersnow

cascoly

Her Ugliness

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors