Results from my first DALL-E submissions:

Accepted:

AS   6 of 10
DT   2 of 16
SS   9 of 16
   10 different, none accepted by all 3!

Results from my first DALL-E submissions:

Accepted:

AS   5 of 5
DT   5 of 5
SS   0 of 5

Quote from: cascoly on September 24, 2022, 18:24
Results from my first DALL-E submissions:

Accepted:

AS   6 of 10
DT   2 of 16
SS   9 of 16
   10 different, none accepted by all 3!

Why are you advocating for this AI stuff? As said before, I understand it, looking at your own portfolio (and hey, you place links under each comment you write). But it could be devastating to photographers once the technique is perfected. So, are you just looking for a quick buck here? Where is your moral? Nobody who comes here will benefit from this stuff if it is getting accepted.

Quote from: SVH on September 24, 2022, 21:11

Quote from: cascoly on September 24, 2022, 18:24
Results from my first DALL-E submissions:

Accepted:

AS   6 of 10
DT   2 of 16
SS   9 of 16
   10 different, none accepted by all 3!

Why are you advocating for this AI stuff? As said before, I understand it, looking at your own portfolio (and hey, you place links under each comment you write). But it could be devastating to photographers once the technique is perfected. So, are you just looking for a quick buck here? Where is your moral? Nobody who comes here will benefit from this stuff if it is getting accepted.

If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?

Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?

Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.

This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand. 

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 24, 2022, 22:12
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?

Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?

Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.

This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand. 

The problem is that AI generated photos have nothing to do anymore with the art of photography. Luckily I am not dependent at all on photography (it's a mere hobby) but a lot of others here are.
But you do have a point with "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" reasoning.

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 24, 2022, 22:12
...
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?
...

This isn't proven. They are using other people's work to create the images. Be that keywords/ definitions or the images to tell the AI what to create and how to create it. I don't really care how much processing it goes through in the middle. It has to have ingested our images and definitions in some way to create the "new" images. "I pressed control C control V, see it's completely new pixels (with extra steps)" doesn't wash.

"What's the problem with it?"

Basics of Economics: supply and demand, scarcity (what's abundant sells for less).
Something that can be created with a few clicks of a button can saturate the market really fast.

Automation will remove the humans from the production of the images.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 25, 2022, 10:10

This isn't proven

I know that, and I even tend to agree with it.
But SVH didn't use this argument. This is why I said "if".

"If" it will be proven to be legal, etc..., then he should better embrace progress... etc.

Quote from: Braznyc on September 25, 2022, 13:09
"What's the problem with it?"

Basics of Economics: supply and demand, scarcity (what's abundant sells for less).
Something that can be created with a few clicks of a button can saturate the market really fast.

Automation will remove the humans from the production of the images.

The law of supply and demand is not a problem, it's an opportunity.  You can't fight progress for too long. You better embrace it.
It has been the case for thousands of years.

Quote from: SVH on September 25, 2022, 07:30

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 24, 2022, 22:12
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?

Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?

Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.

This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand. 

...
The problem is that AI generated photos have nothing to do anymore with the art of photography. ...

stock photography itself has little to do with art!  and who says art has to be created by humans?

Quote from: cascoly on September 25, 2022, 19:01


stock photography itself has little to do with art!  and who says art has to be created by humans?

Pretty much everyone. I understand that "What is art" has always been a tricky question. Believe me, I have a degree in art.
But, while the definitions seem to be a bit different depending on who you ask or in what time period you asked them, it is most often defined by human activity that involves creative or imaginative talent, a product of imagination and creativity.
Try looking up a few definitions online yourself. You will most often find words like "human", "Person", "creativity", "imaginaton", "expression" and so on. None of this applies to AI generated images. An AI might create something "pretty to look at", but AI generated images are a product of programming/calculation, not of imagination or creativity. Maybe there is an aspect of creativity in the process where a human describes an image to an AI, but take for example that AI generated image that won the art contest that was linked above. A human would have needed to write an essay that is several pages long to really describe this image as it is to every single detail like a fold in clothing and I very much doubt that is what happened.

So, at least as of now I have a hard time accepting that an AI could create "art" the way it is defined now. Art is always meant to express something. Can you imagine how many hours I spent at university analyzing artworks? "What did the artist want to express with this?" "Why did he pick this color?" "Why this composition?" "What feelings did he want to convey?" Imagin sitting in a lecture analyzing AI generated art like this. No point in doing it, because all the AI really did is calculate some pixel.

However, time changes, definitions change. I am sure one day the definition will include AI just the same as human produced products. But for now I still have a hard time accepting it.


But you are completely right about the first thing: Microstock is not about art. Microstock is solely about producing useful images. An AI can do that. At least once it gets better. As of now I find the results I have seen underwhelming in too many case. I even tried to produce some images with DALL for my other job. After a few tries I gave it up and drew something myself instead, because the AI results never really looked good to me.

What stock agencies reject this kind of stuff?

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 26, 2022, 07:15

Quote from: cascoly on September 25, 2022, 19:01


stock photography itself has little to do with art!  and who says art has to be created by humans?

Pretty much everyone. I understand that "What is art" has always been a tricky question. Believe me, I have a degree in art.

Age old question to silence critics. And a good philosophical question.

I don't think a rotting banana taped on a blank canvas with duct tape is "art", but someone else might. So I guess, art is in the eye of the beholder.

We hashed over, how painters said photography is not art in the 1800s.

To answer your question of AI, I will say...  Fractal art? Is that more creative and human and all the other things you asked about? Is that more art than AI, where someone enters words to have the machine create something?

I don't welcome AI invading the world of human expression, personal ideas, and efforts, but here it is.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 27, 2022, 02:39
I don't welcome AI invading the world of human expression, personal ideas, and efforts, but here it is.

Even I don't welcome, but this is unstoppable and inevitable. We have to accept it sadly.

Quote from: cascoly on September 25, 2022, 19:01


stock photography itself has little to do with art!

Exactly, this is only a craft, like carpentry, like masonry, etc.
Agencies are calling us "artists" only to caress our egos, because it costs them nothing.

Otherwise, while re-watching Mad Men, I noticed an illustrator (Salvatore Romano, in the show) complaining when all clients were asking for photos, instead of his illustrations.

It's very obvious that photographers displaced some illustrators' jobs, when looking at those vintage advertisements from the 50s and before.

Now, AI may displace some photographers' jobs in return.

This is how the story goes!

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 27, 2022, 09:58

Exactly, this is only a craft, like carpentry, like masonry, etc.
Agencies are calling us "artists" only to caress our egos, because it costs them nothing.

Yeah, I mean, if you get even a wee bit artistic with your photos, you're probably staring at a rejection. That's how artistic they like their "artists" to be.

Quote from: cascoly on September 25, 2022, 19:01

Quote from: SVH on September 25, 2022, 07:30

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 24, 2022, 22:12
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?

Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?

Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.

This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand. 

...
The problem is that AI generated photos have nothing to do anymore with the art of photography. ...

stock photography itself has little to do with art!  and who says art has to be created by humans?

Nothing. However, with regards to submitting work to agencies, they require you to be the original copyright owner. If you use AI software, you're not! Same as submitting someone else's work as your own.

AI software is scraping images and metadata from the internet without the original copyright owners permission and using it to create the images in the AI software. So, submitting images from AI software under your name is similar to you downloading images from the internet, slicing and dicing them, merging them and then selling them as your own. How happy would you be if someone did that to your portfolio?!?!

Quote from: HalfFull on September 27, 2022, 17:38

Quote from: cascoly on September 25, 2022, 19:01

Quote from: SVH on September 25, 2022, 07:30

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 24, 2022, 22:12
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?

Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?

Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.

This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand. 

...
The problem is that AI generated photos have nothing to do anymore with the art of photography. ...

stock photography itself has little to do with art!  and who says art has to be created by humans?

Nothing. However, with regards to submitting work to agencies, they require you to be the original copyright owner. If you use AI software, you're not! Same as submitting someone else's work as your own.

AI software is scraping images and metadata from the internet without the original copyright owners permission and using it to create the images in the AI software. So, submitting images from AI software under your name is similar to you downloading images from the internet, slicing and dicing them, merging them and then selling them as your own. How happy would you be if someone did that to your portfolio?!?!

no - copyright is owned by the creator of the work & DALL-E makes this clear. 

your description of how AI works perpetuates a false and misleading narrative - again RYFM - this is NOT how machine learning works and saying it 3 times doesnt make it true. no one making this argument has shown actual evidence that this is true.  it's easy enough to do the experiment

I used the following words,using an AI app, "Donald Trump astronaut" and i got this.
https://www.craiyon.com/?prompt=donald%20trump%20astronaut

Quote from: alexandersr on September 27, 2022, 22:02
I used the following words,using an AI app, "Donald Trump astronaut" and i got this...

trying th at with DALL-E yields:"It looks like this request may not follow our content policy."

I used the following words, but the pics, i think are awful " layflat  vintage typewritter with film camera and cup of coffee on wood table"

Why would an "agency" need "contributors" to generate this stuff?  Why not just have their own employees do it, on demand, in response to customers' requests?   And eventually, of course, those former customers will learn how to generate their own images. 

Quote from: stockastic on September 28, 2022, 00:16
Why would an "agency" need "contributors" to generate this stuff?  Why not just have their own employees do it, on demand, in response to customers' requests?   And eventually, of course, those former customers will learn how to generate their own images.

economics 101  - dont do it in-house when it's cheaper to out-source. for agencies, no employee can produce images as cheaply as available from contributors

buyers have even more incentive to use the agency rather than pay their own designers (if they have them).  now a designer can choose from 'thousands' of images - what are the chances the 1st phrase they give AI is going to be what they want?

and, the raw images from AI will likely still need work for some time.

Quote from: cascoly on September 27, 2022, 18:53

no - copyright is owned by the creator of the work & DALL-E makes this clear. 

your description of how AI works perpetuates a false and misleading narrative - again RYFM - this is NOT how machine learning works and saying it 3 times doesnt make it true. no one making this argument has shown actual evidence that this is true.  it's easy enough to do the experiment

The "evidence" is the people behind this transparently saying this is how the technology works. It has to ingest other people's IP to "learn" how to make images. The steps in the middle are not really relevant. They have helped themselves to other people's copyright material to produce their product, be that the resulting images or the AI engine itself.

The work they have put in is dwarfed by the amount those thousands (millions?) of artists put into created and cataloguing those images.

Quote from: cascoly on September 27, 2022, 18:53

Quote from: HalfFull on September 27, 2022, 17:38

Nothing. However, with regards to submitting work to agencies, they require you to be the original copyright owner. If you use AI software, you're not! Same as submitting someone else's work as your own.

AI software is scraping images and metadata from the internet without the original copyright owners permission and using it to create the images in the AI software. So, submitting images from AI software under your name is similar to you downloading images from the internet, slicing and dicing them, merging them and then selling them as your own. How happy would you be if someone did that to your portfolio?!?!

no - copyright is owned by the creator of the work & DALL-E makes this clear. 

your description of how AI works perpetuates a false and misleading narrative - again RYFM - this is NOT how machine learning works and saying it 3 times doesnt make it true. no one making this argument has shown actual evidence that this is true.  it's easy enough to do the experiment

I think you are both a bit right/wrong here. It's not like the AI takes our images and then just hacks them into pieces and puts them together again with parts of our images still intact, but it is STILL our microstock work the AI image generators are using as a base for their learning and there is evidence for this. In some earlier stages of DALL the AI would generate something strongly resembling the Shutterstock watermark on the image, because it had been trained with watermarked Shutterstock images so much, that it thought it belonged into the image. Boris Dayma from DALL even admitted so himself: "In early models, still in some models, you ask for a picture - for example mountains under the snow and then on top of it, the Shutterstock or Alamy watermark." This is a direct quote and I have seen screenshots that showed examples of this happening.

And the saddest thing to me is that they did not even bother to pay for the images used to train the AI, as they were clearly watermarked.
Yes, they give copyright to the "describers" of the AI generated images, but they used images to train it where they did not own copyright themselves. They can probably get away with this legally, but moraly I find all of this highly repulsive. They basically used our own images without paying for them to create something that one day in the future will most likely destroy our line of work.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 28, 2022, 09:52

And the saddest thing to me is that they did not even bother to pay for the images used to train the AI, as they were clearly watermarked.
Yes, they give copyright to the"describers" of the AI generated images, but they used images to train it where they did not own copyright themselves. They can probably get away with this legally, but moraly I find all of this highly repulsive. They basically used our own images without paying for them to create something that one day in the future will most likely destroy our line of work.

I agree to it. I have access to some of the AI tools and sometimes when I specifically generate any works I can see watermarks of Getty, Alamy, Shutterstock, Dreamstime etc., Though the watermark is so glitched that it cannot be tracked, but since I work in this industry, I can clearly identify those.

So the point is, they created an AI robot which went through almost all microstock website, scraped the whole library of copyrighted IP images to train their AI system. And now they come-up saying that they have built something unique. Doesn't it comes in plagiarism?

But again, this has grown so badly that you cannot take any action as their legal team will easily bypass the trial.

I am also interested to know that with whose permission did they scrapped whole microstock websites. Do those websites even knew about it?