MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: igor on February 13, 2024, 10:04
-
Just starting a topic to draw your attention to this.
When you search something like "businessman hands dollars" both of these images appear on first page as relevant. However, they were submitted by two different contributors, one as a photo and the other one designated as AI image. The AI image has lower ID number, so it was uploaded earlier.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand-money-in-pockets-dollars-money-is-need-money-is-best-tool-for-human/700646847 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand-money-in-pockets-dollars-money-is-need-money-is-best-tool-for-human/700646847)
https://stock.adobe.com/images/usa-dollars-note-america-dollars-note-bussines/712394348 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/usa-dollars-note-america-dollars-note-bussines/712394348)
-
The short answer is that the inspection process at Adobe is not working well - overwhelmed or understaffed or automated with insufficient human supervision?
Both these contributors just have a handful of images and it's obviously the same file as there's a small white spot on the hand in both of them.
Yesterday I checked the new genAI approvals and there were the Apple logos, extra limbs, stairs into walls/ceilings - all the known flaws of genAI that should have been rejected. I've stopped posting about these bloopers because it's pointless, but little has changed. But there are now over 40 million
Checking for duplicates - and the money image is a duplicate even though the newer one is scaled down - should be a no brainer
-
I think this can happen easily if you prompt with a public contract on midjourney. Anyone can download your file or create a variation and upload that.
I wonder why Adobe is not using a software duplicate checking tool. Would it not be easy to spot this and indicate the duplicate to the human reviewer?
eta
the ports look like real photos but extreme variability in quality. perhaps they "found" images on the internet and mixed a few of their own photos?
weird ports.
-
Just starting a topic to draw your attention to this.
When you search something like "businessman hands dollars" both of these images appear on first page as relevant. However, they were submitted by two different contributors, one as a photo and the other one designated as AI image. The AI image has lower ID number, so it was uploaded earlier.
https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand-money-in-pockets-dollars-money-is-need-money-is-best-tool-for-human/700646847 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand-money-in-pockets-dollars-money-is-need-money-is-best-tool-for-human/700646847)
https://stock.adobe.com/images/usa-dollars-note-america-dollars-note-bussines/712394348 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/usa-dollars-note-america-dollars-note-bussines/712394348)
Doesn't look like AI to me? Maybe the knuckle, but does AI do US dollars that well? AYuva 22 images, Hamdan 6.
Look at this? Here's another one? 2021
(https://cdn.due.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/How-Important-is-it-to-Have-Cash-on-Hand-1-1024x682.jpg)
"Image Credit: alexander mills; pexels; thank you!"
https://due.com/how-important-is-it-to-have-cash-on-hand/
-
I have guessed the same thing - must be the leftovers collectors, but still I am wondering how regular photos get rejected for "similar content" reason, while these pass.
Thanks, Uncle Pete. Ai would not generate a banknote with such quality and details.
-
Here is the same image used in an article from 2019, so definately not AI generated: https://medium.com/top-app-development-companies/is-any-specific-way-to-increase-the-profit-margin-in-mobile-app-development-d76abcbc7224
I think this Hamdan is just a thief who can't even be bothered to actually generate images with AI, just steals real photos from other people.
The other images in his port are stolen as well.
https://unsplash.com/de/fotos/grune-pflanze-auf-weissem-keramiktopf-LEaK1Lmd1a8
-
I have guessed the same thing - must be the leftovers collectors, but still I am wondering how regular photos get rejected for "similar content" reason, while these pass.
Thanks, Uncle Pete. Ai would not generate a banknote with such quality and details.
Yes, someone apparently goes to Pexels, steals the image, changes the title and marks it AI, and it passes? But what you say, someone honest uploads their own work and gets rejected for similar. :o
I will say, that from Adobe, similar doesn't always mean "the same" it could be too many similar style or subject images. You'll have to figure that out yourself. "Common subjects like flowers, pets, sunsets, and food are already heavily represented on Adobe Stock. New submissions for these categories are approved if they stand out and show the common subjects in unique ways."
-
I will say, that from Adobe, similar doesn't always mean "the same" it could be too many similar style or subject images. You'll have to figure that out yourself. "Common subjects like flowers, pets, sunsets, and food are already heavily represented on Adobe Stock. New submissions for these categories are approved if they stand out and show the common subjects in unique ways."
I agree with that. I had my "similar" or in a rather free interpretation "not as good as others we already have..." rejections before. :) And I am OK with that. But I guess nobody likes seeing these pass by the reviewers.
-
"Businessman" wearing nail polish and jeans? ???
-
Hi,
Looking for such cases I came across someone who stole good parts of my portfolio.
Do you have any idea where to report it? I quickly searched for something, but found nothing concrete.
Thanks!
My port: https://stock.adobe.com/ro/contributor/201835714/sebastian-studio?load_type=author&prev_url=detail (https://stock.adobe.com/ro/contributor/201835714/sebastian-studio?load_type=author&prev_url=detail)
eg: https://stock.adobe.com/ro/images/pile-of-salt-and-one-salt-shaker/472573264 (https://stock.adobe.com/ro/images/pile-of-salt-and-one-salt-shaker/472573264)
Thief:
https://stock.adobe.com/ro/contributor/211750683/morosanu?load_type=author&prev_url=detail (https://stock.adobe.com/ro/contributor/211750683/morosanu?load_type=author&prev_url=detail)
https://stock.adobe.com/ro/images/pile-of-salt-and-one-salt-shaker/667986750 (https://stock.adobe.com/ro/images/pile-of-salt-and-one-salt-shaker/667986750)
So Adobe Stock's image control and thief tracking is very poor.
:-\ >:(
Thank you!
-
This image is all over the web - hundreds and hundreds showed up in a Google image search. One credit is to Alexander Mils (only 1 s) - his photo is on unsplash
https://unsplash.com/photos/fan-of-100-us-dollar-banknotes-lCPhGxs7pww (https://unsplash.com/photos/fan-of-100-us-dollar-banknotes-lCPhGxs7pww)
"Published on March 27, 2019"
But unsplash has links to premium images on iStock, including this:
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/anonymous-woman-counting-new-modern-hundred-dollar-bills-gm993981028-269187982 (https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/anonymous-woman-counting-new-modern-hundred-dollar-bills-gm993981028-269187982)
"Upload date:July 12, 2018"
So Mils stole from CreativePhotoCorner??
Getty owns Unsplash but they aren't tracking this and getting rid of infringing copies?
If Google images can help me find these, what's wrong with the agencies that they don't do this work - that's part of why they take home the lion's share of what the customer pays..
-
And so a random discovery became a mystery. :)
If I could quote Agatha C. - "The impossible could not have happened, therefore the impossible must be possible in spite of appearances.”
-
Hi,
Looking for such cases I came across someone who stole good parts of my portfolio.
Do you have any idea where to report it? I quickly searched for something, but found nothing concrete.
Hi Sebastian,
I guess Mat Hayward will see this post soon and provide you with an answer. There was an active e-mail address: contributor-support at adobe.com. Maybe you could get help there.
-
And so a random discovery became a mystery. :)
If I could quote Agatha C. - "The impossible could not have happened, therefore the impossible must be possible in spite of appearances.”
or my favorite Sherlock quote:
Sherlock
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
- Sign of the Four
-
And if you search Adobe using the similar image function, you get another one, even older submission by CuteArt with fairly small port :) - https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand/555894561 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand/555894561)
I have found alexandermils, who must be the original author, with a photo from the same series: https://stock.adobe.com/images/closeup-of-woman-hands-counting-new-100-us-dollar-banknotes/212142588 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/closeup-of-woman-hands-counting-new-100-us-dollar-banknotes/212142588)
But he is missing this popular item in his portfolio. Maybe it was rejected for being similar.
-
And if you search Adobe using the similar image function, you get another one, even older submission by CuteArt
CuteArt's one is not older than the one on iStock. Comparing the file number to my Adobe files, I would say it was uploaded around late Dec 2022 - early Jan 2023.
-
And if you search Adobe using the similar image function, you get another one, even older submission by CuteArt with fairly small port :) - https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand/555894561 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/money-in-hand/555894561)
I have found alexandermils, who must be the original author, with a photo from the same series: https://stock.adobe.com/images/closeup-of-woman-hands-counting-new-100-us-dollar-banknotes/212142588 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/closeup-of-woman-hands-counting-new-100-us-dollar-banknotes/212142588)
But he is missing this popular item in his portfolio. Maybe it was rejected for being similar.
As I noted above, I think the iStock contributor is the original author. Here is that second image from that series (also uploaded July 2018)
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/anonymous-woman-counting-new-modern-hundred-dollar-bills-gm993977472-269187986 (https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/anonymous-woman-counting-new-modern-hundred-dollar-bills-gm993977472-269187986)
And here are the other images of dollars in that iStock portfolio
https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/creativephotocorner?assettype=image&phraseprocessing=default&mediatype=photography&phrase=dollar (https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/creativephotocorner?assettype=image&phraseprocessing=default&mediatype=photography&phrase=dollar)
New contributors should experience extra checks for the first nnn uploads - that would avoid these portfolios of ripoff images
-
New contributors should experience extra checks for the first nnn uploads - that would avoid these portfolios of ripoff images
I agree with you on this.
Regarding the dollar image, iI you check alexandermils on Adobe and CreativePhotoCorner on iStock, I believe it is the same contributor, just using different names.
-
CuteArt's one is not older than the one on iStock. Comparing the file number to my Adobe files, I would say it was uploaded around late Dec 2022 - early Jan 2023.
I meant that CuteArt is older (submitted earlier) than the first two images I found (see my first post).