Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 17, 2024, 11:58

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft

A big thing you might remember is, that's a personal opinion, the courts and laws haven't decided that, yet.

Lol - "theft" is "theft".

If a court decided that a cat was actually a kangaroo with a mexican sombrero, would it make it so? No, of course not. It would still be a cat. (It's funny though, I suppose perhaps that's why a lot of ppl acting insane the last 4 years and did very foolish things, because they actually believed a 'court' had 'authority' over their own common sense/own two eyes/etc). Kind of like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes". Most people were "afraid" to state the obvious (i.e., never was a 'virus', wearing a "mask" was pretty dumb/foolish to suffocate yourself, which lol 'caused' 'respiratory issues', etc, etc).

It really doesn't matter what the "courts" say - a cat is still a cat. And regardless of what the "courts" say - if they declare stealing to be okay - it is still stealing. (& the "courts" are heavily influenced/owned by the corporations $$$, and the corporations heavily influenced by the people that pull the strings of those corporations).

Perhaps though - that is what a "kangaroo" court is. When people act extremely dumb like they did, and it takes a child to say 'Hey! The emperor has no clothes!".

Yes heard it does degrade the original image slightly although the Nightshade designers are working on it.

Don't know much I only heard that it can break the datasets resulting in silly images if a few Nightshaded images are in the dataset.  Could at least be disruptive to AI. 

I guess we'll see.

Thanks again

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 18, 2024, 13:56

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 17, 2024, 11:58

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft

A big thing you might remember is, that's a personal opinion, the courts and laws haven't decided that, yet.

Lol - "theft" is "theft".

If a court decided that a cat was actually a kangaroo with a mexican sombrero, would it make it so? No, of course not. It would still be a cat. (It's funny though, I suppose perhaps that's why a lot of ppl acting insane the last 4 years and did very foolish things, because they actually believed a 'court' had 'authority' over their own common sense/own two eyes/etc). Kind of like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes". Most people were "afraid" to state the obvious (i.e., never was a 'virus', wearing a "mask" was pretty dumb/foolish to suffocate yourself, which lol 'caused' 'respiratory issues', etc, etc).

It really doesn't matter what the "courts" say - a cat is still a cat. And regardless of what the "courts" say - if they declare stealing to be okay - it is still stealing. (& the "courts" are heavily influenced/owned by the corporations $$$, and the corporations heavily influenced by the people that pull the strings of those corporations).

Perhaps though - that is what a "kangaroo" court is. When people act extremely dumb like they did, and it takes a child to say 'Hey! The emperor has no clothes!".

While your argument is entertaining, and reality is, a cat is a cat, legal and illegal is not a physical object or scintific definition. You can't compare a concept to a doorknob and say, the same rules apply to both.

Besides, against your cut and dried, everything is only what it is, and theft is theft because "I say so." The laws are different from place to place, country to country, and in fact, locally, state to state. Laws don't argue that a cat isn't a cat. What is allowed in the next state from here, all four directions, will get you some jail, possibly, we can't legally posses or burn, some specific natural herbs. 

Legally, until the courts have decided that AI is fair use or theft, I think it's not reasonable to start and argument with a false premise or statemnt of fact, that is not true.

AI fair use, is not theft.

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft

Nope. But the rest you are right. I'm not impressed by some moving images tricks. Not yet. I'm not sold on the still images, that are distorted monsters much of the time, improbable and impossible physical objects. But they are fun for making the impossible into an image.

Let the courts decide the laws.

There's a chap on youtube (Adam Duff) who's walking through some of the AI hearings.  I'm not affiliated with this chap just thought they were interesting.

I think the buyer himself doesn�t know exactly what kind of video he needs. He searches for different videos using several tags and looks at what ideas are implemented. Then he buys the video he needs. The buyer cannot be the creator of the video; few people can do this. To do this you need to have imagination, know and understand a lot.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 20, 2024, 09:12

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 18, 2024, 13:56

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 17, 2024, 11:58

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft

A big thing you might remember is, that's a personal opinion, the courts and laws haven't decided that, yet.

Lol - "theft" is "theft".

If a court decided that a cat was actually a kangaroo with a mexican sombrero, would it make it so? No, of course not. It would still be a cat. (It's funny though, I suppose perhaps that's why a lot of ppl acting insane the last 4 years and did very foolish things, because they actually believed a 'court' had 'authority' over their own common sense/own two eyes/etc). Kind of like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes". Most people were "afraid" to state the obvious (i.e., never was a 'virus', wearing a "mask" was pretty dumb/foolish to suffocate yourself, which lol 'caused' 'respiratory issues', etc, etc).

It really doesn't matter what the "courts" say - a cat is still a cat. And regardless of what the "courts" say - if they declare stealing to be okay - it is still stealing. (& the "courts" are heavily influenced/owned by the corporations $$$, and the corporations heavily influenced by the people that pull the strings of those corporations).

Perhaps though - that is what a "kangaroo" court is. When people act extremely dumb like they did, and it takes a child to say 'Hey! The emperor has no clothes!".

While your argument is entertaining, and reality is, a cat is a cat, legal and illegal is not a physical object or scintific definition. You can't compare a concept to a doorknob and say, the same rules apply to both.

Besides, against your cut and dried, everything is only what it is, and theft is theft because "I say so." The laws are different from place to place, country to country, and in fact, locally, state to state. Laws don't argue that a cat isn't a cat. What is allowed in the next state from here, all four directions, will get you some jail, possibly, we can't legally posses or burn, some specific natural herbs. 

Legally, until the courts have decided that AI is fair use or theft, I think it's not reasonable to start and argument with a false premise or statemnt of fact, that is not true.

AI fair use, is not theft.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 17, 2024, 11:58

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft

Nope. But the rest you are right. I'm not impressed by some moving images tricks. Not yet. I'm not sold on the still images, that are distorted monsters much of the time, improbable and impossible physical objects. But they are fun for making the impossible into an image.

Let the courts decide the laws.

The "court" system is a game, that's why it's called 'court' (i.e., like a basketball court, etc). Many things are cut & dry. If someone doesn't see it that way, again - I suppose that's probably a big reason why so many people ignored the obvious the last 3-4 years, many acted rather insane, and obediently wore masks, shoved sticks up their nose, then poisoned themselves with injections, and some currently march around like penguins, and look like penguins too.

If someone sleeps with your wife, and a court says 'Wellll... no, he didn't 'actually' sleep with her, he was just keeping her warm inside and out because she her cloths just all of the sudden fell off, and she didn't want to get cold - so its "fair use"'... I'm pretty sure (assuming you love your wife and are married), you won't go "Oh gosh, well - the COURT said it was 'fair use', so MMkay!'. If someone takes money out of your wallet, or cleaned out your bank account, if the court ruled it 'fair use', pretty sure you wouldn't just rollover and go with their verdict.

Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based on theft. It's not "because" I've said so (even though what I said and stated is accurate) - it's because it a simple, observable fact.

"They" scraped 5 billion images, didn't compensate the authors - and one of THE biggest peskiest "problems" those same companies have is how to get rid of WATERMARKS - aka "marks" indicating it is COPYRIGHTED material. Or rather - that the asset belongs to another person that did not have the intent of making it 'freely' available.

You can put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. It doesn't magically become your wife (although lol some people might argue the prefer a pig in lipstick).

Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.

What the "courts" are actually "deciding" (or - rather the people who pay off the judges/politicians/etc - and whether or not those same judges/politicians/etc are corruptible or have principles and go along with it) - is how "easy" it is for someone to go after the people who ARE, in fact stealing the assets - through the "legal (game) system". Doesn't mean there aren't other options - it just means the (basketball style) "court" system may or may not make it easy for someone to get compensation for stolen assets.

So to be ACCURATE... if you are looking for retribution/compensation via the "court SYSTEM" (it is not the only way of getting compensation/stopping the theft) - then to play the "court" game correctly - one would need to be well versed in their owellian doublespeak/definitions of language. But regardless of whatever they "call" it - theft is still theft.

The companies creating the "AI" tools are stealing, pure and simple. They can put lipstick on the pig by calling it "research", or "community development" or whatever double speak they want - it's still lipstick on a pig.

Current "AI" systems are theft. Not "fair use", but 100% pure theft, pure & simple. Simple, observable facts.

The courts can call it whatever they want, and make it as easy or difficult as they wish for people to be compensated for the theft, but it is still theft.

Quote from: Cider Apple on February 20, 2024, 19:36

Quote from: stoker2014 on February 20, 2024, 13:28

I think the buyer himself doesn�t know exactly what kind of video he needs. He searches for different videos using several tags and looks at what ideas are implemented. Then he buys the video he needs. The buyer cannot be the creator of the video; few people can do this. To do this you need to have imagination, know and understand a lot.

This is true up to this point. But when Sora goes live I'm thinking buyers may search the stock sites for what they would like in a project and then prompt it to fit exactly what they need (so bypassing our clips). Up until now they download content that just about fits their needs, but imagine if they could get the general idea from us (off the stock sites) and make it their own using Sora, and possibly change the video generation a bit to be perfect for the project. I'm sure us content creators could use Sora to create unthinkably amazing clips. But I'm worried that this would be easily copyable. I'm not sure what to make of it all. All I know is that AI Video is the worst it will be right now. Give it another year and wow, everything's changed.

This all sounds too complicated. I think that working with Sora will not be easy, even if you know what you want to get from it. I think you will need to learn different commands and know a lot of things. To create videos in Sora, even us authors will need to spend time. Also, working in Sora may be paid. Yes, some buyers may be trying to create something there, but there won�t be many of them. Also remember that this Sora is unlikely to be able to create realistic video. This means this video will be specific and for specific purposes.
But we sellers need to think about whether we need to work with Sora. And will stocks accept such a video?

Based on what I've seen with other "ai video" tools and subsequent submissions (and lol, I actually found a contributor account like this)... instead of "1,000" videos of "oranges", you are probably going to get "5,000,000" videos of oranges being submitted... lol.

It will be like "RELEASE THE EASTINDIAN SPAMMERS!!!" (instead of "release the kracken")... (and of course anyone else who spams, but it is funny - one should really watch some of these east indian youtube videos on how to 'get rich quick'...)... "So all joo need do dooh, is submit five MEEELYON times dee amount as everboddie else, and den you get five MILLION times dee dollars! So now pay me $15,000 becoz i teached you, and joo may get access to my course on to submit FIFTY MEELYON times! so fifty MEELYON times dee money!".

I am 100% sure that the videos shown on the Sora pages were NOT created with AI.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 21, 2024, 12:16

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 20, 2024, 22:30

Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.

Because YOU say so.     But that's fine, we all have a right to our own opinions.

We don't have the right to make laws or insist that others accept our own personal version of reality. The world functions on systems, courts and laws.

I'm waiting for the system to investigate, debate, and come to a conclusion. Then we'll know if AI is fair use or theft.

Lol. Not sure if you are just having fun, for sake of having fun, because I am pretty sure you are smarter than that lol...

It's because it is a fact, not just because I say so - although I do happen to say so as well.

So... if you believe the court is above your own common sense - WOULD you actually let someone sleep with your wife - just anyone - if the court said it was "fair use", and accept that verdict?

Yes, I'm having fun, because you are also, and you totally ignore the justice system, in favor of your own opinion and personal definition. But lets not let that stop, open discussions. This hasn't been determined and it's not over.

How did viewing an image and using the knowledge now change to sleeping with my wife, or a cat is a cat? 

Or even put glaze options in the cameras at source maybe wishful thinking but camera manufacturers have a stake in this. 

I don't post up personal photos on the internet but serious concerns for those that do. 

Yeah the whole industry is changing fast. Not just the stock image and video industry.
What about speechwriters and speakers?

https://www.synthesia.io
https://www.deepbrain.io
https://www.colossyan.com

Google has with it's daughter YouTube actually the largest database to develop an AI video generator.
Perhaps this will be integrated into the Gemini model in the future. This would be a real nightmare.

Most of the Sora videos look odd to me. Things are moving fast though, so only a matter of time until they improve it to a point where it will be a serious competitor to stock video. I can't remember who was saying they had no concerns about a year ago, I'm guessing they might've changed their mind about that now?

I haven't changed my mind. This is how powerful your computer will need to be to generate video created by artificial intelligence in normal quality. I'm not even talking about 4K and good codecs with high bitrates. I don�t think buyers have such computers (most certainly don�t).

I can therefore imagine that in 3 years the AI videos will have high quality.

Yeah, and any buyer will have a PC (probably worth $1000 and no more) to quickly generate such a video. Probably the generation time will be several seconds, maximum minutes.
It's all fantasy. It will be easier, cheaper and faster to shoot or buy a video than to generate it.
Even now you can use cloud computing power, but it costs money. It�s cheaper to buy a ready-made video, which is what buyers do.