Another AI revolution. This time in a video.
Photographers and videographers will be forced into an area where you are filming something specific, a specific location or persons, and not an abstract palm tree and sea. The niche remains, but is narrowing. The main remaining niche is editorial photo and video.

Millions of people will lose their jobs in the next 5 years due to AI. Because companies need to maximize profits and there are problems with this now. Photographers, videographers, animators, etc. should be removed from the list of money recipients. There are too many photographers, but not enough plumbers.

look forward to using it

pps, instead of the movie line "release the kraken!" (forget which movie), it could be "release the army of eastindian spammers!" lol. oi vay. once they get word of that... you are probably going to have 10,000 "videos" of different angles of the same person eating an orange lol... and then posts asking what happened to their port because 10,000 videos of a person eating an orange didn't get approved...

Investors appear to think Sora is a threat to Adobe's business (I think in general, not specific to Adobe Stock). Market hasn't closed yet, but ADBE is down over $35 a share today

https://www.investors.com/news/technology/adbe-stock-falls-as-openai-invades-its-turf/

Shutterstock is down 5.44% too.  It's definitely because of this AI video generator news.  Many subscribers may just use the Sora to generate on their own.  And that's bad for us too.

Haha.

What is funny, is it says "Adobe stock fell to... 54 =>6.66<=."... ("On the stock market today, ADBE stock fell 7.4% to close at 546.66." (And also '5+4=9 = inverted 6', etc)) It's also funny it seems "only" adobe was the "target" of that "news attack". The big "investors" probably worked hard to make it that #.

If you didn't notice during convid, there was a lot of that deliberate repetition of the #6... as in "6 feet away, 6 ppl or less, 6 inch testing swab"... or "build back better"=> "6uild 6ack 6etter"... (the pyschopaths who organized that nonvirus "threat" are the same one's pushing the "ai" stuff, trying to convince people that they need to become welfare citizens of 'the state', so they become dependant (and more controllable) by a 3rd party).

Just funny the "news" (which almost all of it is propoganda to push a narrative, not useful informative) article said "that" was the share price that adobe was at...

Anyhoo...

a) OpenAI is built off of theft. Pure & simple. 100% theft.
b) It's not "ai". It's not "thinking" - it's sophisticated 'blending' of images.
c) "AI" has been around for 30-40+ years. The "news" just "decided" (at the request of the pyschopaths) that "2023" was the "year of AI". (Jan 2023 was when all the "news" outlets parroted the same thing).
d) Many people are too lazy or think - it is still "work" to even type in "two golden retrievers doing a podcast" let alone thing of it. Just because it "may" become an available tool - doesn't mean it will take everything. But - the "shots" were designed to dumb people down even further (sad for anyone that took them, because they most likely have health side effects now, was ridiculous that many ppl voluntarily suffocated themselves with 'mathsks', some even still doing it now for 3+ years, crazy).
e) Part of a push for the "digitalid" (i.e., id2020.org) for your "health & safety" (which, of course, is neither for your health, nor your safety - it's all about control/greed/hording/tracking/surveillance/etc).

Anyhoo.

Interesting/different times.

Have you seen this?
https://openai.com/sora

That's really devastating... much more than midjourney for photographers in my opinion

yep and waiting for https://stability.ai/stable-video 

Everybody has mobile phones with excellent image and video quality.

And still people buy our images instead of making their own.

Mobile phones certainly don't have "excellent image quality" compared to a real camera. There are worlds between these qualities.

Ai photos are very successful and popular, this will happen with the video too, just watch.

I don't doubt that.

I completely agree that most customers don't care. 99% of my photos end up being used in small size online. No one can really tell the difference whether it's an AI photo, a full frame camera photo or a mobile photo in small size.

Just wanted to correct a wrong statement. Mobile phone and full frame camera photo quality is worlds apart. Might not be what customers care about, but it still is what it is.

I can already see some weird glitches in their homepage video examples: legs/feet that switch position in passing pose, horses walking funny, cars that pass shadows on the ground but the shade doesn't translate well to the top of the vehicle...

It looks good at first glance, but upon closer inspection, lots of things are 'off'. Of course it's just a matter of time before those errors are ironed out, but currently it wouldn't be usable in commercial projects. Besides, some projects require very specific setups, car types, clothing, accessories and authentic settings, and you can't get away with AI that inaccurately makes things up on the fly.

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft
(b) "blend" images together
(c) use tricks/algorithms to "blend" things (i.e., applying a "physics" algorithm to make it appear "wind" is in someone's hair)

If it doesn't have something to steal from, and a special-purpose algorithm hasn't been applied to it - it can't do it.
I.e.,

a) Many "walking" videos, so "easy" to steal/replicate that.
b) Very few videos of say someone eating an apple with their hand by their mouth, then spitting out the apple core, so it couldn't do that, because it didn't have anything to steal from. It could - say - have an "apple object" that it brings "up" to the mouth - and it could say make it look like someone was "chewing" - but to actually see the bits of apple being eaten, then spitting out say apple seeds, etc - it can't - because it didn't have anything to steal form - and the current "patch" algorithms don't account for that.

I can already see some weird glitches in their homepage video examples: legs/feet that switch position in passing pose, horses walking funny, cars that pass shadows on the ground but the shade doesn't translate well to the top of the vehicle...

...Also, their "adorable dalmation looks through a window on a building on the ground floor" video doesn't actually show a Dalmatian dog. Dalmatians don't have black eye masks.

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.

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.

Do you really believe that users will then still buy generic videos of for example moving waves at the beach during a sunset for 50 bucks and have to search a matching one for their needs when they can generate this content by prompting "create a blog article of travel tips to the maledives and generate a matching video".

Yes, that's exactly how it will be. I don�t know about $50, but now most buyers buy videos on subscription services. There they will buy by subscription in 3 years, 5 and 10 years.

The problem is getting something very specific with only your prompt.

And most people don�t even know what they are really looking for, when they start creating.

I think most agencies will offer you a hybrid search - you add a prompt or description for ai and at the same time you will be offered the ai creation on your prompt as well as general results from search terms.

then you can pick a few files from either ai or the database and refine your prompt again.

Which gives you new hybrid results�etc�

Already today some of my best ai images come from using one of my own files as a starter image.

the need to look at a huge database for �inspiration� will not go away.

it will probably also be combined with prompt description service. if you choose a file from the stock database you will be given prompt suggestions for creating something similar for yourself.

ai creation and a stock database are not exclusive opposites, they will be used together to make life easier for the customer.

@cobalt
The hybrid approach is a best-case scenario if the agencies manage to integrate an AI assistant that is able to find the right image or video for the user's purpose in a very short time.

The AI assistant should completely replace the current searchbar with keywords.
Ideally, you would then enter a text description, voice message or screenshot of your website, product, article, etc. as input.
It must be a time saver.

But the crux however is, when AI image and video generators will be so much advanced as a part of multimodal models, that they would be still more time-efficient and above all more precise for the most generic stuff.

And the second problem is that agencies will probably have to invest much money for own development of AI assistants. Perhaps they will try to license ChatGPT oder Gemini, who knows. So agencies will have more expenses while the revenues will drop and they can't cut the contributors' commissions that much anymore.

Believe me, it is a naive idea to think that prompting will remain it's current complex structure. Take a look at the videos of Gemini. The multimodal model can already interpret complex visual context almost in real time.
And that's much more complex than just a text description.

@stoker2014

I don't say that the big agencies will completely vanish but just that the demand of generic content will probably drop by about 90%.

I think you underestimate the possibilities of multimodal models that for sure would be integrated into an all-in-one suite as a subscription.

Midjourney as a single tool for generating images is not a viable business model for the future. It is far too expensive for a single purpose. Most current users just try to generate and sell images via agencies that's the current irony.

But if an all-in-one solution for texts, images, videos, coding, etc. will be placed on the market for perhaps 49 or 79 USD/month, which is on every content type at the same level or above like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion for image generation, then you can think twice about whether someone will still buy a subscription with the agencies.

This is getting crazy... I have seen some new clips which are way too good.
Stock video industry is at risk.

This AI software generates content in the cloud

This means you will pay a lot of money to the cloud and pay constantly for every video created. 
It will be cheaper for a buyer to buy a video on stock than to pay to the cloud.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on March 04, 2024, 02:02

This AI software generates content in the cloud

This means you will pay a lot of money to the cloud and pay constantly for every video created. 
It will be cheaper for a buyer to buy a video on stock than to pay to the cloud.

Where are you getting this information from? Please provide comparative costs for purchasing a stock video versus generating an AI video.

Quote from: stoker2014 on March 04, 2024, 03:35

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on March 04, 2024, 02:02

This AI software generates content in the cloud

This means you will pay a lot of money to the cloud and pay constantly for every video created. 
It will be cheaper for a buyer to buy a video on stock than to pay to the cloud.

Where are you getting this information from? Please provide comparative costs for purchasing a stock video versus generating an AI video.

My friends are using the cloud to create artificial intelligence models. They pay a lot of money for the use of computing power.
How much will it cost to create a video? How do I know. You probably think that all this will be free for you or buyers. 
I am sure that it will be cheaper for the buyer to buy a video on subscription stocks than to create it themselves in the cloud. I think it will be cheaper for the buyer to buy the video and on classic stocks.

My concern is that I don't believe what I see on Social Media anymore because of AI, what is true and what is false.