Re: Artificial Intelligence killing the whole industry = Maybe Not Yet?

SSTK:
Why was my content rejected as Non-Licensable Content?

Content cannot be licensed due to legal restrictions

If your content was rejected as "Non-Licensable Content," it is because we cannot license this content in our collection due to legal compliance restrictions. This type of restricted content cannot be published for either commercial or editorial use therefore it is considered "non-licensable."
 
Restrictions could include, but are not limited to, the following subjects:
...
    Appears to have been created with AI-generative technology 

Why can't I claim copyright to AI-generated content if I am the one who produced the query that generated the synthetic content?
 
Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual. Per our Contributor Terms of Service (Sections 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. As such, AI-generated content should not be submitted to Shutterstock.

Getty / iStock:

Getty Images does not accept files created using AI generative models. There are open questions with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and there are unaddressed rights issues with respect to the underlying imagery and metadata used to train these models. Please see https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/9685 for more information.

AI Generated Content
Wednesday September 21, 2022
Effectively immediately, Getty Images will cease to accept all submissions created using AI generative models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall-E 2, MidJourney, etc.) and prior submissions utilizing such models will be removed.

That just means we can't sell it. Several of the agencies have deals to put AI generators on the sites themselves, and I would think also add AI generated work to the collection.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 28, 2022, 16:16
Re: Artificial Intelligence killing the whole industry = Maybe Not Yet?

SSTK:
Why was my content rejected as Non-Licensable Content?

Content cannot be licensed due to legal restrictions

If your content was rejected as "Non-Licensable Content," it is because we cannot license this content in our collection due to legal compliance restrictions. This type of restricted content cannot be published for either commercial or editorial use therefore it is considered "non-licensable."

Restrictions could include, but are not limited to, the following subjects:
...
    Appears to have been created with AI-generative technology

Why can't I claim copyright to AI-generated content if I am the one who produced the query that generated the synthetic content?

Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual. Per our Contributor Terms of Service (Sections 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. As such, AI-generated content should not be submitted to Shutterstock.

Getty / iStock:

Getty Images does not accept files created using AI generative models. There are open questions with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and there are unaddressed rights issues with respect to the underlying imagery and metadata used to train these models. Please see https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/9685 for more information.

AI Generated Content
Wednesday September 21, 2022
Effectively immediately, Getty Images will cease to accept all submissions created using AI generative models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall-E 2, MidJourney, etc.) and prior submissions utilizing such models will be removed.

Doesn't matter, there are many portfolios smoothly submitting AI content. There is no way for agencies to track whether the content is AI or not. And even AI cannot tell difference between digitally created and digitally generated images.

Quote from: Artist on November 29, 2022, 04:43

Doesn't matter, there are many portfolios smoothly submitting AI content. There is no way for agencies to track whether the content is AI or not. And even AI cannot tell difference between digitally created and digitally generated images.

That's a fact, but at least there are some that are not allowing the flood.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 28, 2022, 18:17
That just means we can't sell it. Several of the agencies have deals to put AI generators on the sites themselves, and I would think also add AI generated work to the collection.

While also true, it seems a contradiction to the claimed reasons why we can't upload AI created images?

"Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual. Per our Contributor Terms of Service (Sections 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. As such, AI-generated content should not be submitted to Shutterstock."

We'll have to wait and see how this turns out. But for the half empty, doomed people, with a perpetual black storm over their head, and who never stop finding what's wrong, their mind is made up, "Artificial Intelligence (is) killing the whole industry".

Nope, just killing our income from the industry. Just like my allusion that Microstock is already dead, that's really just for some artists. AI will replace some of us and make some of our images less valuable, but AI will not kill the whole industry.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 29, 2022, 17:28

Quote from: Artist on November 29, 2022, 04:43

Doesn't matter, there are many portfolios smoothly submitting AI content. There is no way for agencies to track whether the content is AI or not. And even AI cannot tell difference between digitally created and digitally generated images.

That's a fact, but at least there are some that are not allowing the flood.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 28, 2022, 18:17
That just means we can't sell it. Several of the agencies have deals to put AI generators on the sites themselves, and I would think also add AI generated work to the collection.

While also true, it seems a contradiction to the claimed reasons why we can't upload AI created images?

"Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual. Per our Contributor Terms of Service (Sections 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. As such, AI-generated content should not be submitted to Shutterstock."

We'll have to wait and see how this turns out. But for the half empty, doomed people, with a perpetual black storm over their head, and who never stop finding what's wrong, their mind is made up, "Artificial Intelligence (is) killing the whole industry".

Nope, just killing our income from the industry. Just like my allusion that Microstock is already dead, that's really just for some artists. AI will replace some of us and make some of our images less valuable, but AI will not kill the whole industry.

Some agency deals mean the AI company will use the agency's collection to train the AI. I am sure terms will be updated soon to say we agree to it if we want to sell through the agency.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 29, 2022, 17:35

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 29, 2022, 17:28

Quote from: Artist on November 29, 2022, 04:43

Doesn't matter, there are many portfolios smoothly submitting AI content. There is no way for agencies to track whether the content is AI or not. And even AI cannot tell difference between digitally created and digitally generated images.

That's a fact, but at least there are some that are not allowing the flood.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 28, 2022, 18:17
That just means we can't sell it. Several of the agencies have deals to put AI generators on the sites themselves, and I would think also add AI generated work to the collection.

While also true, it seems a contradiction to the claimed reasons why we can't upload AI created images?

"Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual. Per our Contributor Terms of Service (Sections 13d and 13f), contributors must have proven IP ownership of all content that is submitted. As such, AI-generated content should not be submitted to Shutterstock."

We'll have to wait and see how this turns out. But for the half empty, doomed people, with a perpetual black storm over their head, and who never stop finding what's wrong, their mind is made up, "Artificial Intelligence (is) killing the whole industry".

Nope, just killing our income from the industry. Just like my allusion that Microstock is already dead, that's really just for some artists. AI will replace some of us and make some of our images less valuable, but AI will not kill the whole industry.

Some agency deals mean the AI company will use the agency's collection to train the AI. I am sure terms will be updated soon to say we agree to it if we want to sell through the agency.

Yes and that way, they own the images and control the output and eliminate us. All very possible.

This needs to be decided in the courts before anyone is going to go into Open AI big. I don't see how using all PD and scraped images or paying pennies to an agency for a selection, makes anything infringing? And back to the use argument, where we get paid for allowing our images to train AI, where do they send those pennies?

There's no money in that for us and no way to track use. There are better battles to be fought.

I do not think it has to be so bad as it seems. I think our role will change from artists to providers of training images. I tried to elaborate more about the topic at https://artmino.com/shutterstock-and-ai-is-it-a-really-bad-deal/

Clients won't even need agencies, today they can get a certain number of AI-produced images for free directly from the software creators, I won't say where so as not to give them free publicity. The company I work for is considering not renewing the subscription they get every year from an agency we all know, to generate and download the images they need for free directly from the mentioned website.
The days are counted both for the agencies and for the contributors.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 29, 2022, 17:28

Quote from: Artist on November 29, 2022, 04:43

Doesn't matter, there are many portfolios smoothly submitting AI content. There is no way for agencies to track whether the content is AI or not. And even AI cannot tell difference between digitally created and digitally generated images.

That's a fact, but at least there are some that are not allowing the flood.

No allowing on their terms sheet, but people are clever and are bypassing the same rule.
But I agree, the companies wants to restrict the same.

Quote from: ADH on November 30, 2022, 02:11
Clients won't even need agencies, today they can get a certain number of AI-produced images for free directly from the software creators, I won't say where so as not to give them free publicity. The company I work for is considering not renewing the subscription they get every year from an agency we all know, to generate and download the images they need for free directly from the mentioned website.
The days are counted both for the agencies and for the contributors.

The company you work for, must have pretty low standards for their image needs, if they can use images created by Open-AI or the rest. None I've ever seen, are good enough as stock, without editing and adjusting or filling in missing parts.

McDonald's is not putting any steak house out of business, but they both sell beef.

Quote from: mino216 on November 29, 2022, 20:24
I do not think it has to be so bad as it seems. I think our role will change from artists to providers of training images. I tried to elaborate more about the topic at https://artmino.com/shutterstock-and-ai-is-it-a-really-bad-deal/

Just a hypothetical of your hypothetical. What if the training use is a one time payment or maybe we get nothing at all, for the training. But mostly who says we would be paid for every use of every image that was used to train the AI. Why?

And that's assuming that we get any image selected to be part of the dataset. 360 million images, no one will need to license all of them.

It's one use, from a giant, low cost, subscription, to train the AI. What if they paid us the dime standard, which is supposed to be the minimum. That's it. One dime, one use.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 01, 2022, 19:11
What if the training use is a one time payment or maybe we get nothing at all, for the training. But mostly who says we would be paid for every use of every image that was used to train the AI. Why?

And that's assuming that we get any image selected to be part of the dataset. 360 million images, no one will need to license all of them.

It's one use, from a giant, low cost, subscription, to train the AI. What if they paid us the dime standard, which is supposed to be the minimum. That's it. One dime, one use.

"But mostly who says we would be paid for every use of every image that was used to train the AI. Why?"

Shutterstock says that, citing: "Contributors whose content was used to train either model will be compensated for the role their IP played in the development of the original models, as well as through royalty payments tied to future generative licensing activity." or "Earnings from datasets and downloads of AI-generated content produced with integrated technology on our platform are pooled in a collective fund and will be distributed every 6 months." Why? It is obvious. All the other stock agencies are forbidding AI-generated images because they cannot say the training images were properly sourced and properly compensate them. SS can do that as it know the source and authors of the images. It provides them itself.

There are two different situations here. One is training the AI for other projects. This will be probably one time payment. The second one is AI generation based on our images. And this is "generative licensing activity" which should lead to royalty payments. I understand that we are going to be paid for every generaion of AI image where the AI was trained by our image.

"360 million images, no one will need to license all of them."

The quality of AI is extremely dependent on the size of training dataset. Extremely. It is not only about the quality of the algorithm but also about the quality (size) of dataset. How would you make better AI. You will put more data to that (in our case, more images). Of course, not all of them have to be chosen, but this is how the AI works. More data = usually better AI. 

Quote from: mino21 on December 02, 2022, 13:43

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 01, 2022, 19:11
What if the training use is a one time payment or maybe we get nothing at all, for the training. But mostly who says we would be paid for every use of every image that was used to train the AI. Why?

And that's assuming that we get any image selected to be part of the dataset. 360 million images, no one will need to license all of them.

It's one use, from a giant, low cost, subscription, to train the AI. What if they paid us the dime standard, which is supposed to be the minimum. That's it. One dime, one use.

"But mostly who says we would be paid for every use of every image that was used to train the AI. Why?"

Shutterstock says that, citing: "Contributors whose content was used to train either model will be compensated for the role their IP played in the development of the original models, as well as through royalty payments tied to future generative licensing activity." or "Earnings from datasets and downloads of AI-generated content produced with integrated technology on our platform are pooled in a collective fund and will be distributed every 6 months." Why? It is obvious. All the other stock agencies are forbidding AI-generated images because they cannot say the training images were properly sourced and properly compensate them. SS can do that as it know the source and authors of the images. It provides them itself.

There are two different situations here. One is training the AI for other projects. This will be probably one time payment. The second one is AI generation based on our images. And this is "generative licensing activity" which should lead to royalty payments. I understand that we are going to be paid for every generaion of AI image where the AI was trained by our image.

"360 million images, no one will need to license all of them."

The quality of AI is extremely dependent on the size of training dataset. Extremely. It is not only about the quality of the algorithm but also about the quality (size) of dataset. How would you make better AI. You will put more data to that (in our case, more images). Of course, not all of them have to be chosen, but this is how the AI works. More data = usually better AI.

True and yes I read that when it was originally issued. I'm still skeptical about how much we will get. I don't know how this translates in money for anyone, from the first sets used? "as well as through royalty payments tied to future generative licensing activity" future generative licensing activity ?

Maybe you're right and that would be nice. This looks like something that honestly doesn't say much and in some ways is mixed, not specific. "Earnings from datasets and downloads of AI-generated content produced with integrated technology on our platform are pooled in a collective fund and will be distributed every 6 months."

Datasets and Downloads pooled and distributed. This is going to be pretty complicated. Let me just say on a very base level, every image used for the dataset is one kind of credit, and every download, using the AI is another.

I have 5000 images, that's 0.00001389 of the entire collection. Is that my fair share of the collective fund every six months. 

DALL-E2 charges 13c a credit, that's 13c an image. At 15% (my guess) that's going to be about 2 cents a download into the shared revenue. One could argue that with the volume of potential downloads, that could add up to a nice sum. Divided by active contributors? Size of portfolio? Quite a mystery how this will happen.

I won't say you're wrong, but from past experience, I'm not thinking this will be some kind of windfall for contributors.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 02, 2022, 17:51
I won't say you're wrong, but from past experience, I'm not thinking this will be some kind of windfall for contributors.

I do not expect it either. What I wanted to highlight is the fact that a contributor should be eligible for a commision every time when the image created with that topic is sold. I expect more stable income (not necessarily larger income though).

Quote from: michaeldb on November 22, 2022, 00:41
What I most want to know is: How long before AI can make vectors?

Faster than video and photo. A vector is just a conceptual drawing or diagram. It is easy for a computer to convert any drawing or photo into vector format. Yes, now perhaps such programs do not work very well, but this is a matter of a short time. The vector workers will go bankrupt first.

The company you work for, must have pretty low standards for their image needs, if they can use images created by Open-AI or the rest. None I've ever seen, are good enough as stock, without editing and adjusting or filling in missing parts.

McDonald's is not putting any steak house out of business, but they both sell beef.
[/quote]

I am pretty sure when McDonalds flood over the world from 1953 on, it took out tens of thousands restaurants especially steak houses. What you are talking about is that they NOW coexist, with a highly reduced number of steak houses.

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53
McDonalds

McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 13:55

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53
McDonalds

McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.

you just have to look up the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. Good try though lol

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 14:26

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 13:55

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53
McDonalds

McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.

you just have to look up the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. Good try though lol

Why should I look, I was there, I lived there, I saw everything with my own eyes. And I repeat, at McDonalds in the USA, food is much worse than in other similar restaurants.

You were in every store simultaneously, all day, every day? Unlikely. Anyway, I wouldn't class 8.71 billion dollars in revenue as 'not popular'.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 15:04

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 14:26

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 13:55

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53
McDonalds

McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.

you just have to look up the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. Good try though lol

Why should I look, I was there, I lived there, I saw everything with my own eyes. And I repeat, at McDonalds in the USA, food is much worse than in other similar restaurants.

OK, sure facts don't matter. For example that the chain that you described as unpopular is the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. But ramble on my dude.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 15:04

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 14:26

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 13:55

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53
McDonalds

McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.

you just have to look up the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. Good try though lol

Why should I look, I was there, I lived there, I saw everything with my own eyes. And I repeat, at McDonalds in the USA, food is much worse than in other similar restaurants.

And do you have to contribute anything to the real discussion here? You derailed it with hilariously wrong facts and your personal opinion about fast food... Good job.

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53

I am pretty sure when McDonalds flood over the world from 1953 on, it took out tens of thousands restaurants especially steak houses. What you are talking about is that they NOW coexist, with a highly reduced number of steak houses.

Different markets. Sure the hamburger joints and cafes or lunch counters got mostly eliminated by fast food and drive through restaurants. But the good sit down restaurants didn't lose out to someplace where Mom's take the kids for a fast lunch or someone on the road, grabs something. Different quality and different markets.

I said:

The company you work for, must have pretty low standards for their image needs, if they can use images created by Open-AI or the rest. None I've ever seen, are good enough as stock, without editing and adjusting or filling in missing parts.

And the reasoning wasn't to insult your company, but to point out that AI images are not good enough yet, to replace agency subscriptions. Maybe for fast food, burgers and fries, but not for quality meals, steaks and baked potatoes?  If someone has to work to fix and repair the AI images, that is not efficient use of time, and it will cost more to work that way.

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 16:28

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 15:04

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 14:26

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 13:55

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53
McDonalds

McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.

you just have to look up the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. Good try though lol

Why should I look, I was there, I lived there, I saw everything with my own eyes. And I repeat, at McDonalds in the USA, food is much worse than in other similar restaurants.

OK, sure facts don't matter. For example that the chain that you described as unpopular is the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. But ramble on my dude.

"McDonald's has a consumer rating of 2.4 stars from 295 reviews indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Consumers complaining about McDonald's most frequently mention customer service, quarter pounder and ice cream problems."
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mcdonalds.com#:~:text=McDonald's%20has%20a%20consumer%20rating,ranks%204th%20among%20Restaurants%20sites.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 17:40

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 16:28

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 15:04

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 14:26

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 03, 2022, 13:55

Quote from: Stockus on December 03, 2022, 13:53
McDonalds

McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.

you just have to look up the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. Good try though lol

Why should I look, I was there, I lived there, I saw everything with my own eyes. And I repeat, at McDonalds in the USA, food is much worse than in other similar restaurants.

OK, sure facts don't matter. For example that the chain that you described as unpopular is the number 1 restaurant chain in the US. But ramble on my dude.

"McDonald's has a consumer rating of 2.4 stars from 295 reviews indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Consumers complaining about McDonald's most frequently mention customer service, quarter pounder and ice cream problems."
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mcdonalds.com#:~:text=McDonald's%20has%20a%20consumer%20rating,ranks%204th%20among%20Restaurants%20sites.

Yes it's so unpopular that: McDonald's, the most successful fast food chain on Earth, also reigns supreme in the U.S., with $39.5 billion in overall sales last year.

Of course you may be on a different planet?