+1

Quote from: Artist on June 14, 2024, 07:43

I was wondering if we can go exclusive with them? If yes then what royalty do they offer?

You are welcome to submit to Adobe Stock exclusively! The royalty rate we offer is 33% for images and 35% for videos. I should mention, that is the same rate we offer to those who are not submitting exclusively to Adobe Stock also

Sadly, we do not have an exclusivity program, but I think it's great you would consider it if there was!

-Mat Hayward

I'm curious to know where the idea of 15-30% royalties to authors in the stock industry came from in the first place? And why other areas have completely different numbers.
The biggest example is Apple: In-app subscriptions were originally introduced for magazines, newspapers and music apps in February 2011, giving developers 70% of revenue earned and Apple 30%. And Apple even had to prove in court that 30% is not much. Why isn't it like that in the image stock industry? Why don't we get 70%? Why has 30% become the norm in our industry?

I appreciate the spirited discussion. Please know that we are regularly reviewing our policies and we are looking into this.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Mat, is this all you can say about my case?

We need to wait for when you are once again reviewing your policies. You will add to the rules: DO NOT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S IMAGES FOR img2img. And what will this change? If it can't be proven, then this rule won't make any difference.

Can you confirm that now Adobe allows using others' images as prompts for img2img? And these two authors will continue to sell works that I believe were generated unfairly.

The only thing Adobe has suggested to me is to prove that the images were used as prompts. But it's impossible to do. How can I defend myself in this case? And Adobe doesn't want to help me with this. But they could. Adobe could have asked the author for evidence of how they generated their AI images.

Maybe it's time to openly start discussing this issue. Not just making podcasts about how great it is to generate AI cartoon characters with seven fingers, but also podcasts, interviews, surveys about the issue of AI images on Adobe?

I do not know the original text in English, as Adobe is in German for me, but for me it explicitle says I cannot use other artists' s names in the promts, which is something completely different and also how Mat explained it here.
What they mean is you are not allowed to submit AI images generated with a promt like for example "Young woman painted in the art style of Neo Rauch".

It clearly says about image, not the author's name:
Don’t: Use an image, vector or video you don’t have the rights to as a parameter for your generative AI prompts.

I look forward to hearing what Mat has to say.

I want to share the results of my case. What responses did I receive from Adobe?

I will briefly describe the details of my case:
I found that one author (actually there are many), takes images from my portfolio, uses them as a prompt in Midjourney, Stable Diffusion or Adobe firefly (it can be any AI generator, where there is the possibility of img2img) and generates similar AI works, and then sells these images on Adobe Stock. Also he copies the description of my work. "n the attachment, you will find a picture with several examples.

In Adobe's rules, I found this information:
Your Generative AI content prompts, titles or keywords:
-May not contain references to third party intellectual property

If I understand correctly, you can't use someone else's images as a prompt and img2img.

I sent the DMCA notice to Adobe's Intellectual Property Agent (copyright-stock AT adobe.com), reached out to Contributor Support, and communicated with the Adobe team on Discord.

These are the answers I got:
Adobe Intellectual Property Agent: Thank you for your message. We are unable to take action on your report. The allegedly infringing content appears not to be substantially similar to your content.

Contributor Support: The team who handles and deal with these issues is the one who already reviewed your claim and responded back > copyright-stock@adobe.com

I am afraid we can't help you from here. You are more than welcome to send them another message and see if they can review your case again, or provide more details. But if they reviewed your claim and determined that these content do not infringes copyright or other IP rights, then I am afraid there's nothing else we can do. Your case has been reviewed, a decision has been made and a response has been sent back to you already.

Adobe team on Discord: How can you prove the member took your photos and created a file with it? it has similarities, but it is hard to prove. Yes, I see a resemblance, but it's not a direct copy. Ai can really bring our various images. unless your design is exactly/part copied, then you can make an IP claim.


I'm a little confused and have a few questions:
- Adobe themselves have established rules on uploading AI content, where it is forbidden to use other people's work as a prompt for img2img. However, the original content author has absolutely no means to prove that their picture was used in img2img.

- Adobe should be aware of how AI works. It is not possible to generate such a similar picture to the original using only text prompts. Obviously, an image was used as the prompt here as well. For example, try writing a prompt in Midjourney or Adobe Firefly like "a young girl in a yellow hoodie and red pants riding a scooter" and compare the resulting image to mine. You won't get an image as similar as mine without using my image as a prompt for img2img."


We've received an official response from Adobe:
Anyone can take any picture from any portfolio, upload it to Midjourney, and use it as a prompt, then sell it on Adobe Stock. The original author will have no means to prove that img2img was utilized. Adobe doesn't recognize any infringement, despite its clear presence to me.
This situation significantly disadvantages original content creators, and it's not entirely clear how to proceed."


@MatHayward, I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. You've conducted podcasts and promoted AI content on Adobe in this manner. You've spoken extensively about the benefits of AI, but you haven't addressed the challenges and safeguards for original content creators. We continue to see millions of accepted images with six fingers, three legs, and other anomalies. Would you be interested in hosting a new podcast where you address issues like this? How does Adobe protect authors from img2img?"

I would like to hear the community's opinion. What are your thoughts on my situation? I may be mistaken in some aspects, and I would appreciate it if you could point out any errors in my reasoning.

Thank you for your attention.

Hi everyone,

If you are new to creating and submitting generative AI content to Adobe Stock, or you have a question about generative AI content, I'm hosting a Stock 101 session on that very topic this Wednesday, June 28 at 12pm Pacific time.

The event will happen in our Behance Live page which can be found here: https://www.behance.net/adobestock/livestreams

I hope to see you there,

Mat Hayward

Dear @Mat Hayward
Maybe next stream you'll do with Adobe Stock and ask them about the problems with "Generated with AI". How to generate a million images with Midjourney -  it doesn't take much skill and knowledge. Better ask Adobe how they are going to protect authors in such situations:

The person downloaded my images from Adobe Stock (I doubt he bought them). He inserted them into Midjourney (or other AI program) and generated new pictures and sells them as his own. Is this legal? Didn't Adobe promise to protect authors from this? What compensation will I get as an author while stolen content based on my work is being sold?
I find a lot of works from other authors who obviously operate in the same way: they download an image and generate similar images in Midjourney based on my work and sell them. Yes, they are not selling my work specifically, but they have used my work to generate new work. Is that acceptable? How is Adobe Stock going to protect me from this?

I already told you about this one. Why are not asked the necessary and sharp questions during the streams. Why aren't the interests of the authors being defended in the streams?