Quote from: RalfLiebhold on March 16, 2023, 19:21
For the thesis that advertising for stock photography should bring something, no one here has yet provided proof - all just personal hypotheses and a question of faith.

Agree. Advertising bring absolutely nothing to single controbutor.
But in general terms adv can drive more new clients to a specific agency and, in general terms, can give a growth of sales (for everyone).

Quote from: stocker2011 on March 14, 2023, 12:38
My P5 exclusive account doesn't seem to be generating more sales with a higher revenue so I am considering dropping it.

My question is, can I delete the videos in my exclusive account and immediately begin uploading them to other agencies, or is there a cool off period before I can begin doing this?

Thank you.

If I remeber well there is six months before you can upload to other agencies, but it would be good to check directly with them

Quote from: TonyD on March 14, 2023, 11:22
Why does adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent? I spend time cloning out people in the picture and I think I've done a really good job. I'm actually a former designer trained in the 80s so I am mainly self-taught at editing. Is there anyone from adobe on here? The photo rejected is too big to attach here.
I had a 12 rejected last time and about 6 accepted. I never had this rate of rejection before so you would think I must be getting worse at this but I know that I'm not. I have less than 500 photos on there due to the rejections but they seem to be selling well for such a small number, especially this year

If you go to their discord chat server there is a channel for rejection explained

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 02, 2023, 17:24
then we can't upload anything AI because someone might use it for a political, medical or other disallowed use.

To be precise, you can't upload AI made with engine that have these rules. There are several that do not apply any restrictions!

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 02, 2023, 17:24
We have no control over the license or use restrictions?

If I remember well, SS gives the ability to exclude sensitive use for images, for the full portfolio. I don't know if the option is still alive, and I don't remember if others give same choice

Quote from: Roscoe on March 01, 2023, 20:51
Interesting points. I wonder how this is different than submitting an editorial image as commercial, or an image without model release, which the agency lets slip through? Who's responsible for the error? The contributor for having made an incorrect submission, or the agency for letting it slip through and offering it with wrong license terms?

I always thought that the contributor was still responsible in such cases.

Good question!
In this case I would say the author is resposable, because he does not own the copyright.

But you're still not considering the other side, the use of image:
Following your example, if I should put for commercial use something like, let's say, a well known and famous car...
The legal problem would eventually rise only and when the image would be used for commercial.
In other words, it's not the image that break the rules, it's the use of it that could do

Quote from: Roscoe on March 01, 2023, 20:41
So you must have the full rights to submit it for "broad commercial use".
I assume (again, not my fleld of expertise) that this also means: political campaigning or other contexts which are excluded from DALL-E or OpenAI's terms of conditions.

So I see that as a responsibility of the contributor: make sure you have the full rights before submitting.

mmmm... I think there is still confusion between
the content
and
the use of the content
i this sentence :-)

You're talking about something that has nothing to do with AI
It's called "sensitive use", and it's a well know issue, it's absolutely managed on agency side and has nothing to do with the content.

The "not allowed" list of DALL-E (and other engines) is made to prevent the creation of the content; at the contrary, the sensitive use of ANY content (AI generated or not) is an agency side problem

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 01, 2023, 18:13

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 01, 2023, 17:44We are not responsible for the license terms

That's a strange view of things. You think because you are not the one who made the license terms you bear no responsibility?

Absolutely yes. The creator is resposible of content copyright, absolutely not of the terms of license given to the buyer.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 01, 2023, 17:44
Telling the person who wants to license images, that there are restrictions, is the duty of the agency.

This is absolutely correct, this is the truth, no way to say that's not the case!
My opinion, of course 

Quote from: michaeldb on February 24, 2023, 19:38
On Feb 22 the US Copyright Office ruled that AI-generated images CANNOT be copyrighted because they are not 'human-generated'.

https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf

Since microstock agencies require that you own the copyright to images that you submit, it would seem that no one can submit AI images.

Will agencies be able to sell to customers the license to use ANY AI-generated images, if the agencies do not own the copyrights? Are all AI images in the public domain now?

I think you're a little bit too fast in drawing conclusions... And also a little bit confused.
This is not a court decision; and, in any case, public domain images ARE perfectly legit to be submitted in stock images. Agencies are full of public domain images and clips, just search for "nasa".
About the copyright

Quote from: michaeldb on February 24, 2023, 19:38Will agencies be able to sell to customers the license to use ANY AI-generated images, if the agencies do not own the copyrights?

The agencies never own the copyright. The copyright stay with the author (if any), or stay public in case of public domain

Quote from: michaeldb on February 24, 2023, 19:38Are all AI images in the public domain now?

If so, they are sellable. Not the contrary.
it's not a problem for the agency
it's a problem for us

Quote from: Madoo on February 21, 2023, 08:54
I have files that are waiting 5 days for inspection.
That wasn't situation before.
They were accepted/rejected in a 3 days time tops.

Anybody else ?

Ai generated images take much more time to be approved, up to ten days, while traditional photography review is quickly as usual for me, max a couple of days

Quote from: Lina on February 13, 2023, 09:38
I typed "generative AI" in search and it returned around 1.300.000 images, I guess it is actual data (there is even more because not all them are tagged with generative AI). It might be 0.1%, but it was uploaded in very short time unlike other billion images. About flooding everything else, see for example pizza images, sorted by most recent. Many images on first page are generative AI, even if it wasn't written in title and keywords:

I don't understand the point; there was trillion of pizzas even before the AI images production.
Complaint about AI is useless, it's here to stay and it will be more and more used in the future, with higher performance. Do you think you can stop this?
Or do you prefer SS that cut out contributors, preventing us to use AI, while at the same time they give clients DIY system that will not give anything to contributors?

Quote from: Digital on January 31, 2023, 11:19
All Midjourney have to do is to add this text to their End User License Agreement:

"By downloading this image you agree not to sell/distribute it through stock agencies."

If the customer doesn't agree, he/she simply won't be able to download the generated image.

Sorry but this is not a solution.
First, it's simply a gift for dozens of other engines that give commercial use. 
Second, it has already discussed, it's not so clear how to distinguish what you can and cannot do with your own images.
Someone gave examples with the restriction for the buyers who license content, but these are not relevant. These are restrictions for buyers, not for the copyright owner.

If it were simple as you said it would have already been done.

Force AI engine to pay the source IS the problem, not to lock the engine itself. AI is between us and obviously nothing will stop it to work

Quote from: Big Toe on January 26, 2023, 11:20I have no information about the accuracy of the quote, but of course it would be no legal problem to restrict the usage in this way.

After all, stock agencies do it all the time. They sell commercial licences for the usage of images, but certain usages require an extended licence and some usages are forbidden even with an extended licence, notably reselling the image at other stock agencies.

These are license restrictions for buyers.
Restriction of use for the copyright owner is completely different thing, much more difficult to manage. By the way, if someone do this, it means it's possible.

Quote from: Digital on January 26, 2023, 09:21
It depends on the company's Terms. Take for example the two biggest marketplaces for 3D models - Turbosquid and CGTrader.

Turbosquid doesn't allow images, generated from their models to be sold on stock markets, but CGTrader does.

Really? I didn't know this is possible, I'm curious and I'll take a look how they can exactly restrict commercial rights. Thanks for the info

Quote from: ADH on January 26, 2023, 00:44
David Holz, midjourney CEO, said less than an hour ago that he doesn't like midjourney-generated images being put up for sale through stock agencies. He said that he is seriously considering banning the sale of midjourney-generated images through stock agencies.

I can't find any source for this.
And it would be a complete nonsense, if real: why in the earth Midjourney would donate this market to dozens of competitor?
Also from legal point of view it seems very hard to say "You have commercial rights BUT not for this specific market". David Holz cannot "ban" that market, at the contrary the market can "ban" midjourney, that has been already done by SS and Getty.

By the way... it's a strange world and anything it's possible I would like to read the original source with the words of David Holz

Quote from: jovannig on January 24, 2023, 10:35
Is this answer sufficient? Can I start uploading the generated files?

Reading the Adobe terms
is your responsability, submitting generative AI content, to own all the necessary rights.
So, it's up to you to consider (or not) enough the Wombo mail, no one else could answer you

From the FAQ: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

QuoteEnsure you have the appropriate rights to submit.
You must have all the necessary rights to submit generative AI illustrations to Adobe Stock for licensing and use as described in our contributor terms (e.g., broad commercial use).  You must review the terms of any generative AI tools that you use to confirm that this is the case before you submit any AI-generated content.

Do: Read the terms and conditions for generative AI tools that you use to ensure that you have the right to license all generative AI content that you submit to Adobe Stock under the contributor terms. For example, you cannot submit any content if you are not permitted to license it for commercial purposes.

Quote from: Lizard on January 23, 2023, 19:42Every second prompt is using terms like "in style of ARTIST NAME" and as it if that wasn't enough now they started to create models based specifically on artist style to get even closer, and again...as that is not enough you can upload a reference image scraped from the internet and decide how close the generated image will look to the original and balance the prompt and reference photo.

But there is no need of AI to find everywhere any kind of creation "based on someone else previous work and style".
This has always been happening, even in ancient ages, it's not new

Quote from: Lizard on January 23, 2023, 19:42So artist that don't want to be included have absolutely no choice, not even formally.
I have no doubt this will be stopped sooner or later and someone will get compensated big time at the end.

Of course it will happen; Getty, Shutterstock and others will be compensated for giving their database for training; artists will be compensated only by database owner, as SS is doing with "contributor fund".

Artists will probably gain the option to mark their own work as "not usable for training".

Quote from: Lina on January 21, 2023, 19:41
OK, they represent other artist's opinions and many artists are celebrating that lawsuit because they are hoping it will change something for everybody.

I'm quite sure these artists will gain the right to refuse to be trained. That is absolutely due.
There are work in progress to technical solutions, like a universal signature in digital image that refuse to be trained. It's the same of the robots.txt that in a web site stop the search engine scraping.
But this will not stop AI development.

 
incredible

Quote from: cascoly on January 20, 2023, 20:26

Quote from: tätarätä on January 19, 2023, 22:13

What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month  are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.

first, $/image is useless - what's important is $ earned. some strategies emphaszie volume, others  'quality', others different metrics so they can't be compared.

your data for an exponential decline? do you understand the meaning of exponential? the numbers you cite are linear - a 50% drop in each case (50% of 1/2 is 1/4!)   For such a long period, where have you observed such results?
. declines may be steep, linear or minimal, exponential is unwarranted.  if fact, in my case I had a 30% INCREASE in income during the second period, followed by a 20% decline from second to third trances.

Yes, it's not exponential
In math I think it has to be call logarithmic curve, that tend to be flat reaching the maximum.
But the problem is that you don't know which is the "maximum", it's different for each one and it depends on quality and quantity.
2022 was my BYE and I'm in stock from 2014 so it's not bad. But it was BYE for a little up on 2021, so probably I'm going to reach my personal maximum.

You can change the curve, and the maximum, adding new and selleable content, finding new niche or upgrading quality... who knows.

By the way a general calculation it's impossible and not real for everyone

Quote from: Lina on January 20, 2023, 18:32
Artists behind a lawsuit against AI: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/ai-art-generators-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney

Interesting article explaining how AI works: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2022/ai-image-generator/

It will be of course a long legal battle, but the sad side is that nothing is really done to protect artist.
I mean, it's all about money: Getty sue for AI? They will find an agreement, Stable diffusion, Midjourney and Deviantart will pay some money to them. Original authors will receive a kind mail saying that they are the winner, and they will receive... 0,01 cent for every image used.

It's not really an artist war against AI. It's only an economic war to gain some money for agencies, and give cents to authors

Quote from: gameover on January 18, 2023, 22:16

Quote from: cascoly on January 18, 2023, 20:07

Quote from: ADH on January 18, 2023, 17:37
Adobe, over 500k AI images for sale, 99% will never be sold because there is little or no use for them. By the end of the year, following the actual trend of uploads, it will be 5 millions for sale. When do you think Adobe will start charging for uploading AI generated garbage into their portal?

your source for any of those claims?

guess i'm finally part of the 1% since my AI images have sold on AS, SS and DT

me too (in the 1%)!!!

Me too, only in Adobe stock, several dls of AI images in few days from start 

Ok so time to play game :-)

I've asked to chatGPT news and opinions about copyright issue.
I started with this post, and put exactly the same terms:

Quote from: BelieveInStock on January 13, 2023, 13:52
I was wondering if the AI image is just a mosaic of tiny parts of other images, or does it "paint" a new image from scratch ? For instance let's say we have a prompt where the main subject is a cat. Is it possible that an eye or nose of that cat is just taken from some photograph in the internet ?

ANSWER FROM ChatGPT:

QuoteArtificial Intelligence (AI) image generation models can use a variety of techniques to generate new images. Some models use a mosaic-like approach, where they combine small parts of existing images to create a new image. Other models, such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), are trained to generate new images from scratch.

In the case of GANs, the model is trained on a large dataset of images and learns to generate new images that are similar to the ones in the training set. The model learns to understand the features and patterns of the images in the dataset, and uses that knowledge to generate new images.

In regards to your question about the cat image: It's possible that the model takes small parts of existing images and combines them to generate the cat image, but it's also possible that the model generates the cat from scratch using the knowledge it has acquired during the training stage. The specific technique used depends on the architecture of the model, the quality of the data set used for training, and the specific task the model is being used for.

It is worth mentioning that GANs and other similar models are able to generate very realistic images, but it is not always possible to know if a specific image was generated by the model or taken from a real photograph, it is quite hard to tell.

A little be boring but useful.
Then I asked:

Try to fight back against the copyright issue a lot of people claim against AI generated images. Let me know what do you think
ANSWER:

QuoteThere is ongoing debate around the issue of copyright for AI generated images. Some argue that AI generated images should be considered original works and therefore eligible for copyright protection, while others argue that they should not be eligible for copyright protection because they are not created by a human.

Currently, the law on copyright for AI generated images varies by jurisdiction. In some countries, AI generated images may be considered original works and be eligible for copyright protection, while in other countries they may not be considered original works and not be eligible for copyright protection.

Additionally, it's worth mentioning that some AI generated images may include elements from existing copyrighted images, which could lead to copyright infringement issues. To avoid this, one approach could be to use images for training that are explicitly labeled as free for use, or to use images that are in the public domain or that have been licensed under a Creative Commons license.

In any case, it is important to note that the laws and regulations surrounding AI generated images and copyright are constantly evolving, and it is important to stay informed and consult legal experts when in doubt.

Q: In which countries AI generated images are consiudered original works and are elegible for copyright?

Quotehe laws regarding whether AI generated images are considered original works and eligible for copyright protection vary by country. In some countries, AI generated images may be considered original works and be eligible for copyright protection, while in other countries they may not be considered original works and not be eligible for copyright protection.

In the United States, the Copyright Office has stated that works created by a machine or computer program are eligible for copyright protection if they are the result of human authorship. This means that if a human author contributes original expression to an AI-generated image, it could be eligible for copyright protection.

In the European Union, the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market has established that a work is eligible for copyright protection as long as it is an original expression of the author's own intellectual creation. However, it is not clear whether this applies to AI generated works and it's still not clear how EU courts will interpret this.

In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that computer-generated works are eligible for copyright protection as long as they are original.

It is important to note that laws and regulations surrounding AI generated images and copyright are constantly evolving, and it is important to stay informed and consult legal experts when in doubt.

Interesting! Or not?
At least, ChatGPT seems to be quite neutral 

That will be a really interesting and great law war. Most of points are questionable.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on January 18, 2023, 11:09
Surely there's no doubt the "model" the AI has of what an object or person looks like is derived from the study of other people's copyright work, regardless of the level of processing involved, hence "21st-cen­tury col­lage tool" (yes, I do understand the original image isn't used in its original form but it IS process into information to create the "new" work).

This, for example, seems a description of the process that any artist do before creating his own art: the study of other people copyright works. And it's perfectly legit.

It seems to me that the only point really against AI is:
Does it really USE section (or pixels) of other copyrighted works? Are there in the AI generated images any "PART" of other copyrighted works?

In last weeks I was sure that the correct answer should be NO, THERE ARE'NT ANY PIXEL OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN GENERATIVE AI IMAGES

... but I read a lot about AI engines in these last weeks, and I have to say that it's not really so clear to define what AI "understand and recreate" and what, at the contrary, AI "copy, even only partly"

The legal war probably will need to clarify first of all this point. And, probably, the answer would not the same for ANY AI engine

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on January 12, 2023, 09:23
First part. LOL. 2 points re. that

    1. You know anyone can log into Midjouney and see exactly how "hard" it is in real time don't you? (you get to see the prompts and the images produced in real time, highly recommend if you want to know how seriously to take these comments). Alternatively watch a YouTube video or two.

    2. You know we can still see older work in the portfolios of people claiming this is just a new tool in an "artists" toolbox? (and how they instantly made a quantum leap not only in craft but also in composition, artistic vision etc.)

These arguments are silly. The evidence is right there in the open, at least until Midjouney comes off a discord server and artists delete their older work so we don't get to witness the process anymore.

I know I can copy prompts; but learning how to write a prompt to obtain your unique image it's completely different job.
Yes of course you can copy, and it's far from necessary to copy. You can also obtain hundred of nice images for (let's say) valentine's day with really simple inputs: copy prompts it's not an issue if you can have a good image only asking "valentine's day".

But: creating an original different work you are thinking about is completely different: it takes time and several inputs; and midjourney it's not free, and not cheap at all (you pay for a year more or less the same than Adobe creative cloud subscription).
When you finally have a good image (or series of), that's not enough: upscaling is a pain, takes more time, and once again it's not free, you have to pay software.
Finally you can do title and keyword.

Are you sure that so many people will  pay so much to obtain few money flooding agency with hundred of similar images? I don't think it will go this way.
In my opinion, at the beginning (now) there will be the flood; but soon many people will realize that earn money from AI it's not automatic, not fast, not easy.

EDIT: I would like to add an example from my real last days.
I went in a music studio to shoot musical instruments, interiors, details, various eqwuipment and so on... It takes three hours to produce about 100 good photos.
Then three hours more for post production, and I have 100 photos ready to go; total six hours of work.

100 good images with AI with same subject... it will take not less than three/four days of full immersion job in front of computer.  Of course I'm talking about GOOD images, not one hundred of random musical instruments.

(keywording is the same for both works so it doesn't matter)

This is what I mean when I say "it's hard to work on it"

Quote from: ravens on January 11, 2023, 04:32
Wonderful, Adobe & Mat! This new policy is totally in line with abolishing the bonus code for 2023. Screw human artists! Bring on the robots!

I don't think I'll bother with photography any more. I'll get an army of robots and train them to blab text commands to robotic AI software night and day. These smart robots will vacuum pics generated by other robots, re-order pixels  and create brilliant new pictures. (some say that's crap but they're only jealous, and live under a rock or something) Soon I'll have a portfolio of 100 Million brilliant AI images on Adobe Stock. I will be so rich! I will buy a villa in some place tropical, heck, I will buy an island of my own! I will buy a luxury plane that makes royalty, presidents and celebs jealous!

Thank you Adobe, you made my day. Screw artists, Robots are our future.

I'm old enough to remeber quite similar comments in the 90's when digital cameras comes out for large consumer audience.
Using these words means you've really never tested the AI tools. It's super exciting; but it's absolutely not easy to generate real good images.
It's not easy to use.
It costs money and it costs a lot of time.
It's relatively easy to produce in random way some incredible images, but it's abosultely hard to manage the tool to produce series of images with steady style.

Of course it will be easier in the next future; and it will become also cheaper.
But, as for photography, you always have to start from a good idea, and you also need cultural, and technical, skills.

Back to Adobe: I think at the contrary that giving contributors the option to produce (and sell!) AI images is a great opportunities to partecipate in production; at the opposite, other agencies like SS seems that will cut contributors, pushing their clients to produce images by ourselves. In my opinion this last way is absolutely wrong, starting from the idea that anyone have clear idea and skill to create any image they need.

One last example I know very well: in movie production I come from times when editing was made with film, scissor, glue... with big pain and time lost. Digital non linear editing completely changed the game but directors always need good editor to work, also to make choices. To have a digital machine that gives you thousand option in a single second doesn't mean that you don't need human time anymore to make your decisions and choices. Machine is fast, human mind has its own timing.

Finally, AI development is impossible to stop: refusing it and complaining about AI is totally useless, it will be the next future for all of us

Quote from: pancaketom on January 09, 2023, 18:19
I am curious what happens when they take down a big portfolio like this - as far as I know they make no effort to find the actual image owners to pay, so my guess is SS just pockets all the $ they haven't paid out yet - this could be part of their new business model - allow fraudulent ports and then keep 100% of the sales - of course they keep so much of every sale anyway bumping it up to 100% probably isn't worth the effort and risk.

This would be a really poor business, as they probably can keep only this month revenue