Soon this AI will be so regulated that no one will sell it, let alone buy it. 

When will it be on video?

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 11:59

Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple..

No it's not simple. Just open a real photo with an EXIF file. Open an AI photo. Copy the AI image over into the photo in a new layer in Adobe. Save image. There, your AI image now has the EXIF file of the real photo.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 05:02

... A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

and how is that different from camera generated images?

Many different.
1. AI does only what is already in its database, on which it is trained, which means it will create something very similar. Everyone will have almost identical results.
2. AI makes it easy to create any images on various topics, but it is unlikely that it will be able to do something new, creative, often, if at all.
3. Even now, stock sites separate AI and natural images. I talked about those niches in which it is worth working.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 07:26

I think you are over complicating things. Nowadays, you can download a lot of content for free on torrents, but our buyers do not do this, obviously there are legal requirements in civilized countries and this is being checked. I think soon the world will learn to check the content for its artificiality. In any case, self-respecting authors will not deceive the buyer. Therefore, yes, there will certainly be some kind of fraud, but I do not think that its scale will be too large.
Personally, I am most concerned about video content, because I mainly shoot it.

I don't think customers buying images and not stealing them via torrents has anything to do with the issue, as it is something completely different alltogether. (And, of course, a lot of people DO steal images. I had my images stolen countless times without anyone paying for them).

I can assure you that all agencies are already full of AI generated content, even the ones that don't allow it.

The world will learn to check the content for its artificiality? I wish you were right about this, but how? There are already sites that claim they could check it now, but various tests have shown that the results are random and the sites flag real photos as artificial and think artificial content was human generated. I can't imagine of any way to check whether an image is AI or human created without also thinking of a hundred easy ways to work around it. I do not think this will ever be possible in the future, but as AIs get even better, it will be more and more impossible.

But all we can do right now is really speculate. No one really knows how things will develope. Lots of people are more optimistic than I am. But seeing how easy, fast and cheap AI images can be created and that they actually do sell, I am having a hard time seeing a real future for human photography in microstock.

Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple. It is also possible that programs generating content in AI will be required to add some metadata.
Are there any statistics for today, how many images created in AI are upload per day for the same adobe. I remember for a while it was popular to generate fractals, and people put in 10, 20, 30 computers and they were generated. All this reminds me of a mining farm. I personally am not interested in sitting and generating images in AI yet, I think that this is stupid, stupid and not a promising waste of time. Let those who do not know how to create content do it. Well, I think that the competition in this light niche will be enormous in the end.
It would be nice to create a topic on the forum so that the authors who upload such content write how much they uploaded and how much they earn on it.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 05:02

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 23, 2023, 04:37

For me, for the first image it would take me as long as it takes me to write "Photographed Golden retriever dog on blue background with copy space --ar 4:2", so maybe 3 or 4  seconds?

If everything is so simple and fast, then what's the point of wasting time on AI. Any buyer will soon enter these programs on stock agencies, write such a phrase and download the finished image. A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

That's EXACTLY what I keep saying! At one point buyers will not need us.

 The only point to do it right now is that a lot of customers simply haven't figured out how easy it is yet. A lot of people I talked to didn't even know that AIs were already so advanced that they could create images that looked like real photos. Humans are slower than technology. They need time to catch up with the new development and many haven't yet.
But yes, at some point in the future customers will simply enter what they need into an AI image generator promt bar instead of a microstock image search bar.

AI image generator will soon be on adobe, and will probably appear on other stock sites as well.
But that's not what I'm writing about. At the expense of buyers, it is a personal matter for everyone what to buy, an artificial image created by AI or buying a non-artificial image. I don't think all buyers will want to buy artificial content. An example of this is, for example, an e-book, how many shouts there were when it appeared, but as a result, people continue to buy a lot of paper books.
I am writing that it makes no sense for us authors to generate images in AI, because. competition in this sector will be so huge and high-quality that in the end it will hardly be possible to earn anything. Plus, the AI image generator on the stock site will also compete. Therefore, why now spend money on some subscriptions, all this, at best, will allow you to earn something in this sector in the near future at best. I see no prospects in this regard.

For a while I put high prices on the videos that are being discussed here. As a result, my sales dropped to zero. Probably my video is not very good quality. Therefore, I put small prices for the video, and I would not say that there are a lot of direct sales on the pond, even at low prices.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 07:19

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 22, 2023, 06:26

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47

Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.

A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.

Probably one of these people who claim that letting AI generate images is sooooo~ complicated, and takes soooo~ much skill and sooo~ much time and apparently also sooooo much money. 

Sorry, but nope, $28 a month for unlimited images, that's really all it costs.  8$ only if 200 images per month is enough for you.
Maybe also a softwear to upscale images if you don't have one already, but even these aren't so expensive that you could not earn back the money within a month and there are also some free options out there that work, though with limitations.

https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-the-adobe-stock-policy-on-generative-ai-content/200/

Post 213. We are talking about 1000 euros.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47

Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.

A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.

Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

In short: adapt your work/portfolio for this new reality.

How are you going to adapt?

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

I give permission for education, but I do not give permission for artificial intelligence to trade. Let the AI learn, but it cannot sell the works it creates. More precisely, in this case, a base should be created, and each author from whom the AI studied should receive in the future a percentage of the sales of everything that will be created by the AI. And even now, the authors must give consent not only to AI training, but also to its business activities.