https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/30/how-much-can-artists-make-from-generative-ai-vendors-wont-say/

"So vendors including Adobe, Getty Images, Stability AI and YouTube have introduced � or promised to introduce � ways creators can share in their generative AI profits. The trouble is, the companies haven�t been clear about how much, exactly, creators can expect to earn. And for creators considering allowing a vendor to train a model on their works, it doesn�t make the decision easy."

"Tough luck, creators
Tellingly, none of the generative AI vendors we spoke with would give a dollar amount the average creator can expect to see after forking over their creations for model training.

Some vendors blamed the absence of data on the newness of the tech and business model. Others said that the range would vary too widely to give a useful figure.

But for creators � particularly those dependent on contract income to make ends meet � those are arguments that are likely to ring hollow.

... At best, they�re offering hazy promises of future riches � and hazy promises don�t pay the rent."

Looking at new approvals in the genAI collection this morning (bad habit, I know...), #11 out of 17,943,949 is this clunker.

Businessman's Energetic Leap Across Stairs and Spaces, White Shirt Contrast



HOW does this get approved?

Harping on about the rules for AI content being "anything goes" with respect to similars...

93 "blue jay" images . Never mind that  other than being blue and a bird, they're far from an actual blue jay. How do you get to have 93 with minimal variations?

https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=211160654?&order=creation&k=%22blue%20jay%22

Back in the Spring, I had two photos of a particular species of plant - the second one was rejected as being similar. Mine were actual photos of actual plants

Nice touch to add the beads in the bird's feathers, but there's nothing in the title or keywords to call attention to this, so I assume this is accidental - just what Midjourney or whoever decided to add.

What is the point of bulking up the Adobe Stock collection with so much stuff when it can't possibly all sell? Even with the current buzziness of anything AI. There aren't more buyers than before and they don't need more images/illustrations than before.

The regular collection already has 26,336 blue jay photos (none of them mine; I'm ranting in principle, not because my images are threatened).

Accept the two or three genAI blue jays with beads in their feathers and then the collection is improved. What possible value is there in 90+ fake blue jays with useless keywords?

I didn't notice that I have been invited until today - they must be really desperate to have invited me

That's part snark, but also, I'm not a high-volume supplier.

I did review the details and as Mat was asking for feedback...

Not a prayer.

Even if you just shoot JPEG, it's a hard no to be asked to shoot work most of which has no value to me with no guaranteed pay.

There's not even an offer to do it for free for the exposure

Even if I were willing to risk it for inanimate objects, two of the missions require another person plus lots of time to pose, switch foods, settings, holding, etc. Even more time for at least two people and no guaranteed pay.

If any of the missions sounded like (a) good material for my portfolio, and (b) the setup didn't sound like something that's already flooded with genAI images, I might consider doing the work for me with some "extras" for the mission.  But I'm not even sure that would be worth it.

I'm not seeing AI vectors (there might be some, but there are lots that are just SVG/JPEG/PNG; interestingly I didn't see any Illustrator (AI) offerings), but I am seeing masses of look-alike similars

I don't know how many accounts, but there are "28,968 results for "japan web" in all".

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=%22japan+web%22

What is odd is that many of these portfolios appear to have recent work that's all look-alike "japan web" although their earlier work is much more varied. For example:

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211464333/oleksandr?order=creation

Go to page 5 to see the changeover. It's odd that the above portfolio does have masses of genAI vectors as well as others not tagged that way.

It's all recent stuff though.

A google search for japan web just produced sites that help with tourist visas for visitors to Japan. I thought it was worth checking to see if this was some new art style

Adobe Stock says there are 117,634 genAI vectors - that's down about 2,000 from a couple of weeks ago, but still a lot for something supposed to be disallowed.

I am so happy to see that all these images are now gone - just 404 pages remain.

The deluge of fake city shots from all over the world - how many towers in tower bridge?  How many Big Bens? - is still there, but one step at a time :

real people doing real things in real places...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/26/techscape-ai-images-elections-integrity-tiananmen-square

"A strange thing happened last week when you searched for �tank man� on Google.

Tap on image results and instead of the usual photos of Tiananmen Square in Beijing, and the iconic image of a brave protester staring down a convoy of tanks that was captured in 1989, the first result was the same historic moment � but from a different point of view.

For a time last week, the first result on Google Images for �tank man� was instead an AI-generated image of the same protester, taking a selfie in front of the tank. The image was created by Midjourney, and was at least six months old. First reported by 404 Media, a new tech journalism startup set up by former Vice News staff, the emergence of the tank man selfie � which Google subsequently removed from search results for �tank man� � highlighted one of the main fears that Eddie Perez, Twitter�s former head of election integrity, highlighted to me in a recent podcast interview: it�s now possible, with the use of AI imagery, to create alternative history. "

WFT???

https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=210680721&order=creation&k=inisial

They're not the letters the titles say; over 100 meaningless white lines on black. I'd fire any designer that brought me those as logos.

How does this get approved?

If this were not an AI generated image, wouldn't that have been rejected for "aesthetic or commercial appeal of image"?

Yes

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/forum/

You have to be logged in to read it

https://investors.gettyimages.com/news-releases/news-release-details/getty-images-launches-commercially-safe-generative-ai-offering
https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about

"Customers creating and downloading visuals through the tool will receive Getty Images� standard royalty-free license, which includes representations and warranties, uncapped indemnification, and the right to perpetual, worldwide, nonexclusive use in all media. Content generated through the tool will not be added into existing Getty Images and iStock content libraries for others to license. Further, contributors will be compensated for any inclusion of their content in the training set."

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23884679/getty-ai-generative-image-platform-launch

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/09/getty-images-subscribers-to-get-access-to-ai-image-generator/

https://gizmodo.com/getty-new-art-generator-trained-on-contributors-1850866540

"On an annual recurring basis, we will share in the revenues generated from the Getty Images AI Generator with contributors whose content was used to train the AI Generator, allocating both a pro rata share in respect of every file and allocating a share based on traditional licensing revenue. The first payment is expected to be in late 2024 for the year October 2023-September 2024.

We expect this to represent a new revenue stream for contributors that is additive to the licensing benefits you already enjoy with Getty Images."

From the FAQ:

"What are Getty Images� rights to use my/contributor content for AI training?
Our contributor agreements enable Getty Images to license your content in a broad range of uses, existing or emerging, including training data for AI and machine learning uses."

https://apnews.com/article/getty-images-artificial-intelligence-ai-image-generator-stable-diffusion-a98eeaaeb2bf13c5e8874ceb6a8ce196

The Verge article talks about the quality of the results - they got to try it out - and their screen shot looks miles better than Shutterstock's DALL-E 2 equivalent, at least based on what shows up in the generative AI collection on SS.

"I got a hands-on look at Generative AI by Getty Images and got to play around with the tool for a bit. I mainly wanted to see how it generates photos, rather than illustrations, to test out how close to an actual Getty-watermarked picture it can get. And the photos look better than expected. Stock photos already have an artificial, soulless quality to them, and I was not surprised that some of the first few images the tool generated also felt... devoid of feeling. ...

Getty�s tool did well at rendering realistic-feeling human figures. I prompted it to create a photo of a ballerina in an arabesque position (standing on one leg with the other lifted behind) on a stage with a slightly blurred background. The photos I got felt more human than when I tried the same prompt with Stable Diffusion, and the Getty image fooled my friends when I texted it to them. It's clear Getty�s model trained not just on illustrated art but on actual photos. "

https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-launches-an-ai-powered-image-generator/
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-ai-creation-tool
https://fortune.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-launches-ai-image-generator-1-8-trillion-lawsuit/

"The difference, said Getty Images CEO Craig Peters, is this new service is �commercially viable� for business clients and �wasn�t trained on the open internet with stolen imagery.�
He contrasted that with some of the first movers in AI-generated imagery, such as OpenAI�s DALL-E, Midjourney and Stability AI, maker of Stable Diffusion.
�We have issues with those services, how they were built, what they were built upon, how they respect creator rights or not, and how they actually feed into deepfakes and other things like that,� Peters said in an interview."

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-makes-u-turn-as-it-launches-its-own-ai-image-generator/
(emphasis mine) - I like that way of putting the difference between generative AI and photographs
"However, Getty Images will not allow the material made on its new generative AI tool into its content libraries which will be reserved for �real people doing real things in real places.� "

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/getty-images-working-with-nvidia-to-debut-its-own-ai-image-generator-123092501302_1.html
https://www.engadget.com/getty-is-going-to-offer-ai-generated-images-after-all-140138829.html
https://www.zdnet.com/article/can-microsoft-recover-from-the-collapse-of-its-surface-business/

Edited Sep 26 to add a few more links to press coverage of this announcement

https://decrypt.co/198660/getty-images-launches-safe-generative-ai-image-tool

From the context, "user-generated" is referring to Getty's customers for their AI tool, not contributors to their "pre-shot" collection

"Getty Images says user-generated images and prompts will train its AI models. Still, as Peters explained, user-generated images will not be uploaded to the Getty Images website or licensed by the company.

�So what you generate and the corresponding outputs are yours to decide whether you want to use or not, but we are not bringing those images back into what we call our pre-shot catalog,� Peters said. �And we don't accept AI-generated images into our pre-shot catalog because we don't know the provenance of what it was created with.� "

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/25/1080231/getty-images-promises-its-new-ai-doesnt-contain-copyrighted-art/

"Tech companies claim that AI models are complex and can�t be built without copyrighted content and point out that artists can opt out of AI models, but Peters calls those arguments �crap.�

�I think there are some really sincere people that are actually being thoughtful about this,� he says. �But I also think there�s some hooligans that just want to go for that gold rush.� "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johanmoreno/2023/09/25/getty-images-debuts-generative-ai-solution-for-copyright-safe-image-generation/

https://digiday.com/media/getty-images-gets-into-the-generative-ai-race-with-its-own-image-platform/

"�There�s technology for technology�s sake, there�s break things and move fast and ignore other people�s rights � and this doesn�t do [any of] that,� Getty Images CEO Craig Peters told Digiday. �It presents a real meaningful, high-quality solution to customers, which is what they�ve been asking for.�

Similar to competitors like Shutterstock and Adobe, Getty Images offers full indemnification for commercial use of AI-generated images. However, unlike some others, Getty�s AI model is trained on only its own licensed content � a selling point for anyone worried about the range of copyright concerns that plague some other AI platforms.

Customers want to embrace generative AI without having to �absorb a massive amount of IP risk in doing that,� Peters said. He added that the plan isn�t to replace human contributors, but rather to �index on creativity� with �another tool in the creator�s toolbox.�"

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/getty-releases-ai-image-maker-trained-on-own-data-1234680408/
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-generative-ai-platform-music-speculation/

"The concept of unleashing machine learning on a controlled copyright collection is interesting � with a very similar concept rumbling in the music industry. That music-focused model is expected to debut within several weeks, with DMN prepping the story now (stay tuned)."

I can't offer anything specific, but so far, the people who have been blocked had accepted work that fell into that category. So Adobe Stock accepted it by mistake and then blocked the contributor afterwards.

Your situation sounds better in that they rejected it.

What I would be worried about is submitting anything new that fell foul of whatever rule you broke. I can imagine them having rules about repeated violations - although I don't know of anything specific.

Are you now clear on what the violation was and how to avoid it in the future?

...When cameras first came out it was denied any creative value and photographers were not considered artists.
...

This isn't about what is and isn't art. It's about copyright - and in particular US copyright law. Two different issues.

This summary is pretty helpful in outlining what qualifies a photograph for copyright protection.

This article is also helpful in covering the creation of derivative works from a copyrighted photograph (a right that the original owner possesses).

" In photography, whenever someone produces a photograph that closely resembles or is "substantially similar" to another copyrighted work, they may be infringing on the original owner's rights.

To determine if copyright laws have been violated, a court of law compares and evaluates the derivative work against the original. Essentially, a photographer who meticulously recreates an original work's composition, lighting, and other creative aspects is more likely to be found guilty of copyright infringement than a photographer who merely captures subjects that already exist in other photos (e.g., monuments, nature). This allows multiple photographers to photograph the same subjects, like the Golden Gate Bridge, without infringing on each other's artistic rights."

This article talks about the fair use defense - often trotted out by the companies who scraped data without asking for permission or paying.

"Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work."

If you read the section on joint authorship in the first article, IMO that comes closest to what's happening with humans using genAI tools. The humans probably wouldn't like that approach as they'd be sharing their copyright with Midjourney or whoever, not to mention it's not clear that Midjourney came by their contribution legitimately:

"Jointly authored works are works that are prepared by two or more creators with the intent that their contributions be inseparable from one another. In a joint work, each of the authors hold an undivided, equal share to the copyright in the final work. Thus, the default rule is that each author has an equal claim to all the exclusive rights in the joint work�the right to reproduce, distribute, create derivative works, and publicly perform or display�unless they separately agree among themselves that the shares or division of rights or profits should somehow be different."