|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 291
201
« on: September 24, 2023, 10:20 »
Why not contact iStock and show them how easy it is to replace - perhaps they will come up with a better watermark that can't simply be replaced with generative fill, and/or cropping it?
iStock has had several variations of better watermarks - the ones they just replaced with this one would do. The one before that was even more "in your face". They don't need any help to come up with something better and they chose this weak one with a full understanding of its limitations. The way things are now - none of the stock licenses mandate a maximum size for online usage, for example (which they used to do) - a watermark is just there to alert honest people that they need to license the image. On the other hand, making it so easy to steal can get out of hand. Ask Hyundai and Kia about their settlement. And I know, stock agency contributors don't have anyone to go to bat for them as work is stolen wholesale.
202
« on: September 24, 2023, 10:08 »
As an addendum to the above Guardian article, obviously is US specific. An interesting (brief) summary of US copyright law issues. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-3-1/ALDE_00013063/"The Supreme Court held that originality, the sine qua non of copyright, requires that the work was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity" I think AI creations fail because it wasn't independently created by the author - the creation is dependent upon all the other people's artwork used to train the system. The fact that the prompter had some creativity is irrelevant.
203
« on: September 23, 2023, 21:15 »
This is another voice actor situation - Greg Marston did voice work for IBM in 2005, but IBM used that to train an AI voice and then sold it to Revoicer. No compensation for Greg. He understood IBM could use that recording in perpetuity, but not for new uses, essentially competing with him in the here and now for voice work. https://www.ft.com/content/07d75801-04fd-495c-9a68-310926221554[Marston] is working in the same marketplace, he is still selling his voice for a living, and he is now competing with himself, said Mathilde Pavis, the artists lawyer who specialises in digital cloning technologies. He had signed a document but there was no agreement for him to be cloned by an unforeseen technology 20 years later. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gregmarston7_has-a-computer-company-cloned-this-mans-activity-7087772812093857793-uEg2/(paywall) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/opinion/ai-internet-lawsuit.html"Tim Friedlander, founder and president of the National Association of Voice Actors, has called for A.I. companies to adopt ethical standards. He says that actors need three Cs: consent, control and compensation. In fact, all of us need the three Cs. Whether we are professional actors or we just post pictures on social media, everyone should have the right to meaningful consent on whether we want our online lives fed into the giant A.I. machines. And consent should not mean having to locate a bunch of hard-to-find opt-out buttons to click which is where the industry is heading. Compensation is harder to figure out, especially since most of the A.I. bots are primarily free services at the moment. But make no mistake, the A.I. industry is planning to and will make money from these systems, and when it does, there will be a reckoning with those whose works fueled the profits."
204
« on: September 23, 2023, 21:03 »
Very Getty-like. Arguably watermarks are easy to remove anyway, but with an image like this one, there's virtually nothing you need to do!
205
« on: September 23, 2023, 19:45 »
...The picture is aesthetically pleasing and most people will recognize it as a robin, but a lot of the details are wrong.
Here is how it should look like:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Erithacus_rubecula_with_cocked_head.jpg
...
I'm not an ornithologist, but I've attached what Google shows for the American Robin and the European Robin (what you were showing). The AI robin isn't either of them, although as you say it's a pretty bird on a pretty branch. That's (IMO) a type of visual pollution that AI has created - all sorts of things that are kind of like something you recognize, but not really. I think the difference matters when it comes to photo-realistic content. For fantasy creations, anything goes. In time, the cynic in me says that many will argue that any differences between reality and genAI representations of it aren't important anyway. I've already seen some of Adobe Stock's AI images show up in Google searches for real places - and the Capo San Marco lighthouse looks nothing at all like the AI version of it. For now, the pollution level is small enough to know which is which, but the volume of pretty-but-misleading images is growing rapidly. When someone points a camera at something real, even if the person taking the image isn't an expert in the thing they're photographing, what is captured is something that actually exists. Bad keywording is obviously an issue, and that can be misleading too, but that can at least be fixed (should an agency decide it needs to do something about it). The rabbit hole of labeling AI "hallucinations" as real places, real animals, real birds, etc. can't be fixed. Adobe's rule that specific place or property names shouldn't be used when labeling genAI images is a good one. It just isn't enforced. I think it should extend to species names for plants, birds, animals as well unless it's an illustration.
206
« on: September 23, 2023, 08:58 »
Does Canva allow for presentations to be done online, via their web site? I see this text on their web site: "Collaborate, edit, and present on-the-go Easily edit slides and present from anywhere using Canvas presentation software, on any browser or mobile device." I think that means that there's no download involved for this type of use but Canva's telling you that will count towards your payout
207
« on: September 23, 2023, 08:55 »
@Mantis, anecdotal, but very interesting. My crystal ball is broken, but my guess is that two things will keep stock agencies in business (though volume might not grow, so investors won't find it "hot" any more). 1] Images where the specifics matter - you mentioned a robin, but I have a collection of genAI bird and animal images from Adobe Stock where they're not even close to the real thing; same with places, machinery, wheelchairs, stairs, ladders, etc. 2] The "Midjourney look" has become so ubiquitous that in a little while it will be overexposed and viewed as tired - been-there-done-that - and the trend will shift to something else. It's not about extra/missing limbs or digits, but I get an overwhelming sense that the photo-realistic people photos are from some vast clone factory and that you're seeing the same few people everywhere. Back when microstock was a baby, some buyers were happy to see what they viewed as more realistic people and settings than the traditional stock images. That was because by and large the models were friends and family and not professionals. As microstock wanted to grow, it tried to look more like the the stuff they were replacing - and some stock photographers from the earlier generation came to the micros. Midjourney images are a refreshing thing, for a little while (if you ignore the origins of their data training; I'm guessing your company isn't worried about being sued over use of Midjourney images?). And I have to add, for the bazillionth time, that I keep hearing how much better things are getting with the "oops" images, but that's not what I see looking at new approvals in Adobe Stock's 16.8+ million genAI collection. If you wanted a saxophone player, neither of these would be "close enough". Nice lighting and engaging look, but the details are effed up. These were new this morning.  
208
« on: September 23, 2023, 08:26 »
@alexandersr: I received my Adobe Stock payment early this morning (Sep 23)
209
« on: September 22, 2023, 19:17 »
iStock does not allow AI images (although they let a few slip in). They are down to a very small number.
210
« on: September 22, 2023, 19:15 »
The total size of the genAI vector collection is down - I just looked and it's 118,194 - but there are still new approvals - the most recent is file ID 650558560 The total size on Monday was 119,358, but even then there were new images that hadn't been there the week before. I don't understand why they're continuing to approve new genAI vector images if they're also removing the previously approved ones and saying that the rules are you can't submit genAI vectors. The contributor who has the newest genAI vector has just over 300 genAI vectors in their portfolio along with tens of thousands of human-created vectors. I would guess that the contributor doesn't see anything amiss as their genAI work keeps getting approved... Not only should the moderators reject these vectors, they should have a clear, specific reason: "Generative AI vectors are not permitted". Contributors can act on that information and will stop submitting (at least an established contributor like this one will; they won't want to waste time creating things that aren't accepted).
211
« on: September 22, 2023, 18:53 »
Someone knows how many days appears the money when it is withdrawed from Adobe Stock? I withdrowed on september 12th and not news about on my PayPal account. Thanks!
I normally request money at the end of each month, but this month I too requested a payout after the Firefly "bonus" showed up. I haven't yet been paid either. They say 7-10 days (I think - it might say 7-10 business days). I can't request my end of the month payout until the earlier one is paid - you're not allowed to make a request if there's a payment pending - so I hope they sort this out next week.
212
« on: September 22, 2023, 14:19 »
So the email restates the general prohibition, but does not specify which of your images violates this rule? And they can't just rescind the approval of the images in question - assuming there are any? And as far as taking IP rights seriously, their own moderation decisions speak more loudly than the words in their email. This Apple logo is still there nearly two weeks after I posted it here. This week I've seen more Apple logos, Spiderman costumes, mentions of Barbie in image titles. Lots of new content breaking the rules. Lots of old logos still left online... If you messed up and uploaded something you shouldn't have - that Adobe Stock moderators approved - then they should delete those/that image. Tell you how you messed up so you know not to do it again. Unblock your port. But above all, fix the moderation process which, for AI images anyway, is hopelessly inept. Aside from the IP issues, human anatomy and the laws of physics are abused daily. I'm so sorry that this is happening to you. As a fellow contributor, the memories of how "the blocked" have been treated by Adobe will remain long after they clean this wreck up. Edited Sep 24 to add more examples - most new, but the Joan Miro examples I searched for - of logos and references to copyrighted or protected content that continue to flow into the genAI collection. The coloring pages have barbie in the keywords, although not in the title: https://stock.adobe.com/images/workspaces-with-a-focus-on-ergonomic-furnishings/640074344https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-barbie-doll-wearing-a-pink-robe-and-holding-a-glass-in-her-hand-standing-next-to-a-bookcase/642670509https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=211549319&k=barbiehttps://stock.adobe.com/images/half-body-profile-in-joan-miro-style-showing-the-texture-of-thick-oil-paint-strokes-on-the-rustic-canvas-generative-ai/619269849https://stock.adobe.com/images/modern-house-award-winning-architecture-colors-curves-wallpaper-background-joan-miro-style/638884521
214
« on: September 21, 2023, 07:01 »
Hi,
Sr. Please advise me can i access my mircstock (shutterstock, adobestock,istock etc...) while traveling?
I am visiting 3/4 countries, do I need to inform them via customer support.
Thanks,
I have never told an agency when I was traveling. Plus, given how slow most contributor support responses are these days, youd probably be back before they replied anyway 
215
« on: September 20, 2023, 20:29 »
If you try Firefly, you won't feel so positive about its abilities. DALL-E 2 ( what Shutterstock subscribers get to use) is worse, but Firefly is only just above that. There's a lot of buzz about a lot of AI-related stuff at the moment, and although Adobe has used PR relentlessly since March to help boost its stock price, the situation isn't (IMO) as simple as you suggest. An analyst commenting on the inclusion of Firefly beta in Adobe Express a couple of months ago talked about Adobe wanting to paint itself as one of the AI "winners" versus "losers". Investors had been worried that if AI made images and did designs, no one would be buying Adobe's creative product subscriptions any more. Hence Adobe's hoopla about how AI was going to grow their business instead of eliminating it. This is a short blurb from today wondering if the run-up in the stock price has gone as far as it can https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/09/20/adobe-stocks-ai-lift-is-wearing-thin-time-to-buy-t/
216
« on: September 20, 2023, 20:17 »
DALL-E 3 will apparently include some sort of watermarking/metadata indicating the item was created by genAI. There's a mention of the Content Authenticity Initiative, but no specifics - OpenAI is not a member. (paywall) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/20/openai-dall-e-image-generator/"The release comes amid challenges for the San Francisco start-up, as competitive pressure builds. Traffic to and monthly users of both DALL-E and OpenAIs flagship chatbot have slowed, as Google rushes a fleet of AI-driven products to users. But by integrating its novel image generator into ChatGPT, OpenAI is expanding its market and offering the technology as a feature to turbocharge its chatbot, rather than presenting the tool as a stand-alone product. . . . "DALL-E 3′s improvements make it more difficult for a layperson to identify real photos...Youre not going to be able to trust your eyes, said University of California at Berkeley Professor Hany Farid, who specializes in digital forensics and works with Adobe on its Content Authenticity Initiative. But Farid emphasized that the DALL-E 3′s improvements are not cause for alarm because AI gets better at mimicking the real world every six months or so. . . . "As part of a voluntary White House pledge in June, OpenAI agreed to develop and deploy mechanisms to identify when visual or audio content is AI-generated, using methods such as watermarking an image or encoding provenance data to indicate the service or model that created the content. DALL-E 3 is experimenting with a classifier that looks at where an image came from or the contents provenance, said Ramesh, a method mentioned in the White House commitments. These types of mechanisms help identify deepfakes but also can help artists track whether their work was used without consent or compensation to train models, said Margaret Mitchell, a research scientist at Hugging Face and former co-lead of ethical AI at Google." https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/20/23881241/openai-dalle-third-version-generative-aihttps://techcrunch.com/2023/09/20/openai-unveils-dall-e-3-allows-artists-to-opt-out-of-training/"Beyond this, DALL-E 3 has new mechanisms to reduce algorithmic bias and improve safety or so OpenAI says. For example, DALL-E 3 will reject requests that ask for an image in the style of living artists or portray public figures. And artists can now opt out of having certain or all of their artwork used to train future generations of OpenAI text-to-image models. (OpenAI, along with some of its rivals, is facing a lawsuit for allegedly using artists copyrighted work to train its generative AI image models.)" https://www.wired.com/story/dall-e-3-open-ai-chat-gpt/https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/openai-announces-dall-e-3-a-next-gen-ai-image-generator-based-on-chatgpt/"Right now, US copyright policy says that purely AI-generated artwork cannot receive copyright protection, so technically any image created with DALL-E 3 will fall within the public domain. While OpenAI doesn't acknowledge that explicitly, it does say that "the images you create with DALL-E 3 are yours to use and you don't need our permission to reprint, sell or merchandise them." That's a marked change from last year when OpenAI restricted DALLE-2 image use based on a license that said OpenAI "owns all generations." "OpenAI has given no word about its tool's potential to bend the historical record with convincing fabrications, although it says it is experimenting with a "provenance classifier" tool that can help identify whether or not an image was generated by DALL-E 3."
217
« on: September 20, 2023, 09:47 »
Even angrier - time passes and contributors are left hanging
Adobe Stock should be even more ashamed of its pitiful treatment of long-term contributors. It's hard to draw any conclusion other than they don't give a flying furby, duck, turkey
Meanwhile, the flood of dreck pours in - Apple logos, children with three legs, a woman with three arms, stairs to oblivion, Jesus with 6 fingers, calendars with 9 days in the week (one had a day Turdssday which seems appropriate).
In the face of continuing acceptance of work that should have been rejected, the outrage of holding established accounts hostage for weeks seems pointless as well as wrong.
I'll add another item to my list of what Adobe should be doing:
- once the portfolio has been restored, credit the contributor with earnings for the blocked period (an average of their daily earnings for 2023 so far should work as a daily rate). Adobe is in the wrong; Adobe has the money; it might encourage them to handle portfolio investigations for established contributors without blocking accounts going forward
218
« on: September 16, 2023, 10:32 »
The Content Authenticity Initiative doesn't try to detect AI images but looks for information embedded by its member companies in works created with their tools. You don't see Midjourney on the list https://contentauthenticity.org/our-membersThe beta Verify tool is looking for tags - and in the case of Photoshop created images which use generative fill, they're tagged and the Verify tool finds that tag. What I think this means for stock contributors is that we can't use Photoshop's generative fill if we upload work to many/all agencies. Doing special versions for different agencies makes no sense. Shutterstock and iStock (Getty) are both members of CAI and both forbid uploading AI work. Getty provided an explicit notice on this late in the week: "As announced in September 2022, Getty Images does not accept files created using AI generative models. This includes Adobes recently announced Creative Cloud tools, which are now available with its Firefly-powered generative AI tools built in."
219
« on: September 15, 2023, 23:24 »
I had looked at the content statistics and didn't bother to go check the royalties until I read your post.
Overall I was pleased to see growth over July. I can't compare with August 2022 as I only just updated my portfolio at iStock in June after nearly a decade where I had only 100 files from an iStockalypse there.
.03 cent royalties for some sales balanced out by larger ones - the biggest a $56.25 RF royalty. I'll take a more detailed look tomorrow (when I'm more awake!)
Edited 16 Sep to add: I'm glad to see a 28% increase in downloads (Jul to Aug) which is I assume the new portfolio finding its feet. June to July had seen 43% growth but I was still adding images.
Income rose 45% from July to August, but the big royalty skewed that a bit.
Looking at the RPD, it at first glance appears similar to Adobe Stock - 71 for iStock vs 74 for Adobe Stock. However, the minimum royalty on Adobe Stock is 33 (and there was only one of those in August) versus 2 on iStock. Looking at the number of royalties 10 or less on iStock in August there were 79! For a grand total of $3.89. Even less appealing than that, the quantity of sub-10 downloads grew at nearly twice the rate of downloads overall (Jul to Aug).
I'll hold my nose over the lowball royalties as long as the quantity at $10+ keeps hanging in there...
220
« on: September 15, 2023, 23:13 »
Commercial use, yes. Uploading as stock? See Mat Hayward's answer to my question on this - which was an excerpt from the updated rules for genAI submissions: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/msg592314/#msg592314Shutterstock doesn't accept AI generated images (last update to this page is apparently 8 Sep 2023) https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Shutterstock-ai-and-Computer-Vision-Contributor-FAQ?language=en_USThey may need to say something specific about using generative fill in Photoshop for part of an image and whether they would consider that a no-no Shutterstock is a member of the Content Authenticity Initiative, so they would likely look at images in CAI's verify tool to see its status https://contentauthenticity.org/our-membershttps://verify.contentauthenticity.org/inspectHere's what Verify would say about a JPEG file where Photoshop's generative fill was used (this is a test file of mine): "CONTENT SUMMARY This image combines multiple pieces of content. At least one was generated with an AI tool. AI MODEL USED Adobe Firefly PRODUCED WITH Adobe Photoshop 25.0.0" Getty provided an explicit notice for contributors about use of generative fill in Photoshop this week: "As announced in September 2022, Getty Images does not accept files created using AI generative models. This includes Adobes recently announced Creative Cloud tools, which are now available with its Firefly-powered generative AI tools built in." With respect to Adobe Stock's rules as Mat outlined them, I'm still not sure it's "safe" to upload something where generative fill was used on the background and NOT mark it as AI generated. I'd be worried about getting my portfolio blocked by the current crazy process where they "shoot first and ask questions afterwards" My examples and questions in this thread didn't get an answer (possibly because the powers that be don't know) https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/msg592350/#msg592350For a stock contributor to upload to multiple sites, effectively the new Photoshop generative tools can't be used. It makes no sense to do multiple versions, and as at least two of the major sites have forbidden their use, what would be the point?
221
« on: September 15, 2023, 17:57 »
If Canva had used this payout model when starting out, they'd have had no content. 123rf did start out with this setup (a pool scheme with no minimum, but no boosted categories). It very quickly changed to include a minimum payout on subscription downloads because the royalties were so much lower than SS's and contributors weren't happy.
In addition to this they promised a guaranteed amount of income for a period of time otherwise many people would had left.
I know - I assumed at the time this would not end well Sometimes it really stinks that one's most cynical instincts are accurate.
222
« on: September 15, 2023, 15:08 »
...If I understand it right it seems that the low earnings are due to two main factors, one is that template creators are now a priority and they receive more money and the second part is that it doesn't matter whether you sell more, if others sell more too, you receive less.
I'm not with Canva any more, but the explanations you quoted highlight just what a Canva-favorable contributor-hostile system they have created. Their system allows them to control their royalty costs so that Canva gets a predictable (and I assume large) share of whatever subscription revenue comes in and avoid heavy customer usage of Canva's services causing a drop in earnings - for Canva. With somewhere like Shutterstock, the more a subscriber downloads, the less profit SS earns. SS contributors earn more as their download count goes up. With Canva, contributors don't see a linear relationship between the number of downloads/uses of their work and their earnings. Short of banishing all the other contributors to Mars so one contributor sweeps the whole pool, you can't grow your income predictably by growing your downloads. You're in competition with other contributors and the boosted earnings arrangement at any given time. In addition to the overall number of downloads going up in a given month's pool, Canva can change the weighting for any type of content at any time and that can reduce your payments even if your work is heavily downloaded - infographics are no longer getting a boost; certain areas of the world may not be getting a boost and so on. I'm sure Canva's investors love this scheme. If Canva had used this payout model when starting out, they'd have had no content. 123rf did start out with this setup (a pool scheme with no minimum, but no boosted categories). It very quickly changed to include a minimum payout on subscription downloads because the royalties were so much lower than SS's and contributors weren't happy.
223
« on: September 14, 2023, 12:06 »
I'm so sorry to hear of yet another abuse of longstanding contributors by a slapdash and thoughtless process on Adobe Stock's part.
Angry commentary warning
It's a disgrace. Adobe should be ashamed of how it is treating Adobe Stock contributors - and I don't want to hear "without you there is no us" until blocking established accounts stops (I'm thinking one year is a reasonable milestone).
It adds insult to injury to fail on the communications front as well - support apparently tells the affected contributors nothing about what prompted this action.
I realize Adobe is a large company that is mostly focused on its stock price and we are just a little source of costs off to the side of their main business, but the last several months have been pretty tough for contributors having to "suck it up and cope".
They're big, we're small - the power dynamic is why things play out the way they do.
Questions about accepted content - content Adobe's moderation team accepted, let's not forget - must not result in a blocked account.
-Send email to the contributor detailing the potential issue and ask them to contribute any information that might help in the investigation.
-Block upload privileges during the investigation
-Remove from active status the images being investigated but leave everything else for sale
-Send progress email with information about the investigation (weekly would be good given how long things are taking)
-Prioritize investigations to handle contributors with long-standing accounts first; 10+ years, 5+ years, 1+ years, newbies
-If the investigation isn't concluded within 4 weeks, enable upload privileges, possibly with instructions to the contributor not to upload certain types of content
Established contributors have an equal interest in getting things sorted out and uploading only the content Adobe Stock wants to have. Make use of them to get whatever these problems are sorted out.
224
« on: September 14, 2023, 11:44 »
...There's no transparency at all and the bonus is a pittance when you take into account we've basically handed over copyright our images to adobe's AI.
There's a lot I don't agree with about how Adobe went about using Adobe Stock images for training data - as I noted before, I think a good lawyer could demolish their argument that the contributor agreement gave our consent to this use - but I strongly disagree that we have effectively handed over copyright to our images. It's true that if genAI got better it could potentially put us out of business licensing photos/illustrations, but using our images to learn about how images are constructed and what objects look like and how they connect/interact is not the same thing as grabbing copyright. If any of the commercial getAI tools produced a replica of a copyrighted image, I think there'd be lawsuits. There have already been lawsuits where someone created a very, very similar image. Without our images, collectively, there'd be no generative AI. Zero. But we still hold the copyright to our work, with whatever value the buyers will place on that over time.
225
« on: September 13, 2023, 19:10 »
.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
