I agree 100%,but that's another question,those who create multiple accounts to circumvent the rules pay the consequences,you can be sure of that,the fact is that sometimes it takes a while to catch them.

I firmly believe that to reduce AI content spam,and don't create this crazy rush of 100 contents in 2 hours,favor review,favor real content,lighten the load,increase the quality produced... for many reasons I firmly believe that Adobe should place a limit and announce it officially.

let this limit be 1000 per month or whatever they want,but there must be an officially communicated limit, so that people get their act together, and try to create more original and quality things instead of starting an "assembly line"

I'm sure Adobe has already thought about it.

Mat,if you read me,try to raise this issue with the team if is possible and if you can.

See if it's possible to have an officially announced limit of AI content per month or per year per account,I think 1000/1500 per month is more than enough,otherwise we'll all go crazy here,including you!

Limits on new accounts are ok, limits on legacy accounts from contributors who know what they're doing - nah

Why implement this limit only on genAI? You can take your smartphone, take literally 10,000 photos in an hour, and send them all for review. That's a lot more than you can create with AI. Yet, nobody is advocating for upload limits for traditional photos.

It's the job of the reviewer to reject all images that don't satisfy criteria. You can't expect the contributors to "self censor" when it's not in their best interest. If they have a 1% more chance of selling by uploading an extra 10 images, they will do it. If someone can generate 10,000 good images per month - this means, good subject, inpainted faces and hands, upscaled with SD ultimate upscale - then great, let them! The issue doesn't come from those contributors. It comes from those who buy a Midjourney subscription, generate 1000 images, upload them all after upscaling in Topaz, and they pass review. The underlined part is the issue. Adobe doesn't have enough skilled reviewers to distinguish between good and bad upscales. They talk a lot about "educating contributors" but they should educate their reviewers.

If it were up to me, I'd delete over 90% of their current genAI collection - it's crap, mostly midjourney output upscaled in Topaz or something similar, no realistic skin textures, and it all looks samey.

There are a few contributors (and I count myself among them not because of an inflated ego but because of the skills I needed to learn to get where I am) who submit proper content, proper technically, proper theme, proper upscale and inpaint. With consumer hardware, it would be very hard to reach 10k images per month like that. Not impossible, but hard, and your machine would need to be generating and upscaling almost 24/7.

Once Adobe recognizes that it's not those contributors who are the problems, but the mass from a certain low-COL geographic region (no racism, just go on youtube and search for adobe stock ai earnings and see who's uploading) who spam their system with their crappy midjourney upscales, and the reviewers who, for whatever reason, allow this type of content in the adobe stock library.

Me personally - I am waiting for an AI-only "high end" stock agency, where such stuff will not be allowed. I've given up hope that Adobe will ever clean shop.

Let's please not derail this topic to whether it is possible to identify which assets have been used to create a particular variation of the generative fill, as it is not pertinent to this discussion - discuss that topic elsewhere please.

Let's assume it isn't possible. Revenue share could be done in a 65/35% split, with the 35% of the revenue going into a "contributor's fund", and then paid out as a frequency of the amount of assets the contributor has provided for training. This number is known, as we already received a one-time payment for the initial Firefly training.

So let's say the whole model has been trained on 50 million assets, and contributor A has provided 5000 assets to that training database. His "exposure" would be 5000/50 million = 0.01%

If the total revenue of "fast lane" credits is 2 million per month, 35% (for the contributor fund) is 700000$. 0.01% of that is 70$. Contributor A would get 70$ that month.

This is feasible, realistic and, in my opinion, fair.

Why is this not being incorporated and why aren't we voicing our concerns? Do you really not care?

Quote from: spike on October 19, 2023, 18:03

Mat, will the contributors get a share of the credits used for the "fast lane" generative fill?

Credits are distributed through your Creative Cloud subscription. If you qualified for a bonus code for a complimentary Creative Cloud subscription, then yes is the answer to your question.

-Mat Hayward

No, my questions was whether will we, the contributors, get a share of the revenue that is earned by users paying for "fast lane credits" to use generative fill (that was trained on our content)?

Quote from: Lina on September 13, 2023, 10:04

And you are raising CC software prices which were already high, that's really not nice Adobe. 

"Starting November 2023, Adobe plans for users to be able to purchase additional Generative Credits through a new subscription plan, starting at $4.99/month for 100 Credits." So will we get paid whenever someone uses our image and know which one is it, like we are paid for normal, paid images? It should be similar, why not? I like bonus I got, but I don't like to be paid in bulk, not knowing how many of my images were used and at which price.

All info is from Adobe blog https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/09/13/ai-creative-cloud-release-pricing-update?sdid=VG52KCB7&mv=social&mv2=paid-owned&fbclid=IwAR0W4AIxqg-zKvR8XNEQT3r80dW5NGWwxFZgn4DnAjUARChtw_3OLRibYEI.

Currently there is no contributor compensation for images that are generated and licensed from Firefly. We do not have information on future compensation.

-Mat Hayward

Well, that's not great.

I assume a lot of contributors (at least I) would rather get a fractional amount of each firefly generation rather than the upfront hush money.

The Adobe rep who started this thread hasn't been back lately to answer for this crap situation. Here's a question Mat, from Abobe. If I pull my images of your site dose Adobe get to use them in perpetuity in your ai firefly system? If so, what date was this in perpetuity clause put into the artist agreement?

Mat is trying to be helpful, but my feeling is that there's a low probability of you getting an answer to that, or any other difficult questions posed in this thread. How the expression goes - these may be above his pay grade.

I appreciate what Mat is doing, and I also have a feeling he's doing a lot behind the scenes - these deals and stuff with royalty adjustments likely could have gone a lot worse if Mat weren't here to advocate for contributors.

But let's not kid ourselves, they have a whole legal department which is responsible for stuff like this, and it's a lot more likely that you'll get a response if you send (physical) mail there, preferably through a lawyer.

Just to keep you all up to date:

My account (which was blocked for 8 days) was reactivated late last Thursday evening - 19 images were removed that contained an illegal term/trademark - Thanks again for helping me out here @Mat/Adobe.

Since the account has been reactivated, I have noticed a massive drop in downloads - from an average of 23 per working day (yes, that's not soooo many for some of you) to now 8 per working day on average, a drop of about 35%.

Almost all my images that were doing well before the account are now not selling at all - only one image from my Top20 list had two sales today.

The question I'm asking myself now is: Will the account block also expose you to further mechanisms afterwards that will throw you completely back to the end of the queue (or close to it) in the ranking?
Because before the 8-day block, the account was doing increasingly better.

In the AdobeStock Discord I unfortunately only received this very general sentence as an answer to this question:
"Sales are determined by what the buyers are looking for. It's possible that the recent slump was just a temporary one and sales will pick up again based on the changing needs and preferences of the buyers."

That sucks. Hopefully your sales stabilize.

I'm surprised by your average # of sales per day.. your portfolio seems to have more than 100 pages, and most of the content looks like AI (I haven't checked in detail - please correct me if I'm wrong). 23 downloads per day for a port of at least 10k images seems rather low.

Also, a drop from 23 to 8 isn't 35%, it's a 65% drop. Maybe you meant to say your sales are 35% of previous sales (not a 35% drop).

For genAI content acceptances, the parade of awfuls continues (just in case anyone was thinking things were improving somehow). Too many images in recent approvals shouldn't have been submitted; given that they were, they should have been rejected (I stopped after page 10; my brain needs a break)

I'll show just two as examples

The interior was one of a series - all of them full of ridiculous visual errors and technically a mess too (blurry patches, objects that fade or float, jagged lines, etc.)

Titles are misleading, keywords are worse and the images not quirky enough to be fantasy but too broken to represent reality.

Other than being able to boast about the numbers in the genAI collection, I can't see any point, not even for training. Train AI on this content and the results will be even scarier.

Adobe, please rein in this mess. You can be so much better than this if you want to.

I don't think Adobe wants to or has the capabilities to deal with this.

Just recently, they closed their discord channel where contributors could post links to genAI works that shouldn't have ever passed review. At the same time, they implemented a server-wide rule that anyone linking to another contributors' work gets a 24 hour (or longer?) ban

To me, these are clear symbols that Adobe wants to pretend that everything is fine. As long as you don't acknowledge something, it doesn't exist, right?

I'm glad there are still independent forums like MSG where posts like this exist. On Adobe's discord, Jo Ann, you would have been banned.

Even if it is a few thousand, from countries with lower income...wouldn't that still be cheaper than just one potential US lawsuit with Tesla or Apple?

Reviewers from countries with lower income is what I believe initially led to AI library looking like it does.

As for too many files coming in, upload limits solve that very easily.

Yes, I have also suggested that.

I just read that apparently there is a limit around having 700 files in the queue...they could lower that and encourage people to really select the best images and not endless series. Even if they all look lovely, it bogs down searches.

I have over 2k files in the queue for over 3 weeks now, and it's not moving at all. So the limits likely depend on the contributor. I've been with fotolia/adobe for ~15 years.

To illustrate my point, from new approvals

Logos - Midjourney loves Apple

.

Specific places - Persepolis was first up



Furious cobra logo (vector)



Warhol, Mondrian and Hockney (same images show up for both search terms), Jackson Pollock, Matisse

Jo Ann, I appreciate your hard work finding these. But putting these on a small forum like this one may not be the best course of action. It's obvious Adobe won't care unless they get hit financially because of this. Have you considered contacting the companies whose rights have been violated directly? How about some tech websites like petapixel?

The Apple logos just keep on getting accepted

Fix the review process

At this point, just email Apple. They don't take kindly for having their intellectual property violated.

Quote from: spike on August 26, 2023, 07:33

Quote from: Her Ugliness on August 26, 2023, 01:28

No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.

Mat, can we get an official word about this from Adobe?

This text (dealing with the same question) is taken from the AdobeStock Discord:

"Adobe does not allow anymore multiple accounts even if you're not banned. If you're banned, you have wait till you get unblocked. Creating a new account will just get your second account blocked too, because you sign TOS as a person, not as an email.
Adobe used to allow making multiple accounts for this, but does not anymore. In the case of blockage, ALL your accounts will be blocked, since you're blocked as a person, not as an account."

A friend was kind enough to post that in a German forum.

I don't think a forum post qualifies as a legally binding document - is there anything in terms of service or contributor guidelines?

I have a few people to report.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 26, 2023, 12:10

I'm staying waaaay away from all this AI nonsense, but what's the latest on us being compensated for our work being used by Adobe Generative AI tools?

I had fussed about that with the Adobe Express announcement earlier this month. Nothing but crickets from San Jose. I believe the subtlety of Firefly beta being rolled out with Adobe Express - as opposed to Firefly being out of beta - got lost by headline writers. The original promise was that we'd hear about compensation when Firefly was out of beta...

So I think the direct answer to your question is that we know no more than back in March when Adobe announced Firefly.

If I consult my (admittedly broken) crystal ball, I'd say that based on progress so far, Firefly will be in beta for years. Making guesses about Adobe's goals with this announcement, I think it's all about getting the AI buzz wound up for the company as a whole, primarily related to getting the stock price up, and that we (contributors to Adobe Stock) were just the necessary CYA for the messages about Adobe's AI stuff being safe for commercial use. So Firefly could never come to market as a product and Adobe would still be able to win.

There was never anything explicit said about compensation for generative fill in Photoshop even though what I read said to me that it was based on the same training.

Additionally, if you consider that all Adobe's genAI competitors (Midjourney, Dall-E, Stable Diffusion...) are producing the 14+ million genAI collection at Adobe Stock - the stuff that Adobe was contrasting itself with and was painted as questionable for commercial use - the fundamental illogic seems glaring to me. Investors appear not to be paying attention to small details like that.

So my based-on-nothing-but-my-own-flawed-analysis guess is that you shouldn't book a vacation paid for by your Firefly compensation any time soon

And yet people are still using this "beta" feature for commercial purposes. But I guess nobody else but me cares.

No, as Adobe's rules does not forbid having multiple accounts anywhere.

Mat, can we get an official word about this from Adobe?