I believe that the last word on the topic of copyright has not yet been spoken. Simply because visual artists do not have a lobby that could aggressively counteract it, as the music industry/lobby does. Individual artists definitely have a harder time enforcing their rights. I particularly refer to images of artists that have been used as training material without their consent or licensing, essentially representing the brain of the AI. Technically, parts of these artists' images are processed with each new prompt during image generation. Personally, I would only make my images available under an extended license for generative AIs.

And I'm glad to be currently exclusive with iStock and that Getty has, so far, taken a wide stance on AI. Nonetheless, having a lawyer as a friend can't hurt in these times.

I'm seing Shutterstock accounts, which pulled off >200.000 a.i. generated images within a few months. How can RPI be better compared to a conventional artist adding like only 500 images per year.

No - there's a statement that they'll work out a compensation model and share the details when Firefly exits beta (it's still in beta now)

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/firefly-faq-for-adobe-stock-contributors.html

Aight, and thanks. I was just curious about it.

At least, Adobe plans some sort of compensation, unlike the rest of the industry which just stealing images to train their machines.

I myself currently stopped uploading stuff to agencies until it's more clear that my rights are respected (and my images will be safe) or i get paid at least an extended licence per image.

According to terms of use, i own the content generated by this AI and can even sell it.Is it possible to include this kind of element in my images and submit as stock ?

Terms of use : https://labs.openai.com/policies/terms

Regards,
Thomas

Quote

Ownership of Generations. To the extent allowed by law and as between you and OpenAI, you own your Prompts and Uploads, and you agree that OpenAI owns all Generations