|
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 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 291
251
« on: August 31, 2023, 09:22 »
Someone elsewhere spilled the beans (or at least a few of them - no idea how many different missions there are).
The contributor providing the details thought the compensation wasn't worth it - and I agree.
$40 or $60 for a batch of 500 to 1000 images. Even considering no post-processing and no metadata, that's a pittance! The higher price involves a person's hand or mouth - eating food or handling food. The lower price is still very time consuming to set up - images of flags or bananas on tables or other real life situations.
15 day review time and if approved you get paid. So you shoot 500 images of bananas and they're too brown, too green, not in enough different settings, too large/small a bunch, etc, and then you don't get paid? You can apparently upload the images elsewhere, but these are not sparsely covered categories. Shutterstock has 1,166,584 photo results for bananas and 3,032,878 for flags
Be interesting to see if they get any/enough takers at these lowball rates.
252
« on: August 30, 2023, 12:51 »
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
253
« on: August 30, 2023, 11:29 »
I'm considering using AI-generated images as a reference for colors and composition, and then redrawing them using Adobe Illustrator with additional elements. Will upload it as Vector illustration. Do I still need to show that it is AI generated? Thanks
Someone asked Matt a the question "if the AI generated image is used as a sketch and heavily processed after, must we always write made with generative AI?" and the answer was yes.
Though, it's not like Adobe really has a way to know that you used an AI or even care, seeing as how many obvious AI images that are not labaled as AI are their database.....
Mat, We need a clear answer.
We do not accept generative AI vector images. I strongly advise against what you are suggesting. Using the tool as inspiration is one thing, auto-trace or something similar I would avoid at all cost.
Thanks for the question,
Mat Hayward
I hear the policy statement, and I see that the number of vectors marked as genAI has dropped a little over the last several weeks, but new genAI vectors keep appearing - this is currently the most recent and look at the image number. https://stock.adobe.com/images/crm-management-filled-colorful-logo-business-automation-gears-meshing-design-element-created-with-artificial-intelligence-ai-art-for-corporate-branding-software-company-cloud-computing-service/639157535Edtied Sep 1 to add that new vectors have been approved. Overall numbers are going up again too
https://stock.adobe.com/images/catering-service-filled-colorful-logo-meal-prep-carrot-symbol-design-element-created-with-artificial-intelligence-friendly-ai-art-for-corporate-branding-salad-bar-retail-store-food-market/640542184The most recent JPEG (I just searched) is image number 633609083 (now 636012633) - older than the vector (639157535 now 640542184). There is a huge gap between what the written rules for contributors say - for genAI, no specific places, no vectors, no logos - and what's actually happening in approvals. All of those rules are still being broken. A lot If the rules and the inspection process lined up, it would make taming the lawless wild west of the AI content a lot easier IMO. Theree are still 113,080 (now 113,752) genAI vectors live in the collection (that are marked as "Generated with AI")
254
« on: August 29, 2023, 18:03 »
Something about reviews - for several days I have to accept conditions on pop-up after click "send". And It's a little crazy - I send editorial photos, and yet I have to accept that the photos have no visible logos or trademarks. And they threaten to suspend the account. I've sent a lot of pictures with logos before and they were accepted, what's the point?
See this thread https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-generti/msg591544/#msg591544
255
« on: August 29, 2023, 18:01 »
...and, nitpicking, but this unsupported staircase, is possible - while scary i've used such in Turkey & India
If you look at this staircase, it's impossible to walk up it - that's what I was calling out, not the fact that it's cantilevered, which is fine (if you have a good builder and strict building codes  ). There's no landing and mangled steps at the turn. In AI world, don't sit down, don't climb or descend the stairs, and never go to a cat party! 
256
« on: August 29, 2023, 08:44 »
 The Apple logos just keep on getting accepted Fix the review process
257
« on: August 28, 2023, 18:13 »
@RalfLiebhold Somehow I'd never heard of the ability to outrun one's CO2 emissions
258
« on: August 28, 2023, 18:11 »
No worries. Buyers will fix them to make them make sense. At least these are not copyright/trademark violations. Reviewer AI clearly cant distinguish 6 fingers, 3 arms, 3 legs and other weird images.
You mentioned trademark violations? Today's approvals have those too... 
259
« on: August 28, 2023, 15:14 »
New approvals in the genAI collection continue to include some utterly useless, broken, messed up images. One portfolio (which is huge) had some major clunkers in recent approvals so I took a look at some of the rest. It makes the point so clearly - cleaning up the review process is critical and should be the number one priority. Popups in the upload process won't do the job. Just a small taste of what I'm referring to:      
260
« on: August 26, 2023, 18:44 »
I found myself in the same boat. Have been a Fololia/Adobe contributor for 16 years. I had a few AI images accepted, but my portfolio consists mostly of "handmade" photos and videos. Thursday my port was blocked. It's frustrating that there was no warning, no communication, no reply for three days.
So sorry to hear this. Adobe is wrong in the way they are handling established contributors who made a mistake with AI - and doubly wrong because their review process for AI images is so useless it doesn't catch any of the errors. This isn't an intractable problem. It requires a bit of attention, possibly some extra staff assigned to the task and possibly some code. When a problem AI image is identified in an account more than one year old: -Disable AI images temporarily while you investigate -Email the contributor with the image numbers identified as problems and mark them in the contributor interface. Have a few categories of errors and specify what the errors are with each image number -Block uploading but leave the account open for the contributor to delete items if that's their choice. Payouts should be available if the balance is sufficient. -Respond to contributors with disabled images within a week - if their accounts are open, the urgency will be less. -If the investigation takes longer than a week, allow uploading of non-AI images until issues are resolved. Established contributors have proved themselves with Adobe Stock. Treating them with respect, even if a mistake has been made (not only by them, but also by the reviewers), is the absolute least they deserve.
261
« on: August 26, 2023, 14:00 »
262
« on: August 26, 2023, 13:51 »
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
263
« on: August 26, 2023, 09:15 »
I saw a tweet that referred to a badge used (in a kickstarter project for a graphic novel) which I thought was a great idea  I did a google search to see where the image came from but couldn't find it; possibly the creation of the person who did the novel?
264
« on: August 26, 2023, 09:08 »
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
And further, why would anyone buy an AI generated stock image, when they could just as well have their own unique image AI generated?
I've looked at a huge number of AI generated images accepted at Adobe Stock, and I think the reason that people are buying, and probably will continue to buy, human-produced stock images is that a very large number of AI generated images aren't usable. Impossible staircases in luxury interior shots, ladders you can't climb, kitchens with door handles at all angles, stools missing legs or sitting at bizarre angles, people with three thumbs, three legs or missing some body parts, hammocks suspended in thin air, table lamps growing out of books, doors you can't get to - it goes on and on and it isn't getting better with newer submissions. Buyers can't use these except as novelty items or to create memes. My experience with images that sell suggests that there are lots of real world businesses that need real-world images for their marketing materials and web sites. And then there are the people. By and large they look artificial - beyond any overdone retouching we've typically seen in stock shots. There may be a niche market for a small number of these, but I don't see this stuff going mainstream. If you risk eyeball damage by looking over what Shutterstock has for AI generated images (what customers made with their Dall-E based tool) you'll understand why in the earnings call SS said that they saw lots of experimentation but few downloads. They expected that would improve when the quality increased, effectively acknowledging the quality problem they have. Firefly is still in beta but widely available now via Adobe Express. Reviews of that earlier this month mentioned the poor quality of results (which my testing of the beta would agree with) Fantasy content seems to be where AI does best - because there are no rules. It's where it intersects with the real world that it has trouble - and that's where a huge segment of stock licensing operates. Edited to add: I just went to look at new genAI uploads and the first two images were of a kitchen. Just look at all the errors in this image (2nd one) - freshly approved...  The stool legs are missing parts of their supports; the cabinet handles are all over the place; stovetop knobs are mashed pixels; the stool on the far side of the island has mangled legs; there's a light cord on the left but no light; the fridge doors are missing handles - and that's just what I can see in the preview image. This is useless and should not have been approved.
265
« on: August 25, 2023, 09:12 »
I came upon this it-should-never-have-passed-inspection doozy...  ...so I did a few more searches for classic cars. There are a lot in the genAI collection where similar images in the "regular" collection are editorial use only. As with the other "oops" images, the contributor should have known better, but it is a total failure of the reviewing process to have so many of these items accepted: Model T FordCadillac. Some are very specific with year and model:  Ford Mustang That portfolio is full of classic cars, many of which probably aren't OK (I'm not an expert in classic car IP), here and here
266
« on: August 24, 2023, 19:55 »
267
« on: August 24, 2023, 17:14 »
Anyone who has been submitting stock content for a while (since 2004 in my case) has had images rejected for one reason or another. Sometimes one forgets a logo.
Ages ago I uploaded an image including the Pike's Place neon lights not realizing it was protected; another time there was a city shot with a poster that contained someone else's photograph I hadn't cloned out. Those images were rejected, as they should have been, but no one blocked my account over it.
It's fine for Adobe Stock to fix a reviewing mistake by retroactively rejecting an image they accepted in error. I don't know why, especially with established contributors with a track record of solid content and rule following, that wasn't done in this case.
To add insult to injury, on top of blocking the contributor's account, they won't tell him which images are a problem, let him delete them or get access to his account for other purposes - such as to request a payout.
They could block uploads while they investigate; they could send the reviewers who made these mistakes for more training; they could temporarily limit the contributor's upload quota.
Adobe's quarterly earnings will be announced on Sept 14th and I'm assuming they've realized they need to clean this mess up. That's fine, but taking reviewer mistakes out solely on a contributor who uploaded content they shouldn't have seems deeply unfair.
If I were a judge and were to apportion the negligence, I'd say the incorrect content mess is 75% Adobe Stock's fault and 25% contributor's - unless a contributor has been warned a few times and persists in uploading forbidden content in which case take away their upload privileges (but leave the account open).
268
« on: August 24, 2023, 12:59 »
I only made it through about half of your DT (AI) portfolio, but I'd wonder if the four pink Cadillac images would be a problem The title names them and the logo is pretty close to the real thing: https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/For contributors who've been with Adobe Stock over a certain time (let's say one year), blocking a whole portfolio over what is, essentially a reviewing error on Adobe's part as well as an error on the contributor's part, seems extreme I looked at some of the items with piles of boxes on a doorstep to see if there were logos there and didn't see anything I recognized (there was one big black check mark that could perhaps have looked like the amazon prime curved arrow). I saw an iMac shape with no logo and I think Adobe Stock is allowing those in AI generated images (based on how many there are). A champagne bottle with gibberish text and a logo-like "seal" might have caused trouble - typically stock has to have plain geometric shapes to avoid inspectors seeing a logo. Good luck figuring this out
269
« on: August 23, 2023, 16:35 »
270
« on: August 23, 2023, 15:26 »
Mat Hayward has posted his address here for people to use if they need him to look into something: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-free-collection-$5-payments-are-back-vector-and-illustration-email-bug/msg588896/#msg588896 I suggest you contact him via email or see if the Adobe Stock Discord forum can help
271
« on: August 23, 2023, 11:01 »
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/22/23841822/google-youtube-ai-copyright-umg-scraping-universalThis article is primarily covering the use of AI generated sound-alikes in YouTube videos, but does talk more broadly about the issues (and lack of transparency) in scraping data for AI training. It also talks about web traffic, search and what content creators can do to deal with wholesale scraping of their work. Interesting (if depressing) read
273
« on: August 22, 2023, 13:01 »
Reminders for Adobe Stock about its generative AIIt shouldn't be news to Adobe Stock that its review process for generative AI content is largely useless. I'm so tempted to just forward the Apple logo fails directly to Apple, but in the hope that Adobe can turn this train wreck of rubbish content around at some point, here's a recent approval with two clearer-than-daylight logos in it (and I can't post in the discord QA forum because I'm not of a high enough level for them to be interested in what I have to say) (yes, I'm angry with Adobe)  How the #$%* do you miss those?  Suggestions: 1) remove the above image Edited 25 Aug - it's now gone, although the one I posted about Aug 20 is still there... 2) get new reviewers/better software to clean up future genAI submissions 3) spend the money to clean up all the "oops" images, not just the logos, already littering the 14+million items. 3.5) Leave last place in the genAI content quality race to Shutterstock
274
« on: August 20, 2023, 11:07 »
I'll call this the "We don't give a $h1t" collection
Good finds! I've posted 3 of them in the AS Discord #qualitycontrol channel.
Thanks for posting. I note that they're all still there morning of 20 Aug, so possibly these aren't viewed as a problem any more? Or everyone at Adobe's hair is on fire because of AI content imitating the style of copyrighted works?
275
« on: August 20, 2023, 11:03 »
Could be something to do with Midjourney slapping an Apple logo on almost every computer in an image. Given the sloppy attitude by both a large number of contributors and reviewers I can imagine a few hundred thousand made it through! (not just AS on this one, found another blatantly AI port on SS today, where AI isn't even allowed)
Someone mentioned Apple logos on approved genAI images?? From recently approved, page 4: 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
