Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 01, 2023, 04:22

Quote from: stoker2014 on September 01, 2023, 03:21

That's why buyers won't buy a lot of AI-generated images.

But they do.

https://petapixel.com/2023/06/06/ai-images-are-outperforming-photos-on-adobe-stock/

Possibly.

"All the above data has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is compiled from Stock Performer�s customers who do not represent all stock contributors and not all Stock Performer customers choose to hand over their performance data."

 Yes, maybe for whatever reason costomers only buy a lot of AI images from Stock performer contributors and not from anyone who is not a Stock Perfomer's customers.  But I somehow doubt that.
It's also in accord with my experience. My portfolio is about 90% real photos and 10% AI images. Yet by now I sell slightly more AI images than real photos each day, so customers buy a very unproportional high amount of AI images from me. (And no, it's certainly not because my real photos were of poor quality. I do microstock full time, so you can imagine that in order to live from my microstock income I would need to be able to produce images of at least decent quality)

So from my observation customers buy a lot of AI images. Like, really  A LOT.

I understand very well that the ones of us who are aware that AI will eventuelly be the downfall of microstock and therefore the downfall of all of us who do microstock full time really hoped that AI images would not be well accepted by customers and they would prefer real photography, but sadly it's really not what seems to be happening right now. I know there are customers who refuse to work with AI images. I even know a very big world-wide company cancelled all their associations with Adobe because of the AI image mess. But most customers seem to be crazy about AI images and buy them like hot cake.

I just read that apparently there is a limit around having 700 files in the queue...

I had way more images that that waiting in the queue in the past weeks.

And where is MatHayward, why doesn't he write anything here?

Page 2:

Hi All,

If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.

I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.

Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

I feel like everyone who agreed to Depositphot's Revenue Sharing Program lost all rights to complain.  You get what you signed up for.

We all know agencies try to lower our income more and more and in many cases, when our livelihood depends on microstock income, we do not have much of a choice but to suck it up and deal with it, but the  Depositphotos Revenue Sharing Program is an additional option you don't have to take part in.

Quote from: JustAnImage on August 25, 2023, 09:32

Quote from: blvdone on August 25, 2023, 09:17

If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario.  This is scary uploading AI images.  You may not be aware of the violation.

I'm not really sure, but I think I read that it is against Adobe's policy to run a 2nd account on AdobeStock as the same person.
But maybe I'm wrong here...

What remains to be seen is whether Adobe is in any way "willing to negotiate" on my account.

I know of at least one person who has 5 adobe stock accounts. How do I know? They were dumb enough to make a video about it themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqdns9CN80

(author of the video: if you ever see this, don't bother taking it down, I already downloaded the video as proof)

Is there an email address we can write to to report such behavior?

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

Hi All,

If your account has been recently blocked, please write to contributor support via [email protected] for information on your account. The team is currently backed up, but will respond asap.

I can't speak to your account(s) directly, but I did recently post some important reminders about submission policies such as the strict prohibition of using the name of existing artists in generative AI prompts and metadata. Violating generative AI guidelines can lead to possible account suspension or termination.

Please be sure to review them here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Mat, can you PLEASE take a closer look at this thread? Many people are worried for their accounts. I know I am, even though I know I comply with the AI image rules to my best knowledge - But that doesn't mean something where I simply DO NOT KNOW it could be trademarked could not appear in my images, even when I never used any trademarked words in prompts. Because AI does what AI wants.

I got an answer from Adobe, which reads like this:

------------------------
"Your account was blocked after we noticed that you have submitted Generative Ai content that is not within our guidelines.

You have submitted files that refer to famous artists, people, characters from popular culture, and/or other existing subjects such as video games in the image, title or keywords. We take intellectual property rights very seriously and your uploads are a violation of these rights and thus violate the upload guidelines.

Your account will remain blocked until further notice."
------------------------

I have again politely written to the Adobe employee asking to be allowed to remove the problematic material so that my years of work are not destroyed.

Unfortunately, even after Adobe's reply, I don't know what exactly the problem was - maybe I have a wrong keyword in there somewhere that I wasn't aware of - you can't know everything.

According to the reason given by Adobe your caddilac images would fall under that category, you did use the word Caddilac in the title. Caddilac is a American automobile manufacturer brand name.
However, if that's really all I find this a bit harsh. Sometimes it's not really clear to many people that something is not simply what you call a certain type of car like a cabriolet, but a brand name. I once had images rejected on SS for using property names in the keywords and then learned that the problem word was "frisbee". I just thought that this was what these things were called, not a brand name! And now I can totally imagine someone being banned on Adobe because he has an Ai image titeled "Children playing frisbee" in his port. Doesn't really seem right.

In this case, if Adobe was aware that Caddilac was a brand name, the reviewers are the ones who screwed up and should not have approved the images in the first place. Isn't this exactly the reviewers' job? Were they fired for not doing their job correctly and  breaking Adobe's rules as well or is it just the contributor who gets punished?

And all of this seems like a very extreme action when you consider that even when an account is caught stealing other peope's images, agencies tend to graciously believe that it was just a one-time honest "mistake" and just delete the image and keep the whole account open. But when someone uses a brand name in one image set that leads to an instant banning of the whole account...?  Completely out of proportion.

I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.

Do that, but just keep in mind that the US is, despite what some people seem to think, only a very small part of the world with only around 4% of the world poulation. So while I welcome the decision of the US, the rest of the world still has to follow for your plan to be bullet-proof.

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.....

That is just wrong. I am surprised Adobe does not have a warning system for famous artists names.

Is this not easy to implement?

Then people would just not mention the artist name in the title - They'd still use it for promting. Same difference.

Mediocre for me, but my last good month with them was in March 23.

Searches will be next to useless if the pretend content is indistinguishable from the real

It's impossible to do, as there is absolutely no automated way to distiguish AI images from real photos. Last month I read an article about how OpenAI discontinued their AI text detection tool, because it was only able to detect AI generated texts with a reliability of like 40% - which just made the tool completely useless. With just 40% reliability you would have a better chance of detecting AI content if you just guessed.  I think it is the same for AI images.

Unless people voluntarily label all their AI content - everywhere on the internet - as AI content, we will never be able to reliable distinguish real photos from AI images in the future.

There should have been safeguards put in place from the start. Like for example a rule that requires every company that offers the creation AI content  - text, images, music, videos - to create a database in which ALL of the content created with their tools goes. Like this every content on the internet could have been checked in these datbase, similar to how the reversed google image search works, and if it came up in the database you would know it was AI generated for sure. But the ship has already sailed as the intenet is already full with millions, probably billions of unlabeled Ai generated content. And of course every country of the world would have to enforce these rules, which would have been a  struggle on its own. Though just considering how easy it has now become to create deepfake videos and how much damage you could do with it it should have been it the interest of every country's government as well.

Oh well, all too late now. No one really has a good plan how to distinguish AI content from real content in the future and this will be something that will cause a lot of trouble. You will not be able to believe any news backed up with videos, sound or photos anymore. Video, sound and photo evidence in courtcases will become useless and you can pretty much put every word ino every politicians mouth now. Last week videos of a moderator of a big German national television news service circulated the internet where he was telling people of some "great money earning scheme" in said news channel - Of course an AI generated scam, but it shows the tip of the iceberg of what we can expect in the future.