|
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 291
351
« on: July 17, 2023, 13:06 »
You can contact Adobe's IP compliance group with the link in the page below: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/content-usage.htmlIt's pretty pathetic that this other portfolio is not content with churning out his own AI content but wants to steal someone else's, but putting the legal wrangling over copyright in AI-generated images to one side, you created content and if you're a paid subscriber to Midjourney, you own the copyright to what you created. You could then send Adobe a DMCA notice if you don't get a response just from contacting them Good luck
353
« on: July 17, 2023, 08:04 »
July 17 collection sizes (I took iStock out of the list. Their count went down, I think because they removed some of AI content and lots of the rest is about AI not created by anyway.)
Adobe Stock AI collection
12,151,135
Dreamstime AI collection
3,572,918
CanStock collection (search for "generative ai") [search for "ai generated"]
(853,302) [853,284]
Shutterstock collection
734,014
123RF collection (search for "generative ai") [search for "ai generated"]
(626,080) [822,286]
DepositPhotos collection (search for "generative ai") [search for "ai generated"] - "Fresh" versus "best match" gives a *very* different count - this is fresh; last week was best match
99,652 [79,955]
91,006 [77,242] vectors
8,646 [2,713] photos
2,399 [1,292] illustrations
247 [1,365]videos
354
« on: July 13, 2023, 15:43 »
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23794224/sag-aftra-actors-strike-ai-image-rights This groundbreaking AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one days pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think thats a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.
355
« on: July 13, 2023, 15:02 »
I have no idea, but as SAG-AFTRA is now on strike too (as of midnight), anything still in production will be shut down. So you might see a further bump downwards if it's related to movie/tv production or not much change if it's AI
356
« on: July 13, 2023, 10:20 »
One month after the OP, the Adobe Stock genAI collection (tagged; there are more that are not) is over 12 million - 12,004,534 We can celebrate by making a yummy fruit smoothie - although I'm really afraid of this mixer...  Whole fruits might be equally scary (same series from today's approvals)  I'll spare you the missing chair legs, stairs into the ceiling, chimps with extra arms, bizarre calculators/tools/planners etc. After looking at recent acceptances I am in need of strong medicine - might this pill be big enough?? 
357
« on: July 12, 2023, 22:45 »
There are over 114,000 photos marked as generative AI and over 8,000 vectors. I thought the rules said Illustration category only.
I have few of them, some AI marked as photo, probably just because I forgot to change the category during submit process. I wrote to support to change that (because I can't do by my own) and after several days woithout answer I ask to Mat to help to correct this issue.
It's quite easy to forget to change category from photo to illustration, even after flagging the image as "AI Generative"; and I'll probably did this mistake for some images
Completely understandable that mistakes happen, but this needs to get fixed during inspection or sent back to the contributor to fix (and make it possible for the contributor interface to make that change). Perhaps they could get Chat GPT to write the code for them to update the software  This evening there are over 16,700 vectors tagged as generative AI - more than double what was there a few days ago. Over 179,000 genAI photos now. One option would be to change the rules...
358
« on: July 12, 2023, 12:57 »
https://www.investors.com/news/technology/adbe-stock-adobe-expands-generative-ai-tool-to-over-100-languages/https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230712104690/en/Adobe-Firefly-Expands-Globally-Supports-Prompts-in-Over-100-Languageshttps://techcrunch.com/2023/07/12/adobe-says-firefly-has-now-generated-1b-images-takes-it-global/https://www.thurrott.com/cloud/285563/adobe-firefly-now-supports-over-100-languagesFirefly can now be used with more languages, not just English "In addition to supporting text prompts in scores of new languages, Adobe is adapting the Firefly user interface to over 20 languages. Starting today, it is offering versions of Firefly in French, German, Japanese, Spanish and Portuguese." "Unlike other players in this field, Adobe can ensure that the images businesses create with Firefly are commercially safe because its trained on a corpus of images that are part of Adobes stock imagery service. The company even goes as far as indemnifying its enterprise users." It is increasingly frustrating, to me, that all these expansions of the "beta" of Firefly and the generative fill in Photoshop continue, many months after the announcement in March, and there is nothing - not even a date for a date - on when contributors will have a compensation model for this wholesale use of our content. Adobe's stock is at $507.58 this afternoon - it closed at $362.88 on March 21st when Firefly was announced. Adobe continues to derive benefit from messages about how their generative AI will be safe for commercial use (because of the training on Adobe Stock content). That's the major reason their stock has risen so much of late. Edited to add: ADBE closed at $517.28 Jul 13th. Edited to add: ADBE closed at $532.23 July 18th!
359
« on: July 12, 2023, 12:38 »
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/12/does-shutterstocks-new-partnership-with-openai-mak/"The obvious issue is one of proper compensation. For example, a photographer could put photos or videos online to make money. But generative AI image applications might access these images and add them to its dataset. Users could then create images based on the photographer's copyrighted images and make money from them, but the original photographer wouldn't see a dime. And that's a problem. Shutterstock is a marketplace platform -- it needs both content contributors and paying subscribers." "The problem is that Shutterstock also risks losing paying subscribers as generative AI grows. People increasingly want the features these other applications provide -- it looks like it could be the future of stock photography. But as already stated, it can't risk upsetting its contributor network in the process. It needs to keep both parties happy, which is why I believe that embracing change through its OpenAI partnership is the way to go." Edited to add this link with an estimate of what SS has paid out to contributors for data set training - no comment yet from SS https://petapixel.com/2023/07/12/shutterstock-may-have-paid-out-over-4-million-from-its-ai-contributor-fund/
360
« on: July 12, 2023, 08:16 »
Thanks for the reply....Maybe Adobe dose not want AI....
I think they do - this morning's count is 11,896,168 items in the acknowledged genAI collection. The issue is that there's a gold rush of new contributors convinced there's a huge new opportunity and the ingestion system isn't keeping up And they're still allowing large quantities of "oops" images - chairs you can't sit on, disappearing table legs, etc. - for some reason...  
361
« on: July 12, 2023, 08:07 »
I think this thread explains it - and other users have seen what you are seeing. https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/new-data-data-set-licensing/The logic, however self-serving, is that you're opting out of it being used currently, but they put it in the catalog (and I guess contributors have to trust them that it's disabled; there'd be no way to check that) so you could later change your mind and turn that option on.
362
« on: July 11, 2023, 15:23 »
Another contributor brought Lasco.ai to my attention. It's a beta generative AI platform that for the moment is free to use https://www.kedglobal.com/artificial-intelligence/newsView/ked202304130025The way they were promoting it was unfortunate. No idea what they'll charge for this service when it's out of beta, or what their training data is, and thus how safe for commercial use any output would be. Their example gallery has a fairly narrow range of types of images; I'm not planning to try it out, but thought it worth noting here in case anyone else is inclined to https://www.lasco.ai/
363
« on: July 11, 2023, 15:05 »
"Software giant Adobe has banned employees from using their private email addresses or corporate credit cards to sign up and pay for machine learning products and services." https://petapixel.com/2023/07/06/adobe-limits-its-employees-use-of-generative-ai/https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/10/in_brief_ai/Emphasis mine - I wish contributors to Adobe Stock had that option... "Adobe hasn't banned third-party applications like ChatGPT outright, but has strict restrictions in place on what is and isn't allowed on such systems. Employees should not reveal their input prompts, upload private Adobe data or code to generate email drafts, summarize documents, or patch software bugs. They should also make sure to opt out of having content from their conversations being used as training data. In addition they can't sign up to use these tools with their own private email addresses or pay for a subscription with their corporate credit cards (or pay with a personal card and claim it back as an expense). "
364
« on: July 11, 2023, 14:52 »
I was once told you can only officially report an infringement issue if you're the original copyright owner. But I suppose you could bring other cases to their attention informally. Whether they'll listen is another story.
You can't file a DMCA takedown notice unless you are the copyright holder or representative. But you can, and I have, reported a portfolio full of stolen work to SS compliance and had the portfolio taken down. When I wrote I gave them half a dozen examples of the thief's image on Shutterstock and the original elsewhere. The last time I did that was in the fall of 2020; no idea if things have changed since
365
« on: July 11, 2023, 14:15 »
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/shutterstock-expands-partnership-with-openai-signs-new-six-year-agreement-to-provide-high-quality-training-data-872644267.htmlThe stock's up this afternoon, so investors must feel it's a good deal for them "OpenAI has secured a license for access to additional Shutterstock training data including Shutterstock's image, video and music libraries and associated metadata" "Shutterstock's high-quality content library, enriched with vast metadata, leads the industry in size, diversity and annotationmaking it unrivaled for training AI capabilities." https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/11/shutterstock-expands-deal-with-openai-to-build-generative-ai-tools/"Stock content galleries like Shutterstock and generative AI startups have an uneasy and sometimes testy relationship. Generative AI, particularly generative art AI, poses an existential threat to stock galleries, given its ability to create highly customizable stock images on the fly. Contributors to stock image galleries, meanwhile, including artists and photographers, have protested against generative AI startups for what they see as attempts to profit off their work without providing credit or compensation." https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/shutterstock-stock-up-on-openai-deal.htmlLove the jargon - the shares "popped" today Edited July 13 to add today's closing stock price - $56.95 -and some comments from The Verge https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23791528/openai-shutterstock-images-partnership"Unlike other image-sharing platforms like Getty Images, Shutterstock is fully embracing AI and all the consequences that may come with it. Artists have expressed concerns about their work getting scraped to train AI models, which Getty Images has addressed by banning AI-generated content from its platform completely. ... While Shutterstock may see its library grow through its integration with DALL-E, it might not save the platform from the legal gray area surrounding AI-generated content."
366
« on: July 11, 2023, 12:15 »
...How do you go about reporting infringement without being the copyright holder? Email?
[email protected]I last used it just under two years ago, so not sure if it's still in operation. They have email for DMCA notices (which I've also used) which might work for other purposes: [email protected]
367
« on: July 11, 2023, 11:37 »
...While the TOS could say that, it wouldn't make the rights grab legal.
With contracts, you're in the realm of civil law and enforcement of contract terms isn't handled by any agency or any state, but by one of the parties to the contract taking the others to court and claiming damages or a declaration that a particular part of the contact is invalid (specific performance is another, very rare, remedy but isn't relevant here). Lawyers are expansive, court proceedings lengthy and the outcome uncertain. In practice, without some foundation or the ACLU or some deep-pocketed philanthropist who hates scummy stock agencies, the power imbalance between the agencies and their suppliers is what determines the outcome, not whether the contract terms are actually enforceable. In other words, "you, and what army..." In Shutterstock's case, the terms of service have a binding arbitration agreement, so you can't even go to court directly: "The TOS also includes a binding arbitration agreement that requires arbitration of covered disputes instead of litigation by court or jury trial." (I think version 10 is the most recent version of the TOS, but it still references forums which are long-since removed). It all s@ks, but your only realistic option if you want to stop SS grabbing your stuff and refusing to let go is to stop uploading for the moment. If SS changes the terms for the better, it's always worth remembering that the terms of service say that they can change the agreement at any time... "Please note that Shutterstock reserves the right to modify these terms at any time in its sole discretion"
368
« on: July 10, 2023, 10:40 »
July 10 collection sizes. Tracking the numbers isn't precise as several agencies don't have any formal rules about how to identify AI generated content (and Adobe does, but doesn't enforce them; I'm only tracking their tagged genAI content)
In CanStock's case, it may be that their collection size is the sum of the two numbers - looking at a few portfolios, some people use one term and some the other. Looking at the search results sorted by most recent, I didn't see any overlap - in other words it didn't appear contributors were adding both terms.
Adobe Stock AI collection
11,733,467
Dreamstime AI collection
3,421,114
CanStock collection (search for "generative ai") [search for "ai generated"]
(817,916) [817,897]
Shutterstock collection
688,473
123RF collection (search for "generative ai") [search for "ai generated"]
(592,351) [783,112]
iStock collection (keyword "AI Generated Image")
167,385
DepositPhotos collection (search for "generative ai") [search for "ai generated"]
4,388 [2,988]
2,711 [2,478] vectors
1,677 [510] photos
2,381 [1,291] illustrations
247 [1,363]videos
369
« on: July 09, 2023, 18:25 »
...They are clearly overworked on many issues at the moment, so personally I am ready to wait a few weeks ...
Adobe is not a small company with minimal or limited resources. In Q2 2023, they had just over $4.8 billion in revenue and nearly $1.3 billion in net profit. They were able to afford to buy back 2.7 million shares. The execs have made choices about how to staff various parts of their operations and what to fund. They are clearly communicating their priorities by allowing the genAI content to flood in with little-to-zero enforcement of their stated standards. I'm observing, taking notes, and trying to figure out how this can possibly end well - either for them or for us.
371
« on: July 08, 2023, 18:46 »
I can only speak to my sales, but I've seen a return of higher value sales (as well as overall growth in monthly income) recently. I started tracking custom versus subscription sales because late last year and early this year I saw a big rise in the number of "custom" sales. In addition to tracking the maximum and minimum royalty values each month, I have added some tracking of sales $3+, $2-3 and $1-2. I track how many 38 subscription sales. In June, for example, I had 153 royalties of $1-2 compared to 0 in that value bracket in March and 87 in January. When I added a bracket for .90-.99, March had 115 - so it was a lower price by just a little versus the category vanishing. ELs are rare now although I had one in June so they're not extinct! For the $3+ category, I had 9 in Jan, 8 in Mar and 4 in Jun. That looks like a downward trend, but so far, the huge increase in volume of licenses has kept the monthly income rising. At some point I expect that will slow and then maintaining a decent return per download will matter. Jan RPD was 83; it hit a low of 65 in Mar and moved back up in Jun - it was 78. In 2021 it was 92 - I'd like this year's volume with that year's prices
372
« on: July 08, 2023, 14:07 »
Based on what I've been reading in the last few months, Adobe's focus has been squarely on the investment community and making sure they are seen as a significant and future-focused company as AI moves into the tech mainstream. There were analyst quotes to the effect that with its Firefly and generative AI announcements, Adobe had moved from the AI losers column to the AI winners column. The investor community concern was that creatives would be many fewer in the future and thus put a huge dent in that lucrative subscription business. They now are mostly buying the idea that even if there's some dip in numbers, there's money to be made in all the extra AI services that go along with the non-expert (such as Adobe Express) subscriptions. We're just the theoretical C-Y-A for the story about the genAI content being on a solid legal basis (and never mind all the Midjourney and Stable Diffusion AI content in the collection whose provenance is murky at best). There's no win for the contributor end of things in the long term story, IMO. I think Adobe wants a very broad-based subscription business - much more general that the current Photoshop, Illustrator or other specialist apps - that can show investors growth and that they're part of the next generation of tech businesses. We do not factor in any way shape or form into Adobe's main business focus moving forward. We can make money in the meantime, but our content is a stepping stone for them, not a key part of their strategy (IMO) Edited Jul 10 to add a quote from this article about an investment management company's positive views of (and increased investment in) Adobe: "The company is protecting its leadership position by moving quickly into generative AI and license protection. It developed Firefly into a product that can be monetized, moving AI from a previously perceived risk into an opportunity."
374
« on: July 06, 2023, 21:31 »
...I just got my answer from Shutterstock support...
I'd like to add comments from another forum (with permission from the contributor) about the details of what happens if you opt out of data licensing (emphasis mine): "...even if you opt out of data licensing, you still can't resubmit. I had one yesterday and asked Shutterstock about it and they told me it wasn't rejected, (approved for data licensing only), so I couldn't resubmit. If you switch off data licensing, submissions can still be approved for data licensing only, but the image won't be shown in the data section. However, although hidden, it's still there, just in case you want to enable data licensing at a later date. As it happens, I'd already resubmitted, so now the same image is sitting in the data section twice, and I can't even delete the duplicate. Shutterstock have always given us autonomy over our content, with the ability to delete if necessary via the catalog manager. However, this move has taken away all control, and we have no right of redress if we think a reviewing error has occurred. I guess we are now supposed to believe that Shutterstocks reviewing system is infallible and that mistakes will never happen." Assuming what the contributor was told is correct, there's no way to resubmit unless an image is rejected for both the regular collection AND data licensing - that seems nuts.
375
« on: July 06, 2023, 20:08 »
This isn't the only Apple logo example, but how does an inspector miss three Apple logos (plus all sorts of raggedy details) and still OK the image? 
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
