This means that artificial intelligence will not deprive us of work, because responsible buyers will simply not download this artificial content on stocks.

Well I think buyers will want a product that is protected by copywrite so that they can use it safely.

Sky News today aired a story about gathering momentum from creative artists to call a halt to ilegal  A.I. data set usage because work is being plucked direct off their private commercial websites.

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/ai-art-generators-face-backlash-from-artists-but-could-they-unlock-creative-potential-12857072

Someone should pay attention or its gonna be expensive down the line. The US copywrite office decided in 2022 that A.I. generated work wasn't eligible for copywrite and began defending a law suit against a company that filed a law suit claiming this decision was wrong. Never the less at present A.I. generated work isn't copywritten. So anyone who wants to use it can do so free of charge.

They were open to exploring a change in the law if humans were involved. For instance if an artist or photographer used A.I. to enhance work. But the problem exists on what percentage of A.I. involvement does the copywrite cease to apply. They state they will look at the situation this year. Which explains the gold rush to get it up and running.

The UK government are now looking at the illegal use of artists (creators) via data sets which they are aware have been used illegally after pressure from many trade bodies. And will be looking at changing the law. But they state that initially this change in law will possibly require voluntary registration. But the big boys will rush to join and those who dig their heals in will pay the price. Because that's how it always works no matter what it is.

So Adobe ... look faster at a compensation model.

A paper by researchgate in January 2022 examined the potential for legal action against companies that use copywritten work to train their A.I.

Using Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) to create images from data sets, which is how many A.I. generators work, they looked at the legal position regarding copywrite law, although newer methods exist such as CANs (Creative Adversarial Networks). The former would focus on the predominant features of a data set. If it was trained on animals it created animal like images even if clouds that contained animal like features were added. CANs were created to remove human input in the creation process but never the less using human data sets.

After examining copywrite law in this framework they state that Copywrite law may be triggered if the origin data was copywritten work. It varies from state to state but generally this fact is a given via reproduction laws. Even partial use is covered and requires the authorisation of the author/artist/creator ... this was never given. Implied authorisation by use of the site isn't enough because you have to be aware your images are being used for this purpose. 

Opinion - If the output of the A.I. isn't as yet copywritten then anything it creates is free to use and requires no payment.

If people are paying for those created images it proves that that they believe their purchase is protected by use laws. In this regard they believe their purchase is copywritten and safe.  And no doubt the Ts&Cs will assert as much therefore a company selling these pictures must be offering to protect the images because they are charging for them. This infers the sold A.I. output is coyywritten and protected by Adobe's legal framework.

If this is true they must have paid for the license to use copywritten work to create protected work which they sell. If they didn't they must give the A.I. generated work away for free. They can't claim fair use because they sell world wide and are also governed by TDM (Text and Data Mining) in Europe. Which excludes commercial gain.

You can make your own opinions but compensation now will be much cheaper than compensation later because now you pay for what you have used. Later you have to pay everyone because you won't be able to prove who's work you did or didn't use.

Researchgate source - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357685384_Protection_of_AI_generated_photographs_under_copyright_law_pre_print_version_09_01_2022

Edit: I've just seen a payment today from POND 5 for data set use of my work. SS have also paid for use of my work. As we can clearly see ... regardless of the laws in place at present ... stock agencies do not want to be the last one digging their heals in.





 

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 31, 2023, 17:03

Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 16:23

Because following this logic all works created by people are also "derivative" then because artist creates them after he got inspired by a mix of many kinds of "copyrighted" things he has seen before! Nothing ever is born in the vacuum.

Wrong.

It's a long-standing law principle that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something, while it differentiates all this from derivative work.

Obviously you are not a lawyer and you didn't do your homework.

This is hilarious how you seem to be stalking my every message to say it is wrong without reading it

Where did I say that copyright protects ideas?

Even that quoted by you sentence starts with words: following this logic (which is flawed as I described above)... etc. meaning that if it would be true it would be absurd, which is exactly what you have repeated after me but said that it is wrong

Sorry, I cannot even follow your reply, because you reply on something I wasn't even talking about

If I need to repeat especially for you in a simple sentence: AI doesn't create derivative work, same as artist doesn't create derivative work, because memorising, learning and being inspired by something to create something new is not same as copy-pasting.

What are you talking about I don't know

you are clearly delusional. Derivative Work is literally an accepted technique and has its own copywrite law. I won't embarrass you any more other than to state that if it was nonsense as you suggest SS wouldn't pay people for the use of their images in the learning sets because it is 'only storing' Our images as reference and yet SS is paying contributers. Getty wouldn't have a legal case going and yet they do. And Adobe wouldn't be exploring a compensation model and yet they are. Evidence and random ranter on a forum. I know what I believe ... but please ... continueninnyour delusion just do so quietly please.

To clarify, Kirsten is referencing the question from people who may not have received the actual email yesterday. As she stated, you must be opted in to receive marketing emails via adobe.com to receive this sort of information in real time.

You can be assured that any major announcements like the news about Firefly will be called out here in Microstock Group Forum too.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Getty images had their images pilfered to train an AI and they are in the process of mounting a significant legal action against the company that did so.

Shutterstock compensate it's contributers for images that have been used in the data sets to train their A.I. you are also not able to opt out.

Adobe is compensating their contributers how. I think that ignoring this question which has already been asked doesn't make for a good look. So what's the deal. This isn't light and fluffy ... awwww cummon guys ... this is business. You don't get free use. It is a requirement to be transparent regarding payment for use. what Matt.

I'm surprised no one has thought of corrupting the data sets. Well they are already badly corrupted but I don't know if they have a solution to deal with it.

For example when looking for insects you will find that many are corrupted by things that are not that insect at all. They aren't even an insect let alone that insect. In fact some are not even close to an insect.

Wrongly identified places, clouds, cars, buildings, objects, colours, foods and animals are inevitably corrupting the data sets. I have a photo of a rock carving and similar images has consistently for the entire time I've been doing this shown an elephants eye as a similar. Not a few. All of them. Similarly when submitting images of a subject recently the suggested keywords were implying a completely different object. And mine was blatantly what it was with no ambiguity.

So it shows it uses visually similar references of shape colour and texture to I'd a photo and perhaps title language. But the amount of images just labelled plant, tree, butterfly, bird without any attempt to correctly label means these images if used must corrupt the system.

Quote from: Lowls on February 04, 2023, 05:10

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 03, 2023, 14:02

Quote from: Lowls on February 01, 2023, 08:21

There is never enough pool water or goldfish

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0

Too wet, how about some nice dry sand

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0

70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? 

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0

You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.

If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

I don't think that 70 pages of sand is a good idea, any more than 70 pages of water ripples, clouds, or marijuana. Is there something in your translator that takes out any icons or smileys?

Sure thing, Romix has the tangyuan yuanxiao market covered. That and pink shopping cart with flowers. 

It's just a matter of how much someone wants to do, to fool the duplicate detector bot. (now everyone calls it AI, no difference) I remember back before the bots would review before images were passed on to humans, people would do a setting, move the sale and pepper, then move a knife, or move a fork or, change on item, and that was a "new" variation. As if some buyer would need to have the plate with salt and pepper, silverware, a napkin, and maybe a tea cup, placed in every possible configuration, then moved by an inch to make another new image.

Then the next step was upload the same 100 images, to 50 agencies. While my "master plan" is just the opposite? Everyone can make their own and agree or disagree, but less agencies and only upload best images. A big series for me might be three, but usually one is enough. That doesn't mean I never shoot the same subject again, just not 100 variations in one day.

That's why it's called micro stock right? Move the camera or zoom or flip in some micro way of changing the image and upload it again? 

I know right  lol. I mean you buy cheap props but adobe is getting silly. A packet of wooden scrabble pieces can create huge amounts. Lit adventurously and you can add and change even more context. But no sadly not lol. I had some cool plans but I can't be arsed with Adobe now. I'll wait till they stop being silly.

There is never enough pool water or goldfish

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0

Too wet, how about some nice dry sand

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0

Yeah. I have a photo of a red leaf on the floor during autumn. I have some yellow leaves floating on water. 2 different images both accepted. Then I uploaded a photo of the red leaves on a tree against a bright blue sky. Nothing special so I wasn't bothered but it was rejected for similars lol. Oh noooo say it ain't so. A tree ... similar to ... a leaf on the floor. And you can find portfolios full of just water in a pool for pages and pages. It is mind numbing.

It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.

Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.

Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.

Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.

I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.

But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos  I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same  price as entry to a public toilet.

The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.

Every failing company in the world does this.
1. Does great
2. Decides to do better
3. Looks at ways to save money
4. Always looks at the highest outlay
5. Realises this is wages
6. Starts reducing workers and wages.
7. Loses more workers than intended.
8. Goes downhill fast.

But SS are removing the wages entirely and replacing the work force with HAL ... and HAL will blow their arse out the airlock because they've hitched their planet to it and legally they are sooooo future f'ked. Even if Getty don't win who'd risk getting sued because you had composit work from god knows where containing elements of copywritten material.

Someone only has to ID part of something that's theirs and social media about it and SS .... poof gone.

Slaves were abducted, bought and sold, and forced into that position.

They didn't willingly sign up to be slaves?

Anyone who thought they could make money at stock photos and is unhappy with the agencies or the pay, can quit or leave and do something else. Slaves didn't have a choice and escaping was difficult and dangerous.

Comparing Microstock to being a slave is an insult to the people who lived as or are now slaves, and who have suffered that inhumanity.

Modern Slavery act of the UK and the forced statement for businesses, is just how dumb our world has become. Or is the word woke? Corporations have to issue statements that they don't support slavery?

It's not dumb Pete
1. That's why its called modern slavery
2. Old type slavery is rife and is rising particularly thanks to gangs of Eastern Europeans. Worryingly more and more missing people are being found having been trapped in houses for over a decade and forced to clean peoples houses at their masters behest and get given dog food to survive. In fact only today teenagers have been abducted from uk hotels where ... After escaping to the UK these ilegal immigrants... teenagers have been taken in large numbers to run what is called County lines operations.
A teenager will be abducted and given a debt for helping them. The debt will never be paid. Their families are threatened. The teenager will be given clothes matching the area where they will be placed. Once there they find a drug user and force the drug user to house them. From there the drug user is given discounted drugs to.lure all the drug user fiends they know. They in turn lure their friends in. The money all goes back to the teenager. The teenager then transports the money back along county lines to the supplier who then gives them more dugs and so the cycle continues. If they run they go missing. Teenagers are on a different judicial system and expendable.

There are many forms of modern slavery and therefore laws had to be created to provide a legal avenue to prosecute these people when found.

Compare that to Americas laws 🙄.  It isnt 'woke' it doesn't even fit in that words context. Woke is virtue signalling against an issue that is misunderstood or doesn't exist. Your statement wad actually woke. How funny lol.

And to anyone who claims that a user accepts the terms and conditions of a company when using them and therefore only has themselves to blame and can leave at any time is not correct. The use of our images has been happening since 2019 where no mention of it was stated for A.I. use. The fact that Getty are bringing a legal case against an A.I. company proves that a legal challenge has been explored by those with more intelligence than ... well others.

Quote from: Reimar on January 20, 2023, 14:20

Interesting.  But SS is now paying contributors (in my case a whopping $40 per year) for inclusion in such datasets.  Is that enough?  I'd be surprised if the courts give an opinion on this.  No one asked me, but I'd like a bit more please.

given that hundreds of millions of images were used, that amount's not unreasonable - and it confirms what many of us having been saying in response to those who think they'll get a windfall for being in a training set - t's a minuscule amount. there are better battles to fight

With that argument downloading millions of images that don't belong to you and making a portfolio for yourself would be OK.

That's not how copywrite works. SS used the images and still are without permission. You can't opt out unless you delete your portfolio. So as long as I throw a few pennies in an artists hat I can use their work to make money for myself?

Quote from: fotoroad on January 16, 2023, 13:27

Quote from: f8 on December 28, 2022, 19:26

What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.

Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.

Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?

I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is  Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it

Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job.

Why do something once when you can do it twice?

Going back a few years I remember Rinder stating how much he would get paid. Then it was i think 15 cents per review he said. I'm sure it's less now. But if they know its fine they knownutll come back through so Adobe in this case will pay twice for the review.

Of course although Matt says they don't, they do use A.I. and you know that because for years SS claimed they didn't then they admitted they did. Like the SS A.I. it rejects artistic lighting such as underexposed for texture or selective focus. Smooth surfaces and reflections and translucent objects get rejected for poor quality and poor focus because it can't handle it. I remember SS's "chromatic luminance" or something wierd everyone had to look up. It wasn't aberration or something normal. We had weeks of that then it shifted onto something else.

A.I. May be cheaper than humans but it is extremely stupid. And as a result you'll be getting homogenised output. Andntradirionally homogenised products do not sell.

They did interesting experiments with clothes. All the same colour T shirt stacked together meant people could zoom in on their favourite colours. Then go through them to find a design they liked. Then they may pick one. The problem was that they then bypassed all the other colours where they may have chosen design. But they couldn't be bothered to go through all the colours. Sales dropped.

If all the trees have a generic form and colour and artificial lighting level that looks like a still from a PS5 game you'll be losing customers. The same with any subject.

SS have learnt. Or their A.I. has been given glasses. Or their reviewers have better eyesight lol.