|
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 - Her Ugliness
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 25
376
« on: May 27, 2023, 01:48 »
I miss thoses days when review time was a day or two. Now it's around 9-12 days. 
You're lucky. Still 27 days for me and I don't see any progress of review time getting any faster. 
377
« on: May 26, 2023, 02:29 »
Mat, can you please conform that the "checkbox" on the left with the blue color means an image IS nominated and the one without the color means it is NOT nominted?
Because last year a lot of my images that I am absolutely sure I did not nominate ended up in the free collection, so this year I want to rule out any mistaked on my side.
I'm not Mat but BLUE is nominated. I clicked all and they all turned from grey to blue. Now I'm selecting the individual that I will not nominate. You can see them one by one by checking Eligible For Free Collection.
They can be sorted by number of downloads or date.
did you photoshoped the buttons together or do you have 2 buttons visible?
2 buttons for an image would be weird. blue = nominate
Nha, I just pasted two screenshot into one image. I just have one button.
378
« on: May 26, 2023, 02:27 »
Yes, last year the banner has stayed there for me for the whole year, even after I redeemed the code. It just won't go away, even when it becomes ueless.
379
« on: May 25, 2023, 13:00 »
Mat, can you please conform that the "checkbox" on the left with the blue color means an image IS nominated and the one without the color means it is NOT nominted? Because last year a lot of my images that I am absolutely sure I did not nominate ended up in the free collection, so this year I want to rule out any mistaked on my side.
380
« on: May 25, 2023, 05:01 »
This is not exactly a legal case, but maybe still worth mentioning: The European Union is planning AI regulations that will require developers of AI to make the information of every piece of copyrighted work that was used to train an AI public. The regulation is just a draft right now, but ChatGPT has announced that, should this regulation be put into effect without changes to that rule, they would withdraw from the European market. Right now we all know that our copyrighted work has been used to train AIs, but we can't prove it for individual pieces of works, so photographers, illustrators and authors who want to sue AI companies have a hard time proving their case. If AI developers had to admit which pieces were used, that would make sueing much easier and would probably open a Pandora's box of lawsuits for AI developers. So no wonder ChatGPT would rather leave the huge European market than make that information available. Of course if they knew for sure they hadn't done anything wrong, they'd had nothing to fear. The article is in German: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/openai-eu-100.html?fbclid=IwAR0sVil1O_G4hKj28WVxME2zzo10IRmoAHNiukNeLnKQKJD2iKP7gLVVf7I
381
« on: May 24, 2023, 01:08 »
Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple..
No it's not simple. Just open a real photo with an EXIF file. Open an AI photo. Copy the AI image over into the photo in a new layer in Adobe. Save image. There, your AI image now has the EXIF file of the real photo.
382
« on: May 23, 2023, 10:57 »
I think you are over complicating things. Nowadays, you can download a lot of content for free on torrents, but our buyers do not do this, obviously there are legal requirements in civilized countries and this is being checked. I think soon the world will learn to check the content for its artificiality. In any case, self-respecting authors will not deceive the buyer. Therefore, yes, there will certainly be some kind of fraud, but I do not think that its scale will be too large.
Personally, I am most concerned about video content, because I mainly shoot it.
I don't think customers buying images and not stealing them via torrents has anything to do with the issue, as it is something completely different alltogether. (And, of course, a lot of people DO steal images. I had my images stolen countless times without anyone paying for them). I can assure you that all agencies are already full of AI generated content, even the ones that don't allow it. The world will learn to check the content for its artificiality? I wish you were right about this, but how? There are already sites that claim they could check it now, but various tests have shown that the results are random and the sites flag real photos as artificial and think artificial content was human generated. I can't imagine of any way to check whether an image is AI or human created without also thinking of a hundred easy ways to work around it. I do not think this will ever be possible in the future, but as AIs get even better, it will be more and more impossible. But all we can do right now is really speculate. No one really knows how things will develope. Lots of people are more optimistic than I am. But seeing how easy, fast and cheap AI images can be created and that they actually do sell, I am having a hard time seeing a real future for human photography in microstock.
383
« on: May 23, 2023, 06:35 »
But that's not what I'm writing about. At the expense of buyers, it is a personal matter for everyone what to buy, an artificial image created by AI or buying a non-artificial image. I don't think all buyers will want to buy artificial content. An example of this is, for example, an e-book, how many shouts there were when it appeared, but as a result, people continue to buy a lot of paper books.
That's all sound as well, but reaches its limitation at the point where you cannot tell whether an image is AI generated or not. I accidentally submitted an AI generated image to Adobe as photo without checking the AI image box - was reviewed and appoved. I thought you could tell it was an AI image in full size, the reviewer apparently couldn't tell it from a real photo. (I deleted the image and re-submitted it properly as an AI image, of course). I also submittd many AI images to Alamy when they didn't have any rule about it. In some I wrote "Ai generated in the title, in some I didn't. Then Alamy released a statement that they would not accept AI content and delete all existing AI content. They deleted the content where I had stated in the title that it was AI generated. With the ones where I didn't they could not recognize that they were AI images and did not delete any of them. (I then deleted them myself, don't anat any trouble). So far only very few agencies accept AI images. What do you think how many people keep submitting AI content to the agencies that don't accept them and simply claim they are human created photos and illustrations and the agencies apparently cannot spot the difference? We have already reached the point where a customer might buy AI content without even KNOWING it. The lines will blur further and further. Soon no one will be able to tell what is AI generated and what not. No one will be upset about illustrations of some book being created with AI or a book written by AI when they simply WON'T KNOW that it's AI created. (And that's a huge problem in my opinion, but one I do not have a solution for)
384
« on: May 23, 2023, 05:21 »
For me, for the first image it would take me as long as it takes me to write "Photographed Golden retriever dog on blue background with copy space --ar 4:2", so maybe 3 or 4 seconds?
If everything is so simple and fast, then what's the point of wasting time on AI. Any buyer will soon enter these programs on stock agencies, write such a phrase and download the finished image. A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.
That's EXACTLY what I keep saying! At one point buyers will not need us. The only point to do it right now is that a lot of customers simply haven't figured out how easy it is yet. A lot of people I talked to didn't even know that AIs were already so advanced that they could create images that looked like real photos. Humans are slower than technology. They need time to catch up with the new development and many haven't yet. But yes, at some point in the future customers will simply enter what they need into an AI image generator promt bar instead of a microstock image search bar.
385
« on: May 23, 2023, 04:37 »
Here are two images created by AI. How long does it take the author to create these images? How difficult is this process?
I do not know the author of these and what Ai generator he or she used. For me, for the first image it would take me as long as it takes me to write "Photographed Golden retriever dog on blue background with copy space --ar 4:2", so maybe 3 or 4 seconds?
386
« on: May 22, 2023, 15:06 »
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.
You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.
A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.
Probably one of these people who claim that letting AI generate images is sooooo~ complicated, and takes soooo~ much skill and sooo~ much time and apparently also sooooo much money. 
Sorry, but nope, $28 a month for unlimited images, that's really all it costs. 8$ only if 200 images per month is enough for you.
Maybe also a softwear to upscale images if you don't have one already, but even these aren't so expensive that you could not earn back the money within a month and there are also some free options out there that work, though with limitations.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-the-adobe-stock-policy-on-generative-ai-content/200/
Post 213. We are talking about 1000 euros.
1000 spent, 278 accepted gen ai files, 31 downloads ?! These are his numbers? Very obviously this person is not a good example on how to do this with these high costs and small acceptance and download number. Why would anyone even spent 1000 on credit when there are AI that let you create unlimited images of good quality and with commercial usage rights for a few bucks? That's a rate of 3,50 per image created! I don't know of any such expensice AI generator.
387
« on: May 22, 2023, 13:03 »
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.
You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.
A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.
Probably one of these people who claim that letting AI generate images is sooooo~ complicated, and takes soooo~ much skill and sooo~ much time and apparently also sooooo much money. Sorry, but nope, $28 a month for unlimited images, that's really all it costs. 8$ only if 200 images per month is enough for you. Maybe also a softwear to upscale images if you don't have one already, but even these aren't so expensive that you could not earn back the money within a month and there are also some free options out there that work, though with limitations.
388
« on: May 22, 2023, 06:26 »
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.
You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right? Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.
389
« on: May 20, 2023, 11:39 »
I just noticed that even though I deleted all my content and the 90 day period has ended,there are still sales in April and May.
therefore between cleared,uncleared balance,distributor sale,80% of net,sales under "other income" of 0,01,deleted files that are still being sold....
honestly to me this agency just seems like a big madhouse! 
I'm more than happy to never contribute again!
The sales could have been much older than that. Alamy relies on a crappy system where customers (!) have to report that they used an image to Alamy, only then the sale will be registered to your account, not when the image is bought by the customer. And sometimes customers take months to do that or "forget" it alltogether. Had to contact Alamy more than once about this when I found images of mine credited to Alamy being used online, but the image was never sold according to my Alamy dashboard.
390
« on: May 15, 2023, 11:04 »
This has clearly nothing to do with AI images creations, and
It simply seems a low quality jpg, or overcompressed image.
Did you even read the article? How does this have "clearly nothing to do with AI image creations", when the image on the right WAS created with an image AI creator, Stable Diffusion, to be exact? It's not a low quality compressed image, it is the image Stable Diffusion AI created. And Stable Diffusion has not been given "one image of a women", but all of the internet. It's currently one of the leading AI image creators out there. Yes, in this case the people achieving this result gave it a prompt that equaled the exact dataset the AI was trained with, this was not a chance result. No one claimed they entered "blond woman" into the prompt field and by chance got a result that looked exactly like an existing photo. But the point of this is to show the problem that AI HAS the capacity to completely recreate an image that belongs to someone else.
392
« on: May 11, 2023, 11:10 »
I would love to do that !
Probably not as much as you imagine. Paid by the hour, quotas, reviewing endless Crapstock, and you have to be fast and accurate.
She used to be a regular on the forums and a really smart and interesting person. I think, maybe, she has moved on to other interests.
To be honest, still sounds like a decent job to me. Complaining about having to look at too many office buildings? Seriously? Does this person have any idea what kind of jobs some other people have to gow through each day? From unloading heavy stuff from trucks at 5am in the morning, working on a construction site in the heat all day, taking care of 25 noisy toddlers to literally whiping crap from old people's butts. There are a lot of jobs I would hate to have to do all day. Looking at office buildings and tree stumps all day - I could live with that. Not my dream job, but certainly not among the worse options I can imagine.
393
« on: May 11, 2023, 10:00 »
and the results are new images automatically covered by copyright under US law
Uhm. So far the US copyright law does not agree with you.
394
« on: May 11, 2023, 06:20 »
but clients who need lot of images don't have enough time and often knowledge to play with various prompts to get results they want.
Which is no different than using a stock agency. You enter what you want (just like with AI image generation sites) in the search field and then you get various results that are mostly useless, usually because of completely irrelevant keywords added by the contributor. With AI, at least if I tell it to create a dog sitting in grass I don't get 5000 cat photos like on most stock agencies.
And there really is no great knowledge or playing around needed. I am still not sure what some people here are talking about or what crazy AI image generation sites you are using that you make writing prompts sound like rocket science. Just describe what you want in a few words and in 90% cases you will get a usable result at once. Works for me.
But you said
I'd like to point out that, at least with modjourney, that is not necessarily true. The more prompts I use, the more of them midjourney simply ignores, just like it keeps adding stuff I did not describe and even the --no command will be ignored. Some people (sometimes purposefully) misjudge midjourney's ability to really create images based on very detailed descriptions.
Yes, and these things are not contradicting each other. What Midjourney does splenditly is follow simple promots - EXACTLY the way a customer would enter them in a microstock search bar. For example: "Panda bear in bamboo forest". You get 4 perfect images of a Panda bear in a bamboo forest. What midjourney sucks at is "Panda bear wearing pink tutu dress with suspenders and summer straw hat with pink ribbon. Bear leaning on tree in a forest with violet daisy flowers. Copy space on rigt side, sun beams coming from left side." Midjourney will ignore some of these prompts. The daisy flowers might end up being white, the suspenders might be missing, there might not be any copy space, the ribbon on the hat might have a different color or be misisng or the hat might be missing altogether. People who claim they can have great influence on how exactly an AI image is supposed to look and that these images somehow were their "artistic creations", are greatly exaggerate their influence on an AI image - at least with midjourney. However, for customers that used microstock agencies, AI generators can do the job just as well. They do not need microstock agencies, and once the word finally gets around, they sure as hell will not need former contributors entering prompts for them and re-selling AI images, but can do it themselves. Because a customer would not have found an image showing exactly "Panda bear wearing pink tutu dress with suspenders and summer straw hat with pink ribbon. Bear leaning on tree in a forest with violet daisy flowers. Copy space on rigt side, sun beams coming from left side." in any microstock gallery anyways, and probably would not have searched for something so specific in the first place. And IF he needed an image like this, he would have needed to commission an artist to do it as a custom job. Customers only enter very simple keywords in microstock search bars (you can see this for example with Dreamstime where you sometimes get shown the exact combination of keywords used to find an image) , often not more than 3 words. And for that purpose midjourney will give resuls as good as any microstock agency minus all the images with wrong tags.
395
« on: May 11, 2023, 05:30 »
Im over 30 days now. The status went from saying how many days ago I submitted my content to saying Submitted last month.
To clarify, the date range you see in your pending files is based on the date you uploaded the image to the Adobe Stock contributor portal, not the date you actually submit the file for review. If you uploaded a file and wait for a while before submitting, the time pending you see will be longer than the actual time it has been in the queue.
That said, I acknowledge the wait time is still significant but progress is being made. We appreciate your patience.
I always submit images on the same day I upload them, so the time I see there is the actual review time - 26 days for me right now, so I do not see this 'progress' that is being made, because review times get longer for me, not shorter.
396
« on: May 10, 2023, 13:28 »
Considering how our photographer and illustrator job is being taken over by AI, I think a lot of us would be keen on that reviewer job....
397
« on: May 07, 2023, 03:12 »
And there really is no great knowledge or playing around needed. I am still not sure what some people here are talking about or what crazy AI image generation sites you are using that you make writing prompts sound like rocket science. Just describe what you want in a few words and in 90% cases you will get a usable result at once. Works for me.
I have different experience, I tried Midjourney and SD and got disappointing results, some low-quality images which weren't close to what I had in mind. I could play more, but I am not so interested and I believe average buyer wouldn't be either. And certainly wouldn't try to find software to upscale or find prompts which will create other aspect ratio than square etc.
When did you try this? Because I tried Midjourney as well when it was fairly new and thought the results were very unsatisfying. But that has been a while and when Midjourney released their version 5 in March this year and I saw the images online the results were mind-blowing. So I tried it out again and as said I get almost perfect results most of the times with completely simple prompts where I do nothing but describe what I want in a few words. They have already released version 5.1 by now, but I haven't tried it yet, because I still have thousands of AI images I need to keyword from my last try.
398
« on: May 06, 2023, 10:45 »
but clients who need lot of images don't have enough time and often knowledge to play with various prompts to get results they want.
Which is no different than using a stock agency. You enter what you want (just like with AI image generation sites) in the search field and then you get various results that are mostly useless, usually because of completely irrelevant keywords added by the contributor. With AI, at least if I tell it to create a dog sitting in grass I don't get 5000 cat photos like on most stock agencies. And there really is no great knowledge or playing around needed. I am still not sure what some people here are talking about or what crazy AI image generation sites you are using that you make writing prompts sound like rocket science. Just describe what you want in a few words and in 90% cases you will get a usable result at once. Works for me.
399
« on: May 06, 2023, 06:42 »
But they make money from it, so what do they care? Has anyone ever heard of them contacting a customer telling him "Sorry, you have to stop using that image and we will refund you, because we didn't have the right to sell this image" or have they ever contacted a contributor telling him "hey, we sold this image stolen by someone from you, we have removed it, closed the port and here is the money the thief made from that sale that should be rightfully yours".
But if you were the buyer then you probably wouldnt want to continue using some stolen imagery you bought. You rather have a refund because, as a buyer of stolen copyright content, you could still face penalties for a rights violation if you continue using the stolen imagery.
Sure, but what does it matter in regards to this discussion? Do you think the customer is ever told by any of the agencies that the image he bought was stolen? My point was: Agencies do not care about legal aspects, as long as they make a profit and can get away with what they are doing and I think that's the stance of the agencies that allow AI images while some others don't.
400
« on: May 06, 2023, 05:31 »
The way I see it the legal issue of this is not sorted out yet, with several ongoing lawsuits and the agencies like Adobe and Dreamstime that allow AI content stimply trust that the outcome will be in their favor.
And if it turns out to be otherwise they will still not really have lost anything. They might remove AI content again, but I doubt they'd compensate any customers or contributors for any damage, just like it is done with millions of stolen images. Agencies sell stolen content, someone finds their artwork in a port full of stolen images and all the agencies do is remove that single one image and keep the port open, knowing very well that the chance just one stolen image found its way into that port "by accident" is extremely unlikely and all the images are stolen.
But they make money from it, so what do they care? Has anyone ever heard of them contacting a customer telling him "Sorry, you have to stop using that image and we will refund you, because we didn't have the right to sell this image" or have they ever contacted a contributor telling him "hey, we sold this image stolen by someone from you, we have removed it, closed the port and here is the money the thief made from that sale that should be rightfully yours". Nope. Not happening. They keep the money even from illegally sold content, so even in the unlikely case that it turns out microstock agencies had no right to sell AI content, they will keep the millions that are rolling it with sales from it now.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
