|
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 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 291
376
« 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
377
« 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.
379
« 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 
380
« 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."
382
« 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.
383
« 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? 
384
« on: July 06, 2023, 16:09 »
385
« on: July 06, 2023, 11:27 »
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/shutterstock-offers-enterprise-customers-indemnification-for-ai-image-creation-856356568.htmlShutterstock is offering Enterprise customers legal indemnification for AI generated content "This is a critical advancement, not just for our platform, but for the industry as creatives and business professionals alike can use the AI content generated on our platform for any purpose, whether it's commercial or personal, without worrying about copyright infringement or ethical issues....We're excited to play a leading role in shaping how generative capabilities can be leveraged ethically, safely and in more creative ways than ever. We feel it's a crucial step towards protecting our customers and our artists."
386
« on: July 06, 2023, 09:00 »
People here have been arguing about Picfair for years - here's just one from nearly a decade ago: picfair-raises-$520k-to-take-on-gettyIn general, good sales generate talk in the contributor community and I've never heard anything about Picfair taking off. I think many would dearly love to have an alternative to the agencies and that keeps the various self-hosting options bumping along. They have apparently opened up full features to the existing free accounts until July 27th, so you can try out what you pay for to see what you think. As far as I know they don't do marketing - which is the key thing in getting your work in front of prospective customers...
387
« on: July 06, 2023, 07:33 »
And the collection (of acknowledged genAI content) is now over the 11.5million threshold - 11,507,885
July 12 it is 11,911,724
388
« on: July 05, 2023, 18:58 »
Thanks for posting that information. I'm no longer with Shutterstock, but if I were, I think the only sane choice is to opt out of the data catalog so they can't benefit from wholesale, no-explanation-no-appeal rejections.
389
« on: July 05, 2023, 15:11 »
This image was approved some time today (not from the contributor in the OP). I sat there moving my fingers to be sure the 5-digit hand position was impossible (the 6 digit hand was enough for a rejection anyway) Portrait of happy senior businessman in white suit and eyeglasses showing thumbs up isolated on white background.
390
« on: July 05, 2023, 14:40 »
The port referenced by the OP has a lot of earlier work that's not AI generated - about the most recent 1/3 is AI as best I can tell. genAI work that shouldn't have been accepted goes back many months - this isn't just a problem with the queue being jammed right now. And you can't report anything on Discord unless you're a "level 10" which I'm not. The evolution of this port goes from... Levitating fruit slices  to mutant veggies  to luggage you pull with your butt  to 6-digit hands  The problem with specific places being used is that the items show up in searches and Adobe's rules say you shouldn't identify AI images with specific place or people's names. I don't (normally) read the titles, but just look at what is returned for search input. Getting irrelevant results is a basic problem (and I know keyword spam has been around for a long time and isn't controlled either, but that doesn't excuse uploading AI mistakes).
391
« on: July 05, 2023, 14:02 »
...If you take a pensioner and fire them out of a space station air lock. Then drag them back in using a hook on a pole, and return them to earth .... free fall from high earth Orbit and they arrive on the Earth's surface at terminal velocity and land in a strategically placed trash can, that's being used to burn plastic cups, then as long as you allow a teenage crack addict high on miracle grow and kerosene to have at it with a glue gun, bag of walnuts and a brown condom ... ta da ... this is totally accurate.
You should be writing science fiction horror stories! You know where you can get material to illustrate your book
392
« on: July 05, 2023, 12:45 »
... but in principle illustrations are art and dont have to depict the real world....
I have left out all the obviously interpretative stuff from any of the criticisms. There are plenty of terrible illustrations of the Golden Gate Bridge that AI has produced as well...  Adobe can call photo-realistic images illustrations all it wants, but if it shows up in a search for a buyer and looks like a photo, they'll treat it like a photo. And even if they select photos - excluding illustrations - they'll still get AI mess-ups  Art can do whatever a human artists wants it to, but a stock agency that sets standards for content uploads needs to be responsible for adhering to them. Buyers depend on that assurance. Rules are meaningless if they're not enforced.
393
« on: July 05, 2023, 11:23 »
Stock agencies are not a documentary place of the real world....
True, but with photographs that say they are of specific places - the Colosseum, Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, Golden Gate Bridge, Bridgewater Place (Leeds, UK), Venice, Greece, etc. - they actually are. One of the many problems with the AI content gold rush is that agencies set rules saying not to identify AI images as of real places or people, but they're not enforcing them. Adobe rules https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html123rf rules https://www.blog.123rf.com/123rf-guidelines-for-ai-generated-contentAI Golden Gate Bridges (there are many more)   If it looks realistic, it needs to be accurately labeled. Given accuracy is something AI can't handle, the agency rules - don't label actual places or people - make sense. And don't label body parts when they're (a) inaccurate and (b) gross - warning: don't click on this if you're squeamish.
394
« on: July 05, 2023, 09:32 »
The collection is now over 11 million gen AI images (there are more but they're not marked. I can't know which the 11 millionth is, but how about this one of a waterslide no one should ever go on:
The death trap water slide has now been removed since I posted it on the Adobe Stock Discord
Thank you. I've noticed a few other images that have been "disappeared". I have watermarked previews or I'd think I had gone crazy The problem continues though as recent approvals are still laden with "oops" images at a rapid rate. Adobe has to get a handle on this on the inspection side IMO.
395
« on: July 05, 2023, 09:26 »
...How can photographers compete with this from now on? ...
To me, this seems like an echo of Yuri Arcurs - a distinctive style, it sold a lot, but it didn't prevent other contributors with other styles from plying their trade. Not everyone liked the Yuri Arcurs look, and I cannot imagine it will be any different with the (to my taste) slightly freakish AI look. Even for a stock image, it's so fake-looking even though all the humans are at some level gorgeous. And that's just for the people and lifestyle categories - there are others. Assuming buyers continue to have a need for a wide range of subjects, all those existing sales won't vanish. AI is utterly cr$p at some types of images right now.Even assuming it gets better, it may still end up in the fantasy-perfection-land that the lifestyle and home interior images currently inhabit. That leaves an opportunity for something that looks more "real world" as a section of stock that human-created content can fill. I just had my second best month ever at Adobe Stock - and that's in June, versus November which is typically my big month. There are buyers out there for the not-AI-look or I'd have seen a downturn instead of an upswing. My two big concerns are (1) lots of content that is AI generated that isn't tagged as such; and (2) masses of AI "oops" images that should not be in the Adobe Stock collection. We don't want buyers turning away from stock agencies as unreliable sources as that will hurt even those not providing AI work.
397
« on: July 03, 2023, 19:52 »
...I know Jo. It's tragic. But if you're in the market for Pintomatapples, avocana Orangebeets, or a dear child wielding a monkey paw clutching a Qwetty keybone then look no further than Adobe house of hilarity.
I thought I'd put Firefly beta to work - you might be onto a really hot new market segment there Click for larger size 
398
« on: July 03, 2023, 14:45 »
At the risk of inciting another troll-stom, here's where the collections are 3 Jul 2023. I've omitted 123rf because I can't figure out how I got it to give me just the AI generated images a week ago. There are images marked as AI generated. There instructions for uploaders about the category it has to go into, but I can only find an "exclude AI" option in a search of the plus collection. Go figure... Adobe Stock AI collection 11,284,930 Dreamstime AI collection 3,253,125 CanStock collection (search for "generative ai") 792,769 Shutterstock collection 660,215 iStock collection (keyword "AI Generated Image") 167,373 DepositPhotos collection (search for "generative ai") 100,211 3,221 vectors 5,498 photos 2,425 illustrations 207 videos
399
« on: July 03, 2023, 14:38 »
That overview conveniently omits any mention of the training of the models that are now generating images. Without our images as source input for training, none of this would exist - the article makes it sound as if it the software could create images on its own: "...synthography synthesizes images based on words and ideas, creating pictures depicting literally everything one can imagine".
Without the training material to associate those words and ideas with imagery, there'd only be the prompter's imagination and blankness. A little honesty about the process would go a long way (not as far as getting paid for the wholesale use of a web's worth of words, images, etc., but a long way)
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
