Maybe they aren't seeing a bright future for microstock sites because of the AI image development?

"If the creator doesn�t like the result, she can refine the prompts � as Kashtanova did hundreds of times � until the image matches her intellectual conception. The more one uses prompts, the better one becomes at predicting the results. That�s why new jobs as prompt engineers have sprouted. Businesses seek the fruits of these creators� �intellectual labor.�"

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.

And if you mean AI looked at images and learned, yes, I read the dictionary sometimes, I know more words, that doesn't mean that because the dictionary was created from researching books and looking for meaning, that I plagiarizer someone else's writing.

Ah, so you do agree with me that other than your work was used to create your work.

What you describe is the WHOLE problem with AI content being trained by images they had no right to use and why several Ai generators are currently being sued.

Some people still do not seem to understand how AI works. Ai image generators are not going through some database scrapping the hand from one image, the eye from another, the dress for a third, the background from a forth and so one. They create images all based on what they have learned by "looking" at existing artwork in the past.

Well, she has the right to do whatever she wants with her own voice.

Of course.
But since millionaires only make up 1,1% of the world population, she obviously doesn't speak in the interest of the majority of humankind.

Really strange, because I don't see that at all.

Uploaded this weekend, reviewed today (Monday).

It depends on what type of content.
For me editorial content is reviewed within an hour.
Commercial photos within a few days up to a week.
Illustrations and png photos take 21 days right now.

It shows as 174.501.443 to me in the gallery.


When you scroll all the way down the bottom of the page it currently says
"We have more than 433 million images as of December 31, 2022."


Not sure where the 220+ million missing images are.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on April 16, 2023, 13:19

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 16, 2023, 13:07

Each one needs to be edited to remove the color bar in the lower right. Resizing could be done batch. Still, I haven't seen anything from Open AI that didn't need editing, and people who use the other, still need to edit for size and error's.

Not sure what color bar you are talking about, my AI images don't have any.

Everyone who still claims AI images need some major editing is either lying to keep up the pretense that there is some actual human work involved or is simply using the wrong AI image generator.
Maybe this was true for the first gen Ai generators, but by now they produce perfect results at least 90% of the time.

I clearly said Open AI, which you ignored and calling anyone a liar for the truth is kind of over the top? Yes there is actual human work involved, why do you keep denying that?

Please show me an AI image from whatever source you decide is the best. One of the perfect results, 90% of the time, you can pick the image.

Tell me how long it takes to create each image and show me one as an example, please, that didn't need any editing of any kind. You say, someone can just hit create, make 1,000 images and upload them. And they are all key worded and described easily because they are all the same request.

How much does it cost for each of these images to be created?

Time, how much time to make them, edit them, add metadata, upload?

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 17, 2023, 07:19

How about sales, do AI images sell well?

I don't know. There are some that say because they are in the front at agencies, that they are popular, and the conclusion is, that means they are being sold. I'd like to see some data from people who are creating and uploading these? The kind that come from, type a command, get an image, add some words and description and poof, like magic, you made money. 

As asked, here's a Dall-E2 image that is not edited.

Look in the lower right, color sample bar. It's 1024 x 1024. Other AI is probably better, but that's what's free.

Edge / Bing unedited

Also 1024 and has a watermark
A person a blob and a dog?
Make that 4MP and here's a crop

That won't pass anywhere.

I wanted to recreate your images to show you what can be done in seconds, but I am not sure what you were trying to go for in the first image. Tomatoe clock?







I think DALL-E currently is lightyears behind every other AI image generator. I just looked at the curated AI gallery on Shutterstock today and in my opinion all images there looked really bad.

Quote from: ADH on April 16, 2023, 07:59

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 10, 2023, 10:35

Checked in on the Discord. Quote: "there were many people who sent 200, 300 AI images a day, I myself sent around 150 a day, then the moderators were overloaded" lol

I know a person in India who sent over 1000 images a day

Who can create and edit 1,000 images a day. That's some really dedicated work. I'd love to see what they are and how many sales?

  Everyone, at least with AI.

All you need to do is enter a prompt and click the retry button over and over again. (You don't even have to do that manually, just use an auto clicker). 10 clicks per hour and you get 1000 different images for which you can even use the same keywords...

Quote from: Stockus on April 14, 2023, 11:12

Resistance is futile. To late to change the course of AI. The guy that asked if his 50 dollar is for the last month, let me say it's the last payment for dataset. All your 2500 files were scraped you got 2 cent each. Now they are working on making you obsolete and then you  will never get a payment again. So enjoy while it lasts.

Yes I noticed on Shutterstock, long before I discovered the opt out feature, that after some initial payments for data sets, haven't had one more payment since. The AI machine learned everything it needed from my images and now the images are redundant for AI purposes, which means no further earnings for the contributor while image creation from the images can continue forever. Opt out while you can so at least your content (apparently) can't be used for AI learning and image creations which you and I will never see a penny for again, even if we were to remove our contents from the sites.

From what I understood Shutterstock only pays out for data set learning once a year, that's why no one had any payments under the contributor fund colum there since December.
 I still opted out, because I don't want my images to be used legally for something that will destroy my means of living. They were and will be used for that purpose illegally anyways, which put me in a moral dilemma about whether I should allow it and at least earn a bit from it while there is still some money to be made, but in the end it just did not agree with my conscience. 
Just saying that it doesn't mean there won't be further payments.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on April 06, 2023, 04:09

Got my first payment since the currency chnage. Lost 11,58% of my income. Thanks for nothing, Adobe.

They need extra money to feed the deep AI mouth... and build our (no?) future...

Nha, they need extra money to make some CEOs, managers and shareholders even richer. Maximizing profit is really all companies care about. That's what capitalism is about. And that's not even what I am holding against them. After all I am looking to maximize my profit as well (with the only difference that I am not already a millionaire) Just wish they'd find other ways to do this than by taking it away from the very people their business was build on.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 05, 2023, 16:15

...
The Federal Circuit adopted a comparable stance for AI invention in the patent context in Thaler v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2021-2347 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2022). Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Stark proclaimed, �there is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings.�

My Bold...

it ignores the real question of whether someone using a tool can be a creator/inventor

No, it doesn't ignore the "real question". This question doesn't even arise.

Since with an AI image generator all you do is describe an image to the AI and the AI creates the image, not you, it is exacly the same as you going to an artist and commissioning him or her: You describe to him or her what you want, the artists paints or photographes the image. Are you the creator (and therfore by default the copyright holder) or the artist? No one would question the case here, so why should we with AI images? The creator is the one who creates the image, not the one who describes it.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 31, 2023, 15:16

Quote from: Year of the Dog on March 31, 2023, 09:29

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 31, 2023, 06:31

Quote from: cobalt on March 31, 2023, 06:20

midjourney temporarily halts free image trial

https://www.pcworld.com/article/1677533/midjourney-halts-free-trials-after-ai-photos-go-viral.html

Even humor needs to make some sense. Like: What

Do not understand what the "AI-generated fake images that went viral" have to do with the free trial. It's not like the paid subscription will keep you from generating "fake images" - After all that's the whole point of midjourney.

"There's an expert .. who says that if there is not an indefinite pause on AI development ... 'Literally everyone on Earth will die,'"

Uhm, okay? I still do not understand what that has  to do with Midjourney stopping their free trial?

Humor that's a shortage around here.

Humor should still  make sense.

"There's an expert .. who says that if there is not an indefinite pause on AI development ...Literally everyone on Earth will die...unless we PAY for the AI, then it's okay."

See, now it can pass as poor humor.  Before it was glibberish that had no thematic connection to the question as to why MJ stopping their free trial with the explanation that it could cause harm, but continues with their paid service.