|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 47
426
« on: January 30, 2024, 10:01 »
Having done it for a while,
a) Yes, you can make some income.
b) If you get "lucky" (some of your images take off) then you can make what some would consider to be a good income.
I'm not quite yet sure what the magic formula is for (b) yet... I've seen some people that have images similar to mine really take off, and no idea why my nearly equivalent ones didn't... As far as I can tell, I have good keywording, good titling, good images... So I don't know - it seems to be a little bit of luck/right timing/etc to get an image to take off. I did personally have a couple that did relatively well, but others, not yet as well...
So... if you are playing around with it, sure, go for it. But... if you are looking to make more than a couple hundred $$/month - you probably have your work cut out for you.
427
« on: January 30, 2024, 09:58 »
Mat Hayward did a great interview with Yuri in an Adobe Stock livestream about a year ago:
https://www.behance.net/videos/a087140b-0778-47ea-9637-18b592810e3c/Adobe-Stock-Top-tips-from-legendary-stock-artist-Yuri-Arcurs-EN
What was the synposis of the interview? (It's funny how most people assume whatever they say in VIDEO format is THE most important thing in the world, but most people don't have an hour or two to "listen" to people ramble). They should have a .pdf/readable format so you can quick scan it, see if it useful/informative, or just junk. What was the synposis/main points of the interview?
@cobalt has given a short synposis so I won't add to that but I just wanted to say that I agree that it is a lot quicker to get info in text form. I hate searching up a problem I'm having with Blender and ending up having to watch a 10-minute YouTube tutorial because there are no good text-based alternatives. I rarely watch the Adobe Stock livestreams but in the case of this Yuri Arcurs video, it really grabbed my interest and I was hooked throughout. I also learnt a lot from Mat's recent chat with Terry White about new features in Lightroom. (Even though there was a lot of irrelevant chitchat at the start!)
Try increasing video speed on Youtube. There's not a single video I watch on 1x speed. Mostly 1.75x or even 2x for some slow speakers. Saves a lot of time 
Hehe, I'd like it if they added 3-4x the speed now. I find many people just have verbal vomit, and it takes a long time for them to get to the point.
428
« on: January 30, 2024, 09:57 »
I actually use ChatGPT currently to create prompts.
I usually get inspired by an interesting photo/image, write a brief description or some keywords of the content/topic and then rephrase it via ChatGPT.
This saves a lot of time and increases productivity.
Sometimes I even create new and better image compositions.
My perception is also that the more extensive the prompts, the more detailed images can be created with a higher prompt guidance scale in Stable Diffusion.
It's crap to use keywords like "higly detailed", "photorealistic", blablabla, etc. in prompts.
As Evaristo tenscadisto has already written, it makes sense to create templates with short, specific instructions.
Sometimes, for example, I only paste in 3 to 5 keywords and create a detailed prompt because ChatGPT knows from previous example descriptions and specifications how I would write the prompts myself.
As a power user, you could certainly try to automate the whole thing.
Interesting... what would be an example of a prompt you use? Playing around with it myself - I found ChatGPT starts to make very similar/redudant stuff very quickly, which almost removes any kind of utility it would have, because have to constantly be checking it to make sure it did things correctly...
429
« on: January 27, 2024, 15:06 »
..
"Regulations" generally speaking only affect the little guy - and are used for anti-competitive behaviour. ...
And lol - the only reason "ai" tools have difficulty with hands - is because they didn't have massive amounts of images to steal it from. People don't generally take pictures of their hands or feet and post those to social media, or stock media accounts. So it's kind of hard for them to steal it when the number is limited.
right, why does the little guy need regulations to, provide them with transportation safety, 40 hr work week, ensuring drugs are safe, clean air, clean water, etc etc lets go back to Dickensian times
hoist by your own petard winner this week:
https://petapixel.com/2024/01/24/trump-shares-ai-image-of-himself-praying-with-six-fingers/
as far as the hands problem, there are certainly enough hands & arms in the world image base, but the problem more likely lies in the fact that most pictures with people don't have hands, arms, etc as tags, so there's less to train by.
The real question is... why is the little guy working himself to the bone 40 hours a week in the first place - while his master goes and plays golf all day, lives on a posh 3000 acre ranch, and the "little guy" is worried whether or not he will be able to pay rent that week? The "regulations" are usually designed to keep the 40-hour (or now 60-70 hr) week guy working 60-70 hours, while his "master" gets to eat cake, travel, sleep around, etc all day, and 'have fun'... Now - of course a fair playing field would be good. I'm just saying the guys making the rules don't play by the same rules that they want all the 'little people' to play by. (And more specifically - its the guys at the 'top top' who take your money via taxes+inflation (via money printing/etc) and use it to fund and promote whatever they feel like... The "training" is more specifically training "specifically" hands. Training heads is easy because most people do head shots. If you only had side profiles of heads - it would be difficult for the algorithm to figure out what a "head on" shot looked like.
430
« on: January 27, 2024, 15:04 »
Hi Pete, a) I do agree with you when you say that images are not "directly" used to create new images. That is correct. You may have misunderstood or misread what I wrote. But the images are stolen to create the initial model - in order to create a "model" - from which new images are then created. b) The courts may "decide". If they decide to say that theft is not theft, it does not mean its not theft. One does not need a 3rd party "authority" to decide if something is wrong, when they know it is in fact wrong. c) I actually do understand how "machine learning" works, in fact I even have a background in it (among other things). "AI" (at least the "ai" that is used now) - can't "reason", doesn't re-write its "code", etc. It is a set of algorithms that computer programmers have put together, to create a "model" (i.e., mathematical representation) of what say an "apple" is. The reason the "ai" machines need keywords (and shutterstock,etc just "gave" them, then gave most contributors a paltry some for their data) - was so it knew what words/phrases to associate scraped (stolen) images with. But it is - in fact - stealing. Basically - the companies have no idea what a "cat" is. So they scrape (stealing) a bunch of random images. But they need to associate keywords with the images they scrape. The algorithm then essentially determines a pattern (i.e., say a "cat" has "lines" representing "whiskers", has a "round head", has two "triangle ears"). It then "compresses" this data (so instead of storing 100,000's of images, it simply says "a cat is an object which has whiskers, round head, and triangle ears") - which it deterimined soley by keywords/etc associated with it, and the scraped stolen data. It's kind of like using winzip to zip a text file. You could have a 100MB "text" file, and then a compressed 1mb "zip" file (10000 times smaller). But the original "data" is still there, encoded. The latent diffusion model essentially just "blends" multiple text files together and then when you 'unzip' a file its decoding the file. What is going on in the "AI" space is kind of like... Someone "knows" someone "else" stealing a bag of apples from a street vendor, and drops several apples on the street. The person (group/organization) "stealing" the bag of apples justifies their actions saying it was "research", and they are just "studying pyschological effects" blah blah blah, and have "funding" from various sources... the person stealing the apple from the street is the "ai" company knowing that they were stolen apples, but pretends to play innocent saying "oh gosh darn golly gee, I just saw the apple lying there"... If the person makes it into apple jelly, or apple vinegar, or whatever - they still knowingly took it knowing it was theft... And what makes things even more interesting, is if you find out the person that "found" the apple - was the one that "funded" the person doing the "research"... What "they" (most of the "ai" companies) are doing is theft, plain & simple. When your major "problem" is "watermarks" - and how to get rid of those "pesky things" - where do you think "watermarks" come from? Certainly not properly licensed content where the creator of those works has given explicit consent... Hi Pete,
(a) Actually, "ai training" is actually stealing images.
In your opinion. I tried the detailed explanation, now the shortest version possible. Images are not directly used to create new images.
Yes, the courts will decide this and if it is Fair Use or not.
Your reasoning for why hands are wrong is one of the most laughable things I've read today. You clearly are in denial or don't understand how AI/Machine Learning works. "not enough examples"  
LAION, the nonprofit that put the database together, used web crawling tools to create datasets with more than 5 billion links to online images, which companies can then pull from to use as training data for their own AI models.
AI does not understand function or purpose, it only understands training. AI doesn't know how many fingers or how many legs on a chair, or how many legs on a horse. Not because it hasn't seen enough in 5 billion images, but because AI lacks reasoning. AI doesn't understand anatomy, only what it has seen. And since AI creates new images from training, it might have more or less fingers, based on the random samples it uses to create the new hand.
431
« on: January 27, 2024, 08:06 »
To be honest, our politicians are completely overwhelmed by such a complex topic.
Checking the input for copyright infringements is totally pointless. It can be hidden.
What matters is the output. Because this determines whether copyright or other infringements occur.
This is exactly where regulation needs to go deep.
It would make sense to regulate the developers in the prompt input. e.g. works of art protected by copyright may not be imitated by the artists through the input, political persons may not be led to deepfakes, etc.
a) Lol, nice you have faith in the political system (The ones at the top are probably very happy you do, because it is a distraction). Bags of $$$ tend to make it easier for (most) politicians to figure out what to do. (Mind you - to 'some' degree I suppose I used to as well - but the last 4 years were quite an eyeopener as to how politics 'really' works - in particular at the higher levels - as I would hope they would have been for you) "Regulations" generally speaking only affect the little guy - and are used for anti-competitive behaviour. (I.e., protect the person @ the top with the marketshare & make it difficult for new players to get in). I.e., look at facebook - while growing (and even now) they spam the crap out of people with e-mails - yet "frown upon" anyone that they may "perceive" as spamming with their service. Or gmail/hotmail "reading" your e-mails to give you "customized ads" that they sent to MILLIONS on a regular basis - but oh noes! you send out an e-mail to "ten"people trying to sell your used bicycle - "oh noes! spam SPAM SPAM!" and not only may it go to the junk folder, but you may get a 'stern warning' not to continue in the future lest your account disappear... b) While copyright infrigement "can" be hidden - it can just easily be discovered with "machine learning". The people making the tools to steal don't really want you knowing that though. But it is SUPER easy. c) Theft is theft. Doesn't matter how many regulations you have to garble the topic, try and confuse it, try and obscure things - theft is theft. If someone "accidentally knocks" an apple off an apple stand, such that it falls to the ground and then says "OH my! Look at this apple i found just LAYING here on the ground! It does not appear to be anyones, so can take it!" That is theft. If someone outright grabs an apple and puts it in their bag, that is theft. If someone pays someone to put a bag of apples aside - making it appear to be "lost" - so they pick it up later - it is theft. "Regulations" might say 'oh now just wait here a second! It is only if someone directly took it!" (meanwhile the people making up the regulations are collecting nice big bags of cash to make those regulations). The "ai models" are based off of theft. Doing the underhanded tactic shutterstock did - where they "sold" your data - THEN said "oh hee hee, you can opt out NOW' - that was actually outright dishonest theft. And for the record those types of companies - they did not let you get back your data if you said no you didn't want the cash - you wanted to your data. Midjourney (& other associated tools) "scraping" massive amounts of content - then trying to figure out how to 'remove watermarks' - that is theft. And lol - the only reason "ai" tools have difficulty with hands - is because they didn't have massive amounts of images to steal it from. People don't generally take pictures of their hands or feet and post those to social media, or stock media accounts. So it's kind of hard for them to steal it when the number is limited.
432
« on: January 27, 2024, 08:01 »
Hi Pete, (a) Actually, "ai training" is actually stealing images. One of the big "problems" they've had is figuring out how to remove "watermarks". Sure - they create "models" - but it is based off of theft. (b) The algorithms (instructions) are not actually "learning". Just because the computer textbooks say it is "machine learning", doesn't actually mean the machine is "learning". It is not. For clarification - it is code a person wrote to look for "patterns" in order to create a "model representation" (i.e., compressed data structure), so instead of 100 gb of say pictures of "oranges", it could be say "represented" in only 0.5 gb, and then taking varying inputs (i.e., "red" orange, "blue" orange, etc) - to essentially 'blend' models to 'make' new stuff - based off of theft. (c) The "courts" (i.e., like a 'tennis court') - simply (sadly right now) - basically do whatever someone with the most $$$ tells them to do. (Look @ the last 4 years - just follow the money to figure out what really went on). The "ai" actually is directly using your images, as well as the images of others, and essentially creating composite images. It does not create "composite images" on the fly (it is not simple alpha blending) - but basically a more sophisticated form of theft - basically "pre-blending" the images in a "model" - and then using that "model" to generate new images. Theft is still theft. One does not need a "court" to decide if it is theft - when it is in fact theft. 
Lets start, the agencies aren't in the EU. I'm not either. But lets say, OK if they want to sell there, they will need to abide with those regulations.
Problems with the disclosure Publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training.
1) Yes, we looked your image. So what?
2) We downloaded your image? But it wasn't used in the training
3) We used your image to train the machines.
4) There's no way to prove a one to one direct use of your image, in any generated results.
5) Images are not directly used to create new images, the machines learn and create new images from their training.
But aside from that nest of snags and questions.
Fair Use What is fair use. The courts need to decide that.
I look up a word in the dictionary and find the spelling and meaning and I use that knowledge to write a sentence. I publish the sentence. Did I steal the meaning or the word? I look at a photo and find the meaning and learn about how it's composed and the subject. I create my own image, using that knowledge, I didn't copy the image, I just learned from it.
AI does not copy images or re-use bits of them in the new images. It learns from what's in the images, the content and shapes, and creates an entirely new image.
Fair Use?
AI training is not stealing images. As much as I don't like AI and I'm not impressed by people with seven fingers and three arms or hands growing out of their ears and face, it's not directly using my images in the output product. AI / machine learning, is looking and learning.
The courts will decide that, not us or some political agreement.
433
« on: January 26, 2024, 08:05 »
Interesting, thanks.
One thing that is interesting though - is the people who "own" the "ai" tools - they most likely will not follow the same "regulations". (I.e., generating manipuative content/etc). The are part of the "club" (imf/un/wef/etc) that is trying to control people through fear/etc. So while the "plebians" (i.e., 'working class/slave class') will be told they "must" not use it for certain purposes, or face "stiff penalities", it will not apply to the people who "own" the tools, the blackrock/vanguard set of media "news" companies (which most time is pure fiction designed primarily to manipulate people's emotions through fear), etc, etc.
I.e., look @ midjourney - the tool itself is based off of massive THEFT. It is PURE THEFT. 100%. Their "pesky problem" has been "watermarks" - aka "copyrighted content", and how to steal content and get rid of those pesky "watermarks". So - their "partners" will most likely/most definitely use it for things like p0rn generation, political candiate manipulation/"fake news", etc - just the regular "end user" will not have "access" to those same tools - to give the "perception" that they are honest, when in fact - they aren't. Again - the tool itself is based off of MASSIVE THEFT - and supposedly already "make" $200 million in subscription revenue. Why would they all of the sudden decide to be "honest" because of some random "law" (whom they + other corporations pay to "make" the rules, and they are the ones paying to make the "laws"?)?
Look @ chatgpt. For the "plebians" - they are giving a limited model (I'd guess 1-3%) of the actual stolen content - as to frame a certain narrative. Classic example - question anything about the convid nonsense (it really was about control & poisoning people, only "virus" that existed was what the news presented as an "idea" that sadly got stuck in some people's heads & made them fearful & scared, ppl got sick from the masks/"tests", etc designed to manipulate them into getting injected with a long term poison). ANyways - question anything against the "official narrative" (ie.., storyline) and the chatgpt tool goes "oh no no no! you can't SAY that! OMFG! you can't say that! that is not what 'official' sources say! omfg!'.
Anyways...
I'd say - for the "smaller" ppl (working class/slave labor) - it may have some effect in controlling them. But the (currently) 'controlling' class that is trying so desparately to control people will most likely not be playing by the same rules.
Just be aware of that.
And also - "ai" is not a "thinking machine". It is sophisticated theft designed to "look" like a "thinking machine". It is computer algorithms (aka "instructions") written by actual thinking people. And "ai" is nothing new - it's been around for the last 30-40 years - it is just "faster" and better at stealing things on the higher corporate level.
434
« on: January 25, 2024, 22:52 »
How do you report that your image or idea was stolen?
I found about 50 contributors who redid my best selling image and uploaded it using my exact unique description and keywords.
Now some of them literally follow my portfolio and rip it as soon as my images get approved. Its disheartening
Im not going to post a link to my portfolio, its just asking for more copycats. And my portfolio is not generic, its illustrations and png.
a) People will copy anything. For the images, tends to be east indians who do that (steal/spam/copy cat to "get rich quick"), create fake profiles using stolen assets then uploading those, etc, etc... (of course not all, and of course not 'just' restricted to them, but does seem to be a rather high percentage that do that to other people...) b) Depending on "how" it was generated - you may/may not be able to do something, which is why I think people are asking... if you have a sample image (not your portfolio) - and can show the similarities between your image & the copycat, it would make it a lot easier to determine if it was ripped off, or it was more of a conceptual thing... If you aren't comfortable sharing your images here - that's fine... I might suggest contacting adobe then and explaining what it is you need assistance with.
435
« on: January 25, 2024, 21:00 »
Yes, I think I may start removing my 4K clips too, and not submit future ones. The subscription model really only benefit the company, not the contributor.
436
« on: January 24, 2024, 23:32 »
Hello.
- You can consider that the majority of the users of this forum are fans of AI. They may not really be sensitive to these issues. I even think that they wouldn't be put off doing the same, in secret of course 
- For my part, I now prefer to ignore the way in which I am (highly) robbed, too much energy, too much time, and stock sites that don't care much because: It doesn't matter who uploads and how the image is produced, they collect royalties in any situation. And they have less possibility to detect fraudsters anymore, and fraud is massive.
- I Know myself that no idea is really owned. And since the AI machinery is fed by anyone's properties, our images photos are now very relatively our exclusive property. New world of stock imagery.
But... did you generate your images with AI yourself? (it seems to be). If the case, you don't own any copyright and you should not even complain. 
I don't stop anyone from generating A.I. images based on their own ideas. These guys literally used my photos and A.I. images as a reference to try to replicate my portfolio. The fact that you are OK with that is... I don't know what to say.
Even trying to replicate my portfolio by using my ideas would be wrong, but trying to create almost exactly the same photos is just a fraud to me.
a) What is your portfolio? I'd like to take a look - can you provide an example of your original image + their "modified" image? b) Are you saying that they took your original photo, fed it into the midjourney engine, to generate a virtually identical "ai" image? (same people's faces, same poses, maybe just a different shirt color, etc?)
437
« on: January 24, 2024, 09:20 »
Yes, I seem to have the same issue. Not sure which images they are though - but there is something that doesn't match. Might be a bug in their system.
438
« on: January 23, 2024, 14:45 »
Well, it was like someone took a dive off a steep cliff. But now they are slowly increasing.
Perhaps people didn't feel like working (and subsequently using their credits to get assets) for the first half of January...
439
« on: January 23, 2024, 10:11 »
Nothing was stolen here. The images from free websites may be used for books.
You are mistaken. Read the licenses that users agreed to when submitting content. While 'general' commercial use is permitted - the licenses specifically state it's not simply to be repackaged and resold how he is doing it. So yes, in this context, the images were stolen. If you look at the actual "books" as well - in spite of him essentially ripping off other people's HIGH QUALITY images and passing them off as his own - he still manages to put the 'books' in the crappiest format possible - doing the bare minimum to push the crap out. The content is incredibly slipshod/poor quality, happens to be a lazy, greedy person trying to milk other people's work for as much as he can.
440
« on: January 22, 2024, 13:54 »
I wasn't actually trying and I found this one. All stolen and they don't understand what the images are. https://www.amazon.ca/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AColor+Me%21
Sorry - that just returned a listing of different types of books - did you have a specific book you found?
441
« on: January 22, 2024, 07:41 »
You can send a message through amazon, either their online form (support), or any book listing. If you want to send additional info (i.e., you find specific books of yours that have material), you can also send a message here [email protected]. Unsplash's support e-mail is [email protected]. Sometimes it takes a couple messages from different people to get rid of garbage like this.
442
« on: January 22, 2024, 00:50 »
So, if you have an amazon account, you might want to drop them a line, because if you've taken any kind of landscape photography in the past, there's a good chance your images might be in this "authors books". Feel free to cut & paste the content below if you wish... He (collectively) seems to have about 1500+ "amazon books" across all of his pen names/accounts... simply takes about 40 landscape photos from "free sites" like pexels/unsplash/pixabay, as well as it appears paid sites like adobe + shutterstock, and then puts it in a "book". Part of the "get-rich-quick" scheme going on for KDP publishing. (While you can get rich quick from good content, and putting together excellent books, and doing things honestly and ethically - this is not the right way. It is incredibly dishonest & deceptive). While pexels/unsplash/etc do permit "free" commercial use for products/services, they explicitly state that derivative works must be significantly different than simply repackaging content, as well as not trying to pass other people's work off as his own... which, of course his violating both... These are the account names with publications (aka landscape "books", seems to either be an east indian or arabic name, not sure): (645 publications) - HMZ MASHA: https://www.amazon.ca/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AHMZ+MASHA (181 publications) - Hamza Almashaqbeh https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0C4W7FN49/(248 publications) - ALMASH SABA https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0CK4VWCPS/(268 publications) - "Taylor Reevis": https://www.amazon.ca/Taylor-Reevis/e/B0B4GHMXQF/(251 publications) - Lamar Mayar: https://www.amazon.com/stores/LAMAR-MAYAR/author/B0CK4SHFD1/(seems only 1 active at the moment) Emma Mirwid: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0BX147TQ7/Basically, if you look @ the preview page of the book (i.e., look inside of the book preview) - you'll find the images that he passes of as his own for "his books", are actually compilation from all sorts of different photographers, without any kind of attribution whatsoever, nor any modification other then slapping them altogether, from those different sites I mentioned. A number of images also seem to come from adobestock/shutterstock too when you scroll down to other pictures. And as I said, while unsplash/pexels/etc do allow "free commercial use" - they explicitly forbid the type of activity he is engaging it. a) I.e., for unsplash - it explicitly states in section 8(g) that derivative works must be 'first significantly or meaningfully' updated. It explicity states against "simple retouches, resizing, or other minimal changes". The content in this individuals books simply seems to be cut & paste copies of other people's images, which of course is not a significant change. The Unsplash license is located here: https://unsplash.com/termsb) For pixabay/pexels, while Pixabay.com does permit commercial use as well, in section (4) it explicitly states again using content in misleading or deceptive ways, specifically: "by giving the impression that Content was created by you, or a person other than the intellectual property rights holder of the Content (including without limitation, by claiming or giving the impression that you hold ownership of, or exclusive rights to, the Content)." No attribution appears to be present in any of the publications, thereby violating these terms as well. The terms are available here: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/, as well as here https://www.pexels.com/terms-of-service/.c) And then of course - adobe/shutterstock don't permit unlicensed use. Here are some of his sample "books", with the corresponding unsplash/pexel/adobe/shutterstock/etc pictures. You can pretty much pick anyone of his "books", and find a corresponding image on one of those sites. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample "HMZ MASHA" publications (645 publications): Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Stavanger-NORWAY-Mind-Blowing-Photography-Paperback-July/dp/B0C9S9CGVS/Photographer Victro Malyushev -> Sample Source Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/white-and-yellow-houses-SjAxwFjQyckPublication: https://www.amazon.ca/BRITISH-COLUMBIA-Photography-Tourists-Attractions/dp/B0C2S71C99/Photographer Andrew Darlington -> Sample Source Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/a-lake-surrounded-by-trees-and-mountains-R8fc76MvD4cPublication: https://www.amazon.ca/YORKSHIRE-ENGLAND-Photography-Tourists-Attractions/dp/B0C5YZLT96/ref=sr_1_11Photographer Samuel Girven -> Source Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/gray-rocky-mountain-during-daytime-QNhK70HEL6w------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample "Taylor Reevis" publications (268 publications): Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Calabria-Beautiful-Photography-Meditation-Collection/dp/B0B5KXB7R2Photographer: Walkerssk: https://pixabay.com/photos/scilla-calabria-italy-1185547/Photographer: Valtercirillo: https://pixabay.com/photos/san-nicola-arcella-sea-calabria-1979085/Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Newfoundland-Canada-Photography-Coffee-Table/dp/B0BPGGF5M6Photographer: Ritche Perez -> https://www.pexels.com/photo/assorted-color-buildings-near-body-of-water-58691/Publication: https://www.amazon.ca/Iguazu-Falls-Photography-Meditation-Landscapes/dp/B0B3S26Z12Photographer: Thomaslkiefer -> https://pixabay.com/photos/iguazu-water-falls-flow-1839165/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample "Hamza Almashaqbeh" publication (181 publications) Publication: https://www.amazon.com/ITALY-Photography-Coffee-Tourists-Attractions/dp/B0BZF78S6XPhotographer: Rory Hennessey -> https://unsplash.com/photos/a-city-with-a-crane-V08FBNIWShw------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample ALMASH SABA (248 publications) Publication: https://www.amazon.com/ISLE-SKYE-Mind-Blowing-Tour-SCOTLAND/dp/B0CN3DH5MB/Photographer: Jack White -> https://unsplash.com/photos/a-high-angle-view-of-a-river-EYRjEAr5mgIPublication: https://www.amazon.com/most-beautiful-churches-world-Buildings/dp/B0CSTGNYVN/Photographer: Dimitrisvetsikas1969: https://pixabay.com/photos/russian-church-dome-golden-5504400/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lamar Mayar (251 publications): Publication: https://www.amazon.com/HEIDELBERG-Mind-Blowing-Tour-GERMANY/dp/B0CL6BPTHK/Photographer: Leonhard Niederwimmer -> https://unsplash.com/photos/a-city-with-a-castle-on-top-of-a-hill-OrEprg4nJAIPhotographer: Gaertringen -> https://pixabay.com/photos/heidelberg-bridge-germany-river-274220/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doing things honestly I think is fine, but the way he is doing it (deceptive/dishonest) is very wrong. If you have an amazon account, I might drop them a line and let them know, because he is simply repackaging other people's content & passing it off as his own to "get rich quick" is wrong, and there is probably a good chance some of your work might be in one of his "books".
443
« on: January 21, 2024, 09:07 »
Yes, they do that.
444
« on: January 17, 2024, 19:24 »
I found this contributor at Adobe today:
https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/contributor/209153539/oleg?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
He has almost 315k (!) generated images. What the heck?
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.
But still, how do you manage to generate so many images in such a short time? It can only be a huge team, probably from Eastern Europe (Oleg?)
I wouldn't be surprised if they start completely plagiarizing other agencies with Img2Img and Inpaint at some point in the future.
Extremely demotivating.
lol, wow! does he have a special pass on how much he can upload? because I'd say he's uploading 30-40k/month then... but eh, don't worry about it... focus on yourself. imagine there is just one GIGANTIC contributor that has 35 MILLION "ai" images, because in essence that is kind of what it is like. 
445
« on: January 16, 2024, 21:42 »
Yes, it did seem odd. Must be new...
446
« on: January 15, 2024, 11:58 »
The fact that she went from making about $100/month before uploading AI images to $1,000/month in 6 months is mind blowing. Will she make $10,000/month another 6 months later? Very unlikely. But I think she can reach $3,000/month in a year or two if she keeps adding quality AI images like she's been doing. This kind of stuff never happened. It's the only positive I've seen in the last 5 years in microstock industry for contributors.
https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=Zj8ag7628oTYYE8w
True, there are probably more santa claus images doing better than hers. My point was - for "santa claus" (while of course not every image is a santa claus), of the 425,000 results - basically you'd need to be in the top 10 or top 20 to see any 'significant' financial results. Not sure why "her" santa claus was chosen over 425,000 other santa clauses (if I knew that, I could consistently produce a lot of different images that do well) - but I'd say it is a combination of luck, timing, happening to stumble upon the right keywords/etc... in other words - not necessariliy easy to duplicate. (I made some santa claus images that I thought were quite good, and for the 3-4 hours involved in coming up with concepts, making them, titling, keywording, upscaling, editing, cropping, fixing, categorizing, submitting, - I think I made... let me check... looks like about $5 (about $1/hour)... Of course, $5 is better than nothing, and of course there is the possibility for future residual income - so I am of course grateful for that... but... there are certainly a lot of santa clauses... Plus - when she (and not just her) makes videos of "OMFG! look how I made SOOOO much money doing VERY little work, like and subscribe my video channel so I can make MORE money!!!" - it gets lazy people coming out of the woodwork to try and get rich quick... If things stayed the same - then yes, maybe she'd get to $3k/month... I highly doubt it though - because quite possibly there will be 10x the contributors a year from now "inspired" by her get rich quick videos, + also competing platforms/sites/tech/etc... It's "possible", but not sure if it is likely... But again, go for it if you wish. I find it interesting, just saying it may not necessarily be 'easy' or the 'get rich quick' path you are looking for. Certainly is possible though, obviously other people have done it.
447
« on: January 15, 2024, 11:52 »
So, I re-uploaded the rejected AI photos using 2x upscale on Midjourney instead of using Gigapixel AI 4x upscale. 7 photos are accepted. 17 rejection. Now I wonder the rejections were because of physical deformity of people images this time. I'll try 4x upscale on Midjourney the next time. But meanwhile, Gigapixel 4x upscaled photos are still accepted.
Not properly cropping some of the images is actually part of the problem of people trying to "get rich quick"... so yes, I'd say in your case that was probably it. Seems they may have had a legitimate 'quality issue' rejection reason...
448
« on: January 15, 2024, 11:49 »
@
I wouldn't bet on it in the long term.
Nvidia is a heavyweight cooperation partner that brings a lot of technical and theoretical know-how in the software/hardware industry and model development of AI.
NVIDIA Picasso for example seems also to generate 3D models and has a web integration of user applications like photoshop, etc.
https://www.nvidia.com/de-de/gpu-cloud/picasso/
If they manage to generate the 3D objects photorealistically, I see even more potential here, because you can generate entire scenes in which you can adjust every detail as desired (think of product visualizations, for example, in which you can rotate the objects or move the light source as desired).
//Edit:
It is interesting to note that Cuebric has been developed with Nvidia for products for film production.
Looks extremely promising there.
https://cuebric.com/disguise
Interesting, thanks. One phrase though I find quite overused is how "everyone" seems to be saying their video/tool/item/etc is a "game-changer". Ugh, no it's not. It's annoying using that so much. But anyways, cool tool, thanks.
449
« on: January 14, 2024, 12:17 »
Personally - I think there are just a lot more people trying to "get rich quick" from "ai", and so with 100x the submissions, they are just randomly rejecting stuff. I don't think they will admit that - but I suspect that is probably the case.
450
« on: January 14, 2024, 12:09 »
My friend, instead of crying and whining about AI images, you better take advantage of this golden opportunity. Check out this video of an Adobe Stock contributor who had enormous success with her AI images on Adobe Stock.
https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=LVr2tzPTpJ5LiXwX
You never get the same exact image from the same exact AI prompt. Also, you have a record of prompting your own AI images. So, your concern is invalid. Don't worry about it!!! There's no crying in microstock business!!
Thanks for the video, quickly skipped through it. I do agree there are people making $$, but to me - in some ways it is like winning a lottery ticket. She had a very seasonal picture first of all (the santa claus), doing a quick search for the gen ai - there are about 425,000 images for santa claus. For whatever reason - "her" santa claus got picked/promoted, and 424,999 other santa clauses did not. Why, I'm not sure (lol otherwise I'd make sure ALL of my images were 'picked' like that )... And as more and more of this "look how I made $1k while watchint t.v. and now I can retire in a vacation villa!" videos come about - more and more other people want to "get rich quick" which floods the market with images like that... Not saying you "can't" make $$ from it - but... it is very competitive, and does require a bit of luck, timing, desirable assets, etc, etc... I'm not sure if I would call this a "business model", but I'm not sure if the long term results would be there... While I did get in to stock photography/videography later - people that got into it in 2003/2004 said they would have a "single" picture that made them $1k for a "single" sale... The marketplace has changed significantly - such that people are now chasing $0.25 images... For me, of course I am interested in earning $$$ from it, but I also find it kind of fun/interesting... I was surprised she also openly said she made a "2nd account" for her, "er, in her husbands name", but then continued to refer to it as her 2nd account... while I know people do that - I was just surprised she was pretty open about that in a public video...
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
