|
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 - cascoly
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 170
451
« on: August 29, 2023, 14:17 »
...
Exactly. Another issue is that it seems like you cant uphold copyright for AI generated images. They are like poblic domain - at least untill further court rulings.
On this homepage you can see if your images are used to train the system:
https://haveibeentrained.com/
not true - that ruling was just result in an isolated case and has been misunderstood & misrepresented -- see https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/generative-ai-collection-of-links-and-important-articles-videos-court-cases/msg591118/#msg591118additionally, in the same notice that said AI works cannot be copyrighted, they qualified (and muddied) that notice with a statement saying "On the other hand, a work containing AI-generated material may be copyrightable where there is sufficient human authorship, such as when a human selects or arranges AI-generated material in a creative way or modifies material originally generated by AI technology. Ultimately, copyright protection will depend on whether the AIs contributions are the result of mechanical reproduction, or they reflect the authors own mental conception, the Copyright Office said. The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2023/03/can-works-created-with-ai-be-copyrighted-copyright-office-issues-formal-guidanceas an aside, the link for testing training images is useless for most of us as you can only check 1 image at a time!
452
« on: August 27, 2023, 13:29 »
...
I see an advantage if you are trying to do engineers working on an oil plattform, medical doctor performing open heart surgeryall kinds of things where it is difficult to get access to or to get releases.
....
awhile ago i asked for a surgeon doing brain surgery, while results showed diversity, one had a woman working on an isolated brain that looked more like a turkey and my request for Darwin writing in his garden ( for a blog post), it showed how industrious the man was - he could write on both pages w a pen in each hand
453
« on: August 24, 2023, 13:28 »
... I've always been that fish that swims upstream,and that will probably end up drowned!
..
most fish who swim upstream spawn, waste away & die - hope you're the exception
454
« on: August 23, 2023, 14:01 »
... If I told you in 2007 that we'd all be getting pennies on the dollar for stock photos and illustration I'd be booed out of the tribe as an outcast. If I told you in 2012 we'd be getting a few dollars for video I'd be the social outcast. Were you prepared?
wow! you're an oracle - your predictions only took 10-15 years to come true! (among other happenings, 2 major recession & a global pandemic)
455
« on: August 23, 2023, 13:57 »
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.
Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself. {emphasis added}
copyrigbt doesn't matter for contributors - if your submitted work is accepted AS agrees to pay you
copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors and so it starts. If an image is not copyrighted then there is no protection from any agency. There is already very little respect for any contributor with copyright and submitting content that is not protected will be contentious in the future. I said same about microstock circa 2007 and could see the result of where we are today. As mentioned, be prepared. And it won't be AS specific, it will be industry wide. We are at entry level.
just more agency bashing - AS has a contract with us to pay royalties. if they decide we don't own the copyright their only course would be to delete that image this is entirely separate from the question of whether there's copyright or not - one court case does not determine US law, much less international standards. read the original article to see how limited this case was - dont rely on posts that take it out of context In the current situation where most people upload to multiple platforms there is no way to monitor copyright infringement. This will increase tenfold with AI and the abuse will also increase tenfold.
...
what's your baseline? what are current levels copyright problems and abuse ? if you dont know that your prediction is meaningless. what is 10x 'a whole lot' ? i can make totally fact-free predictions too - i predict copyright problems and abuse will only increase moderately. i'd offer a bet if there was any way to actually discover reality.
456
« on: August 22, 2023, 15:49 »
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.
Now you know why AS is going full speed on this. You do the work and they can sell it and not pay you because it's not yours. Prepare yourself.
copyrigbt doesnt matter for contributors - if your submitted work is accepted AS agrees to pay you
457
« on: August 22, 2023, 15:48 »
I read that in the news today. Bummer, right? So, now I'm going to Instagram, search for the most successful mid-journey accounts there, and pick out the best parts for my own Insta account. This stuff belongs to everyone now.
a dangerous move - this decision didn't solve the main problem - it was one case & the artist for some reason declared it was completely autonomous
458
« on: August 20, 2023, 16:47 »
...
Very important:
-Do not submit any assets created with prompts in the style of other artists or referring to famous people or brands.
...
what about historical people with no reference image supplied? I recently created images of Charles Darwin writing in his garden for a blog post on creationist fallacies. the result was a reasonable portrait (although it showed the industrious Chuck writing on opposing pages with a pen in each hand) would this type of image qualify?
459
« on: August 20, 2023, 16:38 »
"A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/
Howell is the judge in the case.
"The question presented in the suit was whether a work generated solely by a computer falls under the protection of copyright law.
In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No, Howell wrote.
U.S. copyright law, she underscored, protects only works of human creation and is designed to adapt with the times. Theres been a consistent understanding that human creativity is at the core of copyrightability, even as that human creativity is channeled through new tools or into new media, the ruling stated.
While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a mental conception of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.
Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright, Howell wrote."
https://mashable.com/article/ai-art-copyright-debate
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/19/23838458/ai-generated-art-no-copyright-district-court
"Nobody really knows how things will shake out around US copyright law and artificial intelligence, but the court cases have been piling up. Sarah Silverman and two other authors filed suit against OpenAI and Meta earlier this year over their models data scraping practices, for instance, while another lawsuit by programmer and lawyer Matthew Butterick alleges that data scraping by Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI amounted to software piracy."
further muddies rather than clarifying the problem first, this is a different case than the general question of whether ai gen copyright is held by its creator. in this case the plaintiff specifically claimed there was no human involvement In 2018, he listed an AI system, the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was described as autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine. but then confused the issue further by claiming he owned the copyright since it was a work-for-hire (was the computer paid in megawatts?) interesting decision, but seems to be yet another decision by someone who doesn't understand the technology While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a mental conception of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.What if the AI is only the starting point and the artist does substantial work on the image? so the millions of cell phone pix shouldnt have copyrighted since all the user does is click a button with less decision making than a well-designed prompt? the judge then weakened h er case "The judge also explored the purpose of copyright law, which she said is to encourage human individuals to engage in creation. Copyrights and patents, she said, were conceived as forms of property that the government was established to protect, and it was understood that recognizing exclusive rights in that property would further the public good by incentivizing individuals to create and invent. since the use of ai as another tool with input & modification by the artist is a way to 'incentivize...' more from the article "in March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI arent copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human selected or arranged it in a sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship, so this becomes a subjective question of which images can be copyrighted. finally, the last paragraph is irrelevant to this decision as it concerns the entirely separate, important and serious, question of creating the dataset, not the creation of images from it. A separate issue will be how they can determine if an image was created by an AI? already AI illustrations can be difficult to separate from human creation, and the quality will only improve.
460
« on: August 19, 2023, 12:42 »
So, what SS is doing is misleading customers into thinking that if they sign up for a free trial on the annual subscription, they'll just be billed monthly. Instead, they're being forced to pay the entire year up front when the free trial ends.
Adobe use a similar tactic with the free trials of their editing software. Back in the old days, you could download a free Adobe trial for 30 days with no strings attached. Nice and simple. But then later on, they changed things and became very ruthless. Earlier this year, I downloaded a trial for Lightroom and Photoshop and the trial period was super short - about 15 days or less. Not only that but I would be billed after the trial ended (if I didn't cancel.) And I got the impression from their wording that I would be billed monthly which didn't sound too bad. Though some people advised me on another forum that that wasn't really the case. I would be billed for a whole year's worth after the end of the trial. I would not be happy about that at all.
I definitely cancelled when the trial ended but gosh, I was cutting it fine. I was editing images right until the very end. I cancelled just a few minutes before the cut off point. Frantically trying to go through the cancellation process as the clock was ticking. I may have avoided that massive bill by about a minute or so. I was so desperate to get that image editing done. Gosh, I'm glad that the internet didn't drop out or go super slow during this critical period.
likely AS changed their policy because too many people were using the free trial to get free use of the program with no intention of ever buying the product
461
« on: August 18, 2023, 13:49 »
How do 34 different ports (full of stolen images) have the same goddamn image of an elephant?
Professional negligence by SS.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/2279987071
I'll be called a conspiracy theorist, but I'll say this anyway: I don't believe this is professional negligence. It's, like I said, by design, most likely. Those images are what's known as SEO spam; SS might be allowing it because having so many images of that one elephant helps gain visibility in Google and Bing Images.
Another thing: the copycats could very well be SS itself hiring people to rip contributors off. Other platforms have been caught red-handed doing this type of thing. For example, Amazon invited designers to sell their original products on the platform. The next thing they knew, their products were ripped off and being resold for cheap by Amazon. As it turned out, Amazon was using in-house staff to rip these designs off and produce its own line of products.
Ditto, Etsy. Etsy invited all of these original designers to sell, then turned around and invited third party Chinese sellers to make rips of their products.
So, those "34 ports" could be managed by SS itself. Who knows?
I think that all creatives--be it artists, photogs and even writers--should try to restart a movement back to print and other analog forms of selling. Digital selling has become disastrous. There's no transparency at all as to how and why your work gets ripped off on a platform, and it seems as if there are no longer any protections.
ok - it is a conspiracy theory with much simpler explanations (cf Occam's Razor) - no evidence it's by design or that SS is using its own employees. piracy is definitely a problem but blaming SS eliminates any possibility of rational talk (however slim) as far as eliminating digital selling, that's a pipedream. you might as well ask for the internet to be replaced by the telegraph.
462
« on: August 18, 2023, 13:41 »
Scary. Was SS always like this? And will this happen to pond5?
Something very weird happened to all of these major Big Tech platforms during the pandemic. It's like they went mental or something. The Internet Archive started giving away books of copyrighted books and music. Amazon started selling counterfeit refurbished PCs. YouTube reversed the decision on conspiracy theories and fake news. Apple started throttling iPhones to force customers into upgrading, etc., etc. I don't know what on earth is going on.
not really recent, it's been happening fora long time apple has always been exploitive -; selling overpriced products that do not use standards, limiting what apps can be sold, etc amazon doesnt sell re-furbished computers - 3rd parties do & amazon eliminates them when exposed just more examples of laissez faire capitalism at work for you and me!
463
« on: August 18, 2023, 13:29 »
I've got an extra $3.53.
Hopefully it doesn't disappear as quickly as it arrived.
Will you be buying the drinks for us tonight?
I'll have a tap water please.
We used to order breakfast and a glass of water. The local diner that we liked, has started charging $1 for water with a meal. 
i'd find another diner
464
« on: August 17, 2023, 15:58 »
a few days ago hotmail my primary mail adress asked me to verify my id because I used another ip in a house I was staying in to log into my account... for the security reasons that it was me i was using the mail . they gave me to answer a question form .i signed with them 17 years ago so i dont remember much ,,and did the mistake not to have a sec code... but it was 17 years ago After I got my answer I was told that the information I provided was not convincing enough to verify my data and so they blocked the account.and they told me to fill the form again I filled out the questionnaire again, hoping to geti it back BUT if I don't get it back, how can I put a new mail adress to the stock sites that i was signed in in the first place like shutterstock ? Do I have to notify them through contact or can I do it from my account
after what happened i am not using HOTCRAP ever again 15 years and all gone in one min
were you still in the new location when they asked you to start over? failure of 2 step verification usually just prevents you from logging in, doesnt delete your account. if so, your acct would likely still work from your home and you could update your security questions there. any progress? the agencies most likely do not check your username to see if the email is valid every time you sign in, but rather just treat it as a string of charcters. the email becomes significant for payment, but agencies need to have a way for people to change that email as emails do change. so you can probably just log in as normal and change the assoc'd email used for payment.
465
« on: August 17, 2023, 15:51 »
...
I don't have pity with all the angry reviewers on Trustedpilot. It is very clear that most of these people just wanted the free images and didn't read any of the conditions, so thought they'd just get 10 free images because Shutterstock was such a generous agency that just likes to give away free images without any personal gain and didn't even read the part where they had to cancel the subscription at all. And once they found out the trial was automatically turned into a yearly sbscription as they had not canceled in time, they wanted out of the deal - and that's where the cancellation fee comes in place, because they agreed to a yearly comitment.
right - just another case of RYFM. too many just choose the cheapest option w/o understanding their commitment.
466
« on: August 17, 2023, 15:42 »
....
SVH, it's good to see that you've regained your old form in appropriate human social interaction - that must feel really good for you.
You may have forgotten - it can happen - that you have been kicked out of the forum already before for bad behavior
and have bullied and insulted other members here.
Such personal attacks against other forum members are completely unnecessary. That is not really an enrichment for the discussions and mood in the forum.
yes, some of the personal attacks are getting close to being ban-worthy thanks for trying to get this thread back on track
467
« on: August 16, 2023, 13:09 »
It would be interesting to see which categories are the worst sellers. It certainly would and it will be a topic of a future blogpost / research at some point. Stay tuned!
but is the category poor because it has low interest from buyers? or because it's oversaturated with images? or because of quality? etc...
468
« on: August 15, 2023, 16:59 »
You will not be able to believe any news backed up with videos, sound or photos anymore. Video, sound and photo evidence in courtcases will become useless
This isn't really a new issue. Similar sorts of image deception has been going on for a very long time now - especially with digital photography and software like Photoshop with image manipulation. Quite a few reputable newspapers and magazines have been guilty of using such software to lift certain elements from one image and add them on to another image to make a news story more dramatic or appealing. This is done with sports photography and I recall one example of natural disaster where a father holding a child on his shoulders was pasted on to a photo of a bush fire. National Geographic admitted to shifting the position of one of the pyramids in a photograph taken in Egypt. This sort of stuff has been going on for many years.
And discussions about the legitamacy of using photographs as evidence in court cases has been going on since at least the 1990s (with the advent of digital image manipulation.) Also, the internet has been filled with all sorts of heavily manipulated images for a very long time (blending fact and fiction.)
...
besides the fact that the Natl Geo pyramids case is FORTY years old, you're listing isolated incidents - the threat from AIM is orders of magnitude greater. Plus most of those earlier instances were quickly identified as hoaxes. w AI that won't be as easy.
469
« on: August 15, 2023, 16:56 »
Yep my income number has also been revised upwards, now roughly in line with the sales numbers.
It remains to be seen whether this was just an error, or whether we were being screwed and Canva reversed that decision in response to all the backlash.
assuming your conspiracy theory, you overestimate the influence of a handful of protests compared to the thousands of contributors
470
« on: August 14, 2023, 14:43 »
And only 1/5 of Adobe Stock photo sales. So, I decided to opt out of photo sales to see if my Adobe Stock photo sales will go up as much as I make on Shutterstock. If Adobe Stock photo sales doesn't change, I'll turn Shutterstock photo sales back on.
there's no reason to expect there's a link - users don't search for an artist on multiple sites. any artist's portfolio is a tiny portion of an agency's images. if your images aren't on SS, buyers will just use one of hundreds/thousands of similars. you're just denying yourself a source of income
471
« on: August 14, 2023, 14:39 »
LOL, yeah me too. Still down a lot on last year, but not the 40% anymore. Hope they will add more!
same here - now down about 10% which is within the variability over the last few years. likely late reporting of sales - Canva used to say reports would be issued on the 15th, so the earlier reporting (9-10th) likely misses late sales again no need for conspiracy theories about canva misbehavior - they're still usually my highest earner after SS
472
« on: August 14, 2023, 14:31 »
...
Yea, but what does it matter? Public, not public. I have still earned much more money with AI than you and only spent a fraction.
Will I need to be able to file a dmca takedown complaint? Why? Why should I care. I have zero personal attachment to these images, I spent zero effort on them (expect for the keywords, which is the one part that is not public on Midjourney) and I hardly spent any money on them. A fraction of a cent per image a best. I really do not care. Unlike with my real actual photos, where I spend countless of hours of work and also money on. That's where I care. That's where I do not want my work to be stolen (which AI has basically done!!!!). I did not create these AI images! An AI did! I don't even feel like they should belong to me.
Microstock is about earning money. And if, at the bottom line, no matter whether "you will get back your money" or "images are public" or whatever else argument you try to bring forth, someone else is earning much more money than you, it all does not matter - The method of the person who earns more money is better than yours.
The ratio of how much you have spent on AI and what little you have earned back is insane! And you constantly use your own experience to explain how AI will not make real photographers pointless, how it will not bring down the microstock business and how not everyone can do it. How it was hard and took effort and money. When all of this is simply not true. Your method is simply not efficient.
You do not understand how EASY and CHEAP and FAST everyone could now make money with AI images.
Because you have not figured out for yourself how it works yet.
And once everyone finally figures it out no one will be able to earn any decent money anymore, because the pie is not big enough. Expect the companys who bulit the AIs. The only ones who will in the long run profit from this.
exactly - why spend time whinging about declining sales & following futile pathways when you could be making money with AI gen. i have an enormous backlog of images from my travels but mostly low priority. instead i'm working improve my AI images rather than submitting images that are already over-represented
473
« on: August 13, 2023, 14:45 »
This cannot be a coincidence, they probably massively diluted our share by paying everyone royalties from the same dwindling pool, a 40% drop across the board is not a normal summer dip. They should really become more transparent in their payouts because this makes no sense.
OR, their sales this month dropped substantially - no need for conspiracy theories. as for the price per download, that's been miniscule compared to monthly payout, but has been steady for many months. even with 40% dip, that still is 20x the download income.
474
« on: August 12, 2023, 13:06 »
down 40% also. about 3% of my images have been deleted, so unlikely that's the cause of the sudden drop - more likely the total amt for distribution dropped. and canva income continues to be greater than AS in most months
recently submissions tho have been getting many fewer accepted even tho content & quality havent changed
475
« on: August 10, 2023, 14:21 »
Thanks Jo Ann,
i was aware of their generator but hadn't realised that the generated images would be available for sale. I thought that a customer could generate an image and use it, not made available for everyone to buy.
I asked SS support (why did i bother?) if i could submit images made w their generator and they said definitely no
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 170
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
