Quote from: gnirtS on June 08, 2023, 05:13

Quote from: Josephine on June 07, 2023, 20:11
Contributors from EU countries are pissed off because they get their payment in US Dollar. They loose about 10 Percent of their income. Holy crap.

Whilst forcing payment for Adobe products in local currency.

That's the part that really irritates.

That isn't just Adobe. Camera equipment too.

They just change the currency icon and leave the numbers.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 01, 2023, 13:36

Quote from: Lowls on June 01, 2023, 09:46
...and they have for some reason left 0.01 cent in there 🤔 wierd. ....

I think this is a result of royalty amounts including fractions of a cent.

As an example, if your balance shows as $52.31 you may actually have a balance of $52.3144. You request payment, and as they can't pay you the fractions of a cent, you receive $52.31 and the remaining balance is shown as $0.01.

If there's any fraction of a cent left, your balance shows as one cent (I know rounding rules would operate differently). I've seen that in the past too.

If you want to know the real story you could write to contributor support

Thank you for that explanation Jo makes perfect sense. Thanks also Matt for confirming.

Very poor. Reached payout which has been allocated and they have for some reason left 0.01 cent in there 🤔 wierd. And looking through port pic positions there is the same old photo  sitting at page 1 ... position 19 I assume due to new content but it will spend ages in the No.1 spot page 1. It has done for over a year. Never sold lol. I wonder how it stays there never selling. And yet similar photos of mine have sold and aren't on page 1. Very very strange. So I'll sit and watch my 0.01 and wonder ....

And then of course we have this ....

https://youtu.be/ll49tu5cEIc

DragGAN

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 21, 2023, 19:01
Lowls,
What prevented anyone before AI from writing their own ideas in one style or another?  In fact, all artists start by absorbing styles from other artists that they like and influence them to write. Isn't that the normal learning process for humans?

Taking the example of music. How many bands exist and still exists with a Beatles-style sound all over the world? I would say hundreds if not thousands.I remember the first time I heard the band Oasis and I felt a kind of revival of the Beatles sound. Naturally there were particularities such as themes, some writing and type of voice but in essence it reminds me a lot of the Beatles.
Guitarist Van Halen developed the unique style of "Fingertap" on the guitar. Among others Steve Vai or Joe Satriani use this style in their music/songs. If we are going to talk about good BB King then practically most guitarists use the famous "bending" style which makes the guitar seem to cry especially in Blues, Rock or variants...

Jumping to graffiti how many artists "imitate" banksy?
Despite the Stencil technique, the Grunge style of drawing, and the Transformism of images such as the Clown Ronald Macdonalds and Mickey Mouse holding hands with the Napalm Girl are not his, the originality in the portrait subject marks his authorship.

If you look at Andy Warhol's work well then he took pictures that weren't of him and painted over them (i.e. Marilyn Monroe) Warhol created this masterpiece which consists of 50 images of Marilyn using the same publicity photograph from the film titled Niagara.

So nothing stopped any of them from absorbing and learning styles and bringing originality to our world, right?
AI will not kill creativity. In fact, it will do the opposite. It allow you to explore and develop many more styles or combinations of styles than any artist could do in his lifetime. This is where originality and a sense of art are born. So AI can help you to perform a better drawing, painting, writing or re-write your work. Also can bring new things to your creative table that you may include or not. It's really up to you. If you are having trouble in understand if AI can substitute the artist it can not. AI is only an excellent performer. Do not forget who write the prompt.

On the other hand of course you can use AI to just copycat but we don't need AI for that we've been living with this problem for decades and normally they don't go so far without being noticed.

I will not extend my post any longer since i find you were more interest in AI for Artistic vision which is a small water drop in the AI ocean. AI will assist you in everything you do - literally everything! You cannot use fake data/metadata for research. The first augmented reality device was invented in 1835. It was a telescopic sight for firearms. You cannot use false data to calibrate the aim because the probability of missing the target is high. The more likely thing would be to miss and hit something else or someone's foot. So the redundancy, entropy and risk is too high but you can run simulations based on real data/metadata to help you with accuracy for some diagnosis.

Thank you for taking the time to respond firstly. I will say that although on the face of it your post is obvious and many would agree but I believe it is shallow in the reality.

Firstly you cannot count music. Music is extremely limited ro scales, chords and melodies. This is very finite which is why Ed Sheeran keeps finding himself in court as do many others. Only tempo and lyrics can have enough variety as to emote different music and then after that comes melody. But it's limited.

Artists that exist and are recognisable do get copied but they are also chased. Not just the usual aspects but patterns etc. BUT and this was my point. Banksy isn't having his artwork yoinked for free is he. We are.

and you are incorrect about it killing creativity. It will. I'll give you an example. Mobile phone cameras. Now everyone is an artist, content creator etc etc. Whilst this hasn't killed it at all it has expanded it massively ... which killed the money which has killed motivation which will kill creativity because why bother for peanuts. The only way to win is to be creative in areas that it cannot yet.

Why get a massive student debt to become a designer of anything. A writer. And that brings me to writing because I don't write anything influenced by anyone. I've never had that issue. I remember going to college and the first week was learning about the American system of plagiarism lol. Because and I quote "no thought is original" so I must research to find where my thoughts have been used before so that I can credit the original authors lol. Utter boll@x. Regarding research of course. Theories on research certainly. But on a fkin story about my experiences in the world lol. Er no. My words are my own from my own experiences and you know that because it has my name on it. Just vecause someone else had the same thought perhaps in a slightly different way ... Good for them that makes two of us. But with A.I. it's got no rules at all. Yet. But they can already see the dollar signs.

Finally the only thing in your post that I found offensive was Oasis had a Beatles vibe. Oasis ... jesus... I don't think we could accuse them of making unique music. Or music. Stereophonics or Crowded House = music. Loic Nottet = masterpieces 🙌

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 21, 2023, 02:29

Quote from: oooo on May 20, 2023, 22:26
in short, as soon as "this thing" is trained one will get 0,00000000...
same like it was with enough images video etc

Ps: may i ask what you define with good money and do you know
    how often and how many images are used and where the outlet goes?

Don't get me wrong but i think your perspective is limited to the perception of Knowledge you have about AI.

Real authentic images/video have real data/metadata which can produce augmented reality and new perception about things that humans alone cannot do or have. Generative AI Images have "fake" simulated data and are limited to just that - artistic visions about reality.

I.E. If you are training AI for safe driving i bet you won't want "fake" metadata from AI images because it will corrupt the learn of AI itself. In this case the learning curve of AI will be something called "false positive learning" or "false negative learning" depending on the measures of safe drive attributes established primarily.

However, the actual value of each Real image will be less as there is more and more about the subject portrayed in the image. As it becomes increasingly easier to produce generative AI images and their volume increases exponentially, the values of real images will be greater than those of AI images because they got real data and metadata about reality.

The good news is that the research and development industry is far superior to the Hollywood industry. To give you a clue European Commission Spends Trillions in research and only some hundred millions in programmes for Media. In this sense one of the paths for Microstock contributors will not be so much an artistic vision of reality, but rather a perspective of reality like documentary/news and that serves or has potential to be used for AI learning.

I'm not psychic but I think that in the near future AI images are here to stay but Real Images will not disappear - only part will be substituted.

In short: adapt your work/portfolio for this new reality.

You say that but as has already been shown across various media outlets one of the legal cases centres around a simple request ... write a chapter of a novel in the style that I would write it. And it did. Worryingly well and in the vlog the writer said I found it hard to tell it wasn't me. Similarly a photographer asked it to create a photo of something in his style. And it did. Even at this stage. So as a buyer I can ask it ro create a photo in the style of an artist that is popular and it will. I can then attach that to as many tshirts as I wish. Nothing stopping me. I can piggy back off that person's success. Because their work is popular but they didn't make it . Like Banksy. Now he's a singular example but I could be more subtle. Please don't ask me ro believe if I am specific about my requirements that the A.I. isn't going to dip into his data sets and pluck out all images of a girl with a red balloon and generically create something because I won't believe you. Its going to use barely two images because it's also been trained to be fast and accurate. What's more accurate and fast than a direct copyslightly adjusted to swerve copywrite claims.

You say that the meta data will be hallmark of quality and that its that that will keep true work afloat. I'd call cobblers on that too. If it can fake a style it will fake metadata. Maybe for a photo of a Banksy. But Olivier Crapston ... housewife and part time photographer isn't ever going to have a chance.

Which brings me to your final point. I'd already worked out the area it will fall down on is media events, social gatherings and current affairs generically .... protest outside Walmart etc. Pride event etc. But it's awful arrogant of anyone to say change your area of photography and suceed or don't snd fall by the wayside.

It will not only kill the artistic world it will kill creativity full stop. Pushing all people into narrow cracks it can't cope with or is prevented to by legislation.

As an aside I wouldn't be rushing to buy and collect save NFTs any time soon they'll be worth dirt.

Quote from: Roscoe on May 19, 2023, 21:42

Quote from: Lowls on May 19, 2023, 17:13
... And so it begins ... Adobe this means you.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urged lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence during a Senate panel hearing Tuesday, describing the technology's current boom as a potential "printing press moment" but one that required safeguards.

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

Quickly followed by agreement and expression of laws in the making to do just that.

He's obviously right, but that's a weird thing of him to say. Right? He used people's data to train his ChatGPT.
It's already there, and it sounds like he want's to prevent competitors from getting access to the amount of data he had.
Or is he gonna shut down ChatGPT and start all over again the "moral" way?

I know right. So I couldn't listen any more because flashbacks to Zuckerbergs BS. I say that because he stated paraphrasing "I think that governmnent needs to make laws to protect creativity and jobs and people's livelihoods when this grows and we have to decide what do we do with our time" but then his sickening smile as he said "but I am here ro ask for that support and to work with tye governmnet to do this the right way but I also have huge belief in the ability of humans to find new uses for ... blah nlah blah"

So I think he has realised he can't get the s#it back in the horse. And he isn't as arrogant or as well protected as Zuckerberg and he knows that when the hammer falls its gonna fall on him. So he's come running to get in with the in crowd early doors. It's totally too late. He I am sure knows its way too late but I think he is banking on the government not knowing its as late as it is. If he can hand the government the reigns its their sh£tshow and he's just an advisor when it becomes apprent just how damaging this will be.

Drug companies bust as that thing examines every bit of data and works our the best chemical composition for everything.

Defence agencies bust as it examines all data and designs open source hyperersonic jets for the rich. 

Secrets exposed as it crawls every chat, email, document, stocks movements and utterance by anyone on any platform and joins the dots. A secret plane design shown on a patch of ground in White sands which gives the US superior air power propaganda. It matches the landscape up as a field in Texas belonging to a visual effects artist lol. Accountants out of work. Lawyers out of work because it wrote your whole defence for you while you ate a pop tart.

This guy is a walking dead man. Of course he wants to help the government.

... And so it begins ... Adobe this means you.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urged lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence during a Senate panel hearing Tuesday, describing the technology's current boom as a potential "printing press moment" but one that required safeguards.

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

Quickly followed by agreement and expression of laws in the making to do just that.

Quote from: cascoly on May 11, 2023, 15:52

Quote from: Digital on May 08, 2023, 13:33...;. However, to have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of the popular engines like Dall-e and Midjourney, you'd have to analyze the code they're running. They could as well be taking bits and pieces from multiple images, and mangling them together. This would make the output so obfuscated, that you'd never be able to tell what source images were used.

On top of that, anyone could create a collage of other peoples images, then upload it on a stock agency claiming that it was created by AI.

no need to know their algorithms - as has been shown MANY times here, no images are used in creation of new images - the training set collects information about the image - no pixels from the original images are saved, so there is no question of copyright in generation of new images and the results are new images automatically covered by copyright under US law

the point in contention by some is whether scraping the web is a copyright violation

This information is false. They specifically refused to cover A.I. generated images because in order to benefit from copywrite the copywrite office stated it must have a human element in its creation. It stated that because A.I. generated images have no human element they cannot benefit from copywrite law SPECIFICALLY IN THE US.

Looks like the big fish has begun eating itself.

Take all its users content and use it to train an A.I. to make content that any buyer might want or need and getting progressively better with each iteration.

Contributers no longer required.

No new content.

A.I. not able to evolve without new and relevant content so produces homogenised results. The exact opposite of new, creative and relevant content.

Buyers drift away.

But even worse Buyers are out of business too because who needs them to find content for you when an A.I. can do that job too. And buy for who ... when an A.I. can do that job as well. And to sell to who because A.I. can create bots to pretend to be customers who don't buy ...

If that's the cause plus all the legal cases ongoing and coming then the writing is on the wall.

Whilst on the face of things this looks bad it has a positive and very negative prospect.

By joining with Vecteezy the customer base becomes larger. But why does a customer need another collection at knock down prices when they have A.I. which can create anything they want.

I think this is less about merging to become the biggest and more about merging to access bigger data sets for when A.I. is as seemless as CGI.

Stack it high and sell it cheap until you've drawn everyone in. Then turn off the taps and force everyone through to the A.I. suit on a subscription model.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 20, 2023, 19:33

Quote from: Mir on April 20, 2023, 13:28
But it says 'The companies asked a San Francisco federal court to dismiss the artists' proposed class action lawsuit'
Isn't the court supposed to decide whether to dismiss it or not.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-companies-ask-us-court-dismiss-artists-copyright-lawsuit-2023-04-19/

Yes. Motion to dismiss is pretty standard and it doesn't mean the judge will say they agree. My bold of the upcoming court date.

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendants
Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc., through their undersigned counsel, will, and hereby do, move
to dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint ("Compl." or "Complaint") pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6)."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.51.0.pdf

and of course this isn't one of the high profile cases. This is a collection of artists that have gone after them. This isn't Getty or future organisatios. They should avoid wriggling out of this because the hammer will fall on them. How hard depends on what they do now. Already numerous legal bodies are scrambling to nail this down and when they do ...

... further other areas of society have begun recoiling away from this tech. Writers, painters, even the legal profession and song writers and financial bodies. And now they are teaching Chatgpt to lie ... which will render it useless.

March 21st 2023

apparently we will be able to get paid they told the media and opt out ... if only they mentioned if/when/how ...

"Adobe Inc (ADBE.O) added artificial intelligence to some of its most popular software, including Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator, to speed the process of generating images and text effects, noting that creators whose work was used by the tools will be able to get paid."

"Nvidia trained the technology on images licensed from Getty Images, Shutterstock Inc (SSTK.N), and Adobe, and plans to pay royalties."

"Adobe's new AI-enhanced feature, called "Firefly," allows users to use words to describe the images, illustrations or videos that its software will create. Because the AI has been trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and older content where copyright has expired, the resulting creations are safe for commercial use, it said.

The company also is advocating for a universal "do not train" tag that would allow photographers to request that their content not be used to train models."

source https://www.reuters.com/technology/adobe-nvidia-ai-imagery-systems-aim-resolve-copyright-questions-2023-03-21/

Quote from: Mir on April 15, 2023, 23:32
I am not sure if this was already shared:
Class Action Filed Against Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DeviantArt
https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/
This is from January but I can't find any updates.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/generative-ai-heading-down-dangerous-164041633.html

although the words million dollar law suit have now been replaced with trillion dollar and billion dollar lawsuits in the various online articles regarding Getty and others. They have yet to respond to the law suit's.

11 sales at 0.33 cents this year with a mixture of custom and subscription usgeage stated. About a 50/50 split.

Other than that higher amounts per download.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 15, 2023, 15:32
A few years ago there was an outcry when Getty Images was charging for downloads (from the agency web site) of public domain images. Getty's claim was that they were entitled to charge for the convenience of having scanned and hosted these in a convenient way for their customers. In other words, the fact that Getty didn't own the copyright in an image wasn't significant in offering it for sale. I'd assume the same would apply to licensing or sale of AI-generated imagery where no one held copyright in it.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-photos-20160801-snap-story.html
https://will.illinois.edu/legalissuesinthenews/program/getty-images-and-fair-use
https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/

Thank you for that Jo that does indeed tally with what I assume. Whilst Getty acquired the library it didn't own the copywrite. As the article states

Whilst those that purchase use of the image from Getty it doesn't indemnify the purchaser from copywrite infringement and therefore Getty indemnified the purchaser themselves because the law couldn't. Hahahaha ... oh dear. Well this is an extremely ugly can of worms isn't it.

But also we have not handed over use free of charge in any way by way of donation to public use. So slightly different.

Quote from: ouatedeP on April 15, 2023, 12:00

Quote from: Lowls on April 15, 2023, 10:41

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 15, 2023, 09:57
So what are the conclusions? Stock agencies are not allowed to sell content to buyers on their own behalf?

No that's already happening I believe. I'm not a buyer so I don't know. But the conclusion is that if the A.I. generated product isn't copywritten and I believe it isnt, why do people need to pay for it. They could just take it. An A.I. can't bring a case against them. It is the creator. It's work according to the conclusion last year wasn't copywritten. So who can claim copywrite theft? Unless laws have changed since then it appears the work can just be taken.

it will be interesting, not sure we can conclude it can be taken.  Going to take property illegally, copyrighted or not, is still theft, either downloading without paying (breach of terms) or removing watermarks (intention to defraud).  I think the bigger issue is for buyers, if they use AI generated material they can copyright it, so this would be a big issue if they use it in trademark and copyright stuff

This is the point though isn't it. Watermarks can be removed because an AI created the work. Watermarks are for ownership protection. They don't own it 😲. They didn't pay for the rights to use data sets. They just took them. You cannot claim ownership of stolen goods.

If you steal pair of dogs and use them to mate. The pups don't belong to you, just because you I introduced them.

If you steal a red car and paint it green it still isn't yours.

If you steal a Monet from a gallery and use its detail to paint a fake and sell it for millions ... you don't get to keep your millions.

And at least technically these items produced are in theory covered because as per the law they have had human interaction.

A.I. cannot claim any of these traits.

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 15, 2023, 12:37
This means that artificial intelligence will not deprive us of work, because responsible buyers will simply not download this artificial content on stocks.

Well I think buyers will want a product that is protected by copywrite so that they can use it safely.

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 15, 2023, 09:57
So what are the conclusions? Stock agencies are not allowed to sell content to buyers on their own behalf?

No that's already happening I believe. I'm not a buyer so I don't know. But the conclusion is that if the A.I. generated product isn't copywritten and I believe it isnt, why do people need to pay for it. They could just take it. An A.I. can't bring a case against them. It is the creator. It's work according to the conclusion last year wasn't copywritten. So who can claim copywrite theft? Unless laws have changed since then it appears the work can just be taken.

Sky News today aired a story about gathering momentum from creative artists to call a halt to ilegal  A.I. data set usage because work is being plucked direct off their private commercial websites.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/ai-art-generators-face-backlash-from-artists-but-could-they-unlock-creative-potential-12857072

Someone should pay attention or its gonna be expensive down the line. The US copywrite office decided in 2022 that A.I. generated work wasn't eligible for copywrite and began defending a law suit against a company that filed a law suit claiming this decision was wrong. Never the less at present A.I. generated work isn't copywritten. So anyone who wants to use it can do so free of charge.

They were open to exploring a change in the law if humans were involved. For instance if an artist or photographer used A.I. to enhance work. But the problem exists on what percentage of A.I. involvement does the copywrite cease to apply. They state they will look at the situation this year. Which explains the gold rush to get it up and running.

The UK government are now looking at the illegal use of artists (creators) via data sets which they are aware have been used illegally after pressure from many trade bodies. And will be looking at changing the law. But they state that initially this change in law will possibly require voluntary registration. But the big boys will rush to join and those who dig their heals in will pay the price. Because that's how it always works no matter what it is.

So Adobe ... look faster at a compensation model.

A paper by researchgate in January 2022 examined the potential for legal action against companies that use copywritten work to train their A.I.

Using Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) to create images from data sets, which is how many A.I. generators work, they looked at the legal position regarding copywrite law, although newer methods exist such as CANs (Creative Adversarial Networks). The former would focus on the predominant features of a data set. If it was trained on animals it created animal like images even if clouds that contained animal like features were added. CANs were created to remove human input in the creation process but never the less using human data sets.

After examining copywrite law in this framework they state that Copywrite law may be triggered if the origin data was copywritten work. It varies from state to state but generally this fact is a given via reproduction laws. Even partial use is covered and requires the authorisation of the author/artist/creator ... this was never given. Implied authorisation by use of the site isn't enough because you have to be aware your images are being used for this purpose. 

Opinion - If the output of the A.I. isn't as yet copywritten then anything it creates is free to use and requires no payment.

If people are paying for those created images it proves that that they believe their purchase is protected by use laws. In this regard they believe their purchase is copywritten and safe.  And no doubt the Ts&Cs will assert as much therefore a company selling these pictures must be offering to protect the images because they are charging for them. This infers the sold A.I. output is coyywritten and protected by Adobe's legal framework.

If this is true they must have paid for the license to use copywritten work to create protected work which they sell. If they didn't they must give the A.I. generated work away for free. They can't claim fair use because they sell world wide and are also governed by TDM (Text and Data Mining) in Europe. Which excludes commercial gain.

You can make your own opinions but compensation now will be much cheaper than compensation later because now you pay for what you have used. Later you have to pay everyone because you won't be able to prove who's work you did or didn't use.

Researchgate source - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357685384_Protection_of_AI_generated_photographs_under_copyright_law_pre_print_version_09_01_2022

Edit: I've just seen a payment today from POND 5 for data set use of my work. SS have also paid for use of my work. As we can clearly see ... regardless of the laws in place at present ... stock agencies do not want to be the last one digging their heals in.

Quote from: cascoly on March 31, 2023, 19:31

Quote from: Lowls on March 31, 2023, 12:05
Derivative work is clearly what an AI is producing. in which case compensation isn't a nice thing to do it is a legal requirement. Adobe have not paid for any such license to use the work. They don't own the copywrite we do.
..

not so clear - it's been shown many times that the actual generative AI does not use any images directly but creates an entirely new image from the training set.   

whether anyone has the right to use images scraped from the web is a separate issue, more theoretical, since any payment to authors for the training would be  minuscule a tiny fraction of 100s of m
at the same time writers & journalists arent complaining about scraping for trillions image examined

dont  know why some artists continue to propagate misleading info especially since there's really no upside.
webscraping creates the dataset but the results of those GPT bots do not violate anyone's copyright, again because the AI generates completely  new text w/o using the training data

Well you are conflating two issues there.

firstly the data sets it uses are an unknown quantity so you and others are guessing. Assuming millions is a nonsense because it just doesnt need to. Not when it could use 5.It doesnt work like that. As others have stated and shown examples of that given a limited data set the image will be similar or because it isnt programmed to be innovative it will or rather cab directly duplicate it. I've seen many examples of A.I. generated images and they have created a clearly derived work. And another issue is that asking it to create a photo of a dog in a costume should generate a fairly generic photo. But users don't do that. They'll ask for a specific breed, in a specific costume in a specific environment which limits the data sets it can reference. Similarly ask it to create a dragonfly on some grasses and it will reference only a few images not all.
Your second example of text regarding ChatGBT4 producing unique text is not quite correct. This is new law in the making. plagiarism has a long standing legal framework but even though ChatGBt4 can create text with perimeters (write an essay about World War 2 as if I had written it) producing a worryingly me like essay. But again it has racesd ahead and is being abusesd but not so well publicised is that apps have been created to detect A.I. created text already. Because of the potential for plagiarism. Schools are trialing A.I. detection software as we speak using A.I. to find content produced by a.I.

It is a very new frontier across the spectrum of usage but shortly the law will catch up as it always does. And companies that played fast and loose will find themselves in a very uncomfortable position of compensation and fines. Which is why SS are getting ahead of the curve by at least making a show of being wholesome. Random payments for images used that they do not disclose and payments are extremely variable, which doesnt help with transparency but, they are acknowledging that compensation must be paid.

Adobe will have been aware of this and I suspect have already stated "we are working on a model of compensation" because the A.I. output isn't so far from its source material as they were led to believe it would be so are playing catch up with compensation. Just a theory of course.

Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 23:27

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 31, 2023, 23:03

Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 22:23

Because following this logic all works created by people are also "derivative" then because artist creates them after he got inspired by a mix of many kinds of "copyrighted" things he has seen before! Nothing ever is born in the vacuum.

Wrong.

It's a long-standing law principle that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something, while it differentiates all this from derivative work.

Obviously you are not a lawyer and you didn't do your homework.

This is hilarious how you seem to be stalking my every message to say it is wrong without reading it

Where did I say that copyright protects ideas?

Even that quoted by you sentence starts with words: following this logic (which is flawed as I described above)... etc. meaning that if it would be true it would be absurd, which is exactly what you have repeated after me but said that it is wrong

Sorry, I cannot even follow your reply, because you reply on something I wasn't even talking about

If I need to repeat especially for you in a simple sentence: AI doesn't create derivative work, same as artist doesn't create derivative work, because memorising, learning and being inspired by something to create something new is not same as copy-pasting.

What are you talking about I don't know

you are clearly delusional. Derivative Work is literally an accepted technique and has its own copywrite law. I won't embarrass you any more other than to state that if it was nonsense as you suggest SS wouldn't pay people for the use of their images in the learning sets because it is 'only storing' Our images as reference and yet SS is paying contributers. Getty wouldn't have a legal case going and yet they do. And Adobe wouldn't be exploring a compensation model and yet they are. Evidence and random ranter on a forum. I know what I believe ... but please ... continueninnyour delusion just do so quietly please.

Derivative Work Under Copyright Law

§ 106(2)). It is considered copyright infringement to make or sell derivative works without permission from the original owner, which is where licenses typically come into play.2 Jun 2017

Derivative work is clearly what an AI is producing. in which case compensation isn't a nice thing to do it is a legal requirement. Adobe have not paid for any such license to use the work. They don't own the copywrite we do.

Derivative work has its own copywrite. However who wons that. The A.I. or the A.I.s owner. And is it actually protected under copywrite because it is a Derivative work from copywritten material which wasn't paid for ...

Quote from: MatHayward on March 22, 2023, 19:35
To clarify, Kirsten is referencing the question from people who may not have received the actual email yesterday. As she stated, you must be opted in to receive marketing emails via adobe.com to receive this sort of information in real time.

You can be assured that any major announcements like the news about Firefly will be called out here in Microstock Group Forum too.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward

Getty images had their images pilfered to train an AI and they are in the process of mounting a significant legal action against the company that did so.

Shutterstock compensate it's contributers for images that have been used in the data sets to train their A.I. you are also not able to opt out.

Adobe is compensating their contributers how. I think that ignoring this question which has already been asked doesn't make for a good look. So what's the deal. This isn't light and fluffy ... awwww cummon guys ... this is business. You don't get free use. It is a requirement to be transparent regarding payment for use. what Matt.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 20, 2023, 18:02

Quote from: dragonblade on March 20, 2023, 12:53
I miss the global sales map. I guess that's a part of history now.

It's gone?

Oh no, it's still there and they added a +/- so you can zoom in? Still looks terrible and why do I want to zoom in on a useless Blue Dot? Scroll down.

https://submit.shutterstock.com/dashboard

It is there but you do not get a visual representation of what sold where unless you click on each dot. Which means trawling through them all and remembering what had already sold and where. The list of sales doesn't state where it sold any longer.

That's the experience on the mobile version.