|
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 - spike
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26
51
« on: August 25, 2023, 17:03 »
It seems Adobe has a lot more cleanup to do. This thread shows it so well, and it's just what a couple of nice people from this board have found. I can only imagine how the rest of the assets look like :/
52
« on: August 25, 2023, 17:00 »
If I create and upload AI images, I would create a separate account with separate paypal account so that my entire portfolio with many years of hard work won't be deleted in the worst case scenario. This is scary uploading AI images. You may not be aware of the violation. I'm not really sure, but I think I read that it is against Adobe's policy to run a 2nd account on AdobeStock as the same person.
But maybe I'm wrong here...
What remains to be seen is whether Adobe is in any way "willing to negotiate" on my account.
I know of at least one person who has 5 adobe stock accounts. How do I know? They were dumb enough to make a video about it themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqdns9CN80(author of the video: if you ever see this, don't bother taking it down, I already downloaded the video as proof) Is there an email address we can write to to report such behavior?
53
« on: August 23, 2023, 10:21 »
Maybe there should be a popup when a contributor logs in where they have to acknowledge these rules/guidelines and then if they still violate guidelines, just ban them after a few transgressions. I just noticed this new popup today, thanks Mat and Adobe for listening and incorporating this I still hope the reviewers got the memo as well, since I believe that a bunch of poeople who submit AI-generated stuff don't actually care about this popup - they just want easy money, and if you block them, they'll make another account. The reviewers should be the barrier. And upload limits, maybe even stricter.
54
« on: August 21, 2023, 07:56 »
I don't know who or where reviewing is happening, but the results would be funny if it wasn't undermining stock images as a useful resource
Well I can tell you for sure that the reviewers are not US-based How do I know? I'm checking the # of images in the database on an increased frequency, and there's a drop in the "images reviewed per hour" metric during the weekend (for obvious reasons), which disappeared overnight. When it was between midnight and 8am in the US, the images reviewed per hour picked up to normal weekday speed. So it's either Europe or the countries I mentioned. Due to the costs associated with this and the ease of offshoring, I bet on the latter.
56
« on: August 20, 2023, 10:26 »
Hi everyone,
We want to remind you that any generative AI assets submitted to Adobe Stock must adhere to the Generative AI Guidelines. Violations to these guidelines lead to content rejections or account termination. I hope a similar reminder went out to reviewers. Too many assets that fail Adobe's own guidelines somehow pass inspection, and this is not solely the contributors fault. Maybe there should be a popup when a contributor logs in where they have to acknowledge these rules/guidelines and then if they still violate guidelines, just ban them after a few transgressions. Here's a few examples for the search "wes anderson" in genAI: https://stock.adobe.com/images/surreal-girl-sits-on-sofa-among-bright-pumpkins-halloween-of-bright-colors-in-the-style-of-wes-anderson-films-festive-background-in-cinematic-style-generative-ai-content/605807641?prev_url=detailhttps://stock.adobe.com/images/blonde-elegance-amidst-floral-splendor-wes-anderson-inspired-photography-with-a-touch-of-fanciful-dreaminess-generative-ai/603435603?prev_url=detail https://stock.adobe.com/images/beautiful-vintage-interior-in-pastel-colors-having-a-strong-wes-anderson-aesthetic-high-end-materials-beautiful-textures-and-lighting-generative-ai/575738076?prev_url=detailAnsel Adams: https://stock.adobe.com/images/nature-s-symphony-ansel-adams-style-landscape-photography-ai-generated/616912725?prev_url=detailhttps://stock.adobe.com/images/monochrome-mountain-scenery-reminiscent-of-ansel-adams-generative-ai/597227285?prev_url=detailetc. There's also a huge issue of a bunch of genAI stuff with weird faces, deformed hands and objects appearing out of thin air. Many assets are also just upscaled from Midjourney's 1024*1024, making them plastic looking and deficient in detail, especially for people. IMO these should not pass inspection as well, if they are submitted as photos. There are other ways of upscaling which generate detail (not Topaz or stuff like that) which are time and processing-power intensive, but spammers just download the 1mp image from Midjourney, upsize it on bigjpg and call it a day. Until Adobe puts a stop on this kind of spam, the producers actually making high quality imagery willl get buried because for every 1 genAI asset they make, spammers can just overwhelm the database with hundreds of their own, which look superficially similar as a thumbnail, but are nowhere near the same level of quality in full size 1:1.
57
« on: August 18, 2023, 13:47 »
Looking at today's new images in Adobe Stock's genAI collection is just depressing - it's littered with "oops" images - extra hand, objects malformed or missing bits or floating. Then there are multi-level wind turbines (which I predict will never be a thing, at least as pictured)
I'll call this the "We don't give a $h1t" collection
Adobe obviously outsourced the bulk of their reviewing to India, Pakistan, Vietnam and the surrounding countries.
58
« on: August 18, 2023, 13:44 »
Post on reddit, spread the word. Samsung is a scummy company with misleading marketing.
59
« on: August 16, 2023, 15:53 »
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...
I would say it doesn't matter if it's low interest from buyers or oversaturation of images. How would that change anything actionable? As for quality - I think it's fair assume that the quality of the contributor's assets is equal across topics. If they're good at nature photography, they're also probably good at other types. It's an assumption, but I'd be ok with it, as talent usually affects multiple clusters. Remember the "nerds" from school, they rarely did well in just one subject, they got As in almost all subjects. I'd say it's similar with contributors.
60
« on: August 16, 2023, 11:06 »
Thank you for your feedback. I updated the blogpost with portfolio composition information and indeed, it helps a lot!
P.S. I saw your original message and I don't know why this blogpost made you so allienated.
Appreciate the update. I still feel it could be improved by including the assets from Shutterstock portfolio that had not sold even once. The blog post says "On Shutterstock Steve has a bit more than 10,000 images that were sold at least once out of 15,000 total." - in other words, that means one third of the portfolio never sold! It would be interesting to see which categories are the worst sellers. Furthermore, after adding in the asset #, it would be useful to know the ratio between the earnings and the # of assets. Then it's more clear that transportation-themed photos overperform parks/nature. I apologize for the harsh words in the original message. It was due to my perception of analysis quality and has nothing to do with you personally.
61
« on: August 16, 2023, 10:36 »
Usable or not, contributors were told that when Firefly was out of beta there would be a compensation model for us - I haven't heard anything from Adobe Stock about compensation for data training
Yet people are still using it for commercial purposes. Nice to see that the contributors don't care.
62
« on: August 15, 2023, 16:12 »
Spike, I agree that the distribution of images would be a big help, but theres no need to be quite that forceful about it. We all tend to get super defensive if someone comes down on us.
You're right. I've made it more polite.
63
« on: August 15, 2023, 15:22 »
To be honest, I think there might be some room for improvement in this area. Im not sure if Im understanding the distribution of images in Steves portfolio correctly. If his portfolio is over 15k images, and 15% of earnings come from the transportation category, would it be possible to share what percentage of images from his portfolio are transportation-themed? It matters if it's 90% of his images are transportation-based and account for 15% of his earnings, or if 5% of his images are transportation-based and account for 15% of his earnings. That would help us understand the situation better. Without knowing the number of assets per category in his portfolio, its difficult to draw any conclusions.
64
« on: August 13, 2023, 11:27 »
He uploaded a lot more files, didnt he? 2000? I have 630.
Plus a lot of my content is seasonal, for christmas and now starting with easter, so the sales will come later. But for a good harvest you have to upload at least 6 months in advance.
And with the Adobe delay, maybe 9 months early. Henceeaster now, not October.
Everyone who is using midjourney doesnt have my cost basis.
I am not recommending to do it my way.
But I am not planning to use midjourney and I will not upload too many files in one go.
I am building my port very slowly with intention.
But for sales it is exactly like I said. Upload needed content, you get sales.
Upload stuff just for fun, no sales.
Dont worry, I will get my money back.
eta
unless you pay for the private room everything on midjourney is public. And we have an army of aggressive copycats on our heels.
and with ai files you will not be able to file a dmca takedown complaint. copycats are free to upload the exact same image, or with subtle variation without any consequences.
Everyone has to make their own decisions how to deal with that.
I have several thousand files good enough for processing and uploading. But I never upload a complete series in one go.
Not with photos or video or ai.
I would rather have a small port that is efficient.
But that is a personal choice.
If I'm looking at the correct portfolio, you have a lot of fantastical landscapes, steampunk, watercolor genAI stuff etc. I get it, you're targeting a niche, but it may not be the most cost-effective use of your time. I'm using SDXL on ComfyUI (previously SD 1.5 with various models), and spent $0 on producing any genAI images. Just electricity costs (25c per day) and some time to render them (I queue them overnight and wake up to 200 4k images to go through and select the best). I have a lot of experience in automating workflows and finally found what works for me, so I'm experimenting with this. It's working well so far and I will continue. Like with everything in life - the harder it is to make, the more value it has. Everyone can create images with midjourney. They all look the same and discord seems harder to automate. I haven't tried, so that's an assumption. Anyway, I would recommend to everyone to start producing genAI images that others can't easily replicate with midjourney. The more technical knowledge is needed (custom LORAs, nodes, prompting techniques), less people will be able to create it. I'm not concerned with sharing this information because I know how hard it is to make content like that, and 0.1% of people have the technical know-how of to do it. So even if I wrote it down step-by-step, most people wouldn't do it. To cut it short - yes, great to have a niche, but it has to be difficult to recreate and there has to be ample demand for it.
65
« on: August 11, 2023, 17:57 »
Just two weeks after crossing the 13 million mark, the genAI collection is now over 14 million - 14,062,823
Yup, it seems that there's over 100k approved images that are AI-gen per day. That's.. a lot.
66
« on: July 20, 2023, 10:35 »
I found a great example of what I'm talking about. Check this out:https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cu7GlhAt0t3/a reel showing how the graphic was created (generative fill) https://shorturl.at/absuHThe product, on a shirt, for sale. So the guy publicly shows that he's using generative fill to create the graphic, and then sells it, despite adobe saying that's not allowed. And will Adobe react? Yeah, sure. Instead of figuring out who to contact and lobby, just petition adobe to remove generative fill beta until we have been compensated. This is theft.
67
« on: July 08, 2023, 21:17 »
Obviously I would appreciate if Adobe puts out a statement that we get paid for the beta phase. Could also be a lump sum for data licensing of the entire port etc
This completely backwards in the business sense. Essentially, you're hoping that Adobe pays you for the beta phase. And if they don't, what are you going to do? Nothing. It's a misstep on their part - we should have been compensated first, then then can do all their stuff with the generative fill in beta etc. Because, as it stands, people are using the product for commercial purposes, Adobe's legally clear, and we won't see a penny out of it. If that's ok with you, fine, but it's not ok for me.
68
« on: July 07, 2023, 22:21 »
Maybe Adobe could put out a statement that they are obviously tracking all data used during beta and will add compensation when everything goes live?
I don't know if I'm old and cynical, or if you're just an optimistic person. After over almost 15 years in the stock industry, I can say I sincerely doubt that we will be compensated for firefly usage during the "non-commercial" beta phase. I have a feeling that generative fill usage will be tracked in such a manner only after beta; creative cloud subscribers will likely get a certain number of "credits" to do a number of "free" generations, and all the other generations will be paid with extra credits. And we, the contributors, will get a percentage out of that. Any percentage of 0$ (which is how much they charge generative fill at this stage) is also 0. So we'll get nothing in all likelihood. Therefore, I still think it's in our best interest to petition Adobe to remove generative fill until compensation has been resolved.
69
« on: July 07, 2023, 13:41 »
I've come across multiple videos on youtube, instagram and tiktok of people using Photoshop's generative fill to create content and then make merch with that content and sell it. This is clearly against Adobe's guidelines for generative fill, which are outlined here: https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html4. No Commercial Use
While generative AI features are in beta, all generated output is for personal use only and cannot be used commercially. Yet, people are still doing it. I feel like Adobe has covered themselves - they clearly state what is permitted and what is not - so is it up to us, the contributors, to find all content that has been created with the help of generative fill, and then sue? That seems impossible. So people just use the firefly model, the model built on our high quality stock imagery, and we are not compensated for it. This is clearly unfair. My suggestion would be for Adobe to remove the generative fill from beta in Photoshop, since people are clearly misusing it, and there is no reasonable way to determine if someone has used generative fill or not. They can re-enable generative fill once we, the artists, are fairly compensated for training their underlying model, and commercial use can be allowed. This situation where Adobe is just like "yeah plz don't use for commercial use" but with no way to control for that, it's just not cutting it, to put it bluntly. I suggest to organize and petition Adobe to remove generative fill from Photoshop beta until we are compensated, since our work is exploited by others who are in breach of Adobe's guidelines for non-commercial use. There is no reasonable way for us, the contributors, to know if any piece of content has been created with the help of generative fill or not, so this is something that is in Adobe's domain.
70
« on: June 08, 2023, 22:33 »
These are 100% AI-generated. Stable diffusion + deforum, most likely.
71
« on: February 06, 2023, 10:11 »
Great that it's back, but I really dislike the new "active contributor" criteria - it was 2 assets per year for the longest time, and we weren't given ANY notice that there would be a change. So in 2022, I just uploaded the bare minimum - exactly 2 images.
My account has way over 6000 cumulative downloads per year, yet I don't qualify because I didn't upload more than 20 images.
And just this year I was planning to start uploading a lot of generative AI stuff, but now I don't have the tools to edit them properly. And I refuse to subscribe, deliberately, out of principle, as people who have way less downloads per year than me got the complimentary subscription just based on the fact they were more active. So that's a boo for Adobe in my book.
If we were informed during 2022 that 20 assets would be the new requirement, I would have uploaded 20. But by not informing us and then pulling this off, I'd rather pay a one-time fee for Affinity photo, or just learn to use GIMP.
72
« on: January 02, 2023, 12:54 »
I am trying to find how to fill out W9 form for Alamy. Cannot find it anywhere in the Account Settings. Is it because they are British agency and do not need it? Do they send 1099-MISC to US contributors?
I never got one from them. I just report the income as other income, along with the other few sites that don't send 1099.
Is this still up-to-date data? I can't find a way to get a W9 from Alamy so I'm wondering how to report that income.
73
« on: July 09, 2022, 18:36 »
...sorry, but authors do not nominate the files by themselves, Adobe does... we just approve or disapprove... My problem is I can't remove any files from this eligible free collection... Last year it was possible, now not!!! 
They tell us which files are eligible for us to nominate them. We nominate from that selection and then they approve our nominated files or not. "Eligible for free" only means that you may (or may not) nominate those files. If you don't nominate them, they remain "eligible", but they are not considered by Adobe.
74
« on: July 09, 2022, 12:53 »
Hi Mat!!!
Just a few comments:
1) I still haven't received a confirmation email for free collection nominees, although, in my portfolio, I see a huge number of files eligible for the free collection; Same. With the addition that I nominated the files, but so far none seem to be selected, in stark difference to the year before. Also no confirmation email. Hm.
75
« on: June 21, 2021, 09:52 »
it's not up to AS to do your taxes
Nobody said it's up to AS to do my taxes. But it is up to AS to inform the contributors if the licenses will be counted as US source income or not.
AS doesnt know your situation, so it's your duty, not theirs
Lol. No, it's their duty to tell me if a certain license is U.S. source income or not. That's not something that I can find out on my own.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
