I don't understand why people waste their time uploading to Dreamstime

Maybe they do understand

Recently, I came across many contributors which have used my work in generating similar AI-generated images.

Creating and maintaining original works takes time and with such AI tools creating replicas is super easy.
This is serious copyright infringement and the companies needs to look into this.

Companies should keep the original work and AI generate work as a separate two categories.

I feel sad to see this. 

You can be sure that these contributors are reading you on this forum... They like AI power sooo much...

Quote from: cobalt on October 30, 2024, 11:34

If your port is dropping on Adobe, please don�t automatically blame everything on ai competition.

I am not an amateur, but I am a professional.

So I have never had any problem with being copied, because my images have always been among the best (in my niches) and I have easily always put them at the top of searches.

Amateur images have not given me problems.

My earnings on Shutterstock are good (with SS I earn about x3 what I earn on Adobe Stock) and my images at the top of searches.

The same with Istock.

The problem is that SS and IS have lost many buyers and so instead of increasing my earnings, these remain the same.

And the buyers have all gone to Adobe Stock, where however I find competition from AI. My travel and landscape images have to fight against similar, but non-existent landscapes.

Low quality images (if viewed at full resolution), but which have extraordinary and unlikely colors and lights, which capture the eye of the buyers.

And so on AS I can't recover the earnings that SS and IS lose, but not because of my portfolio, but because companies are losing customers (see Shutterstock Q3 report with paid downloads sharply decreasing in the last year).

Hello Bauman, thank you for your interesting posts. You bring opinions with which I agree. Most people here are Pro-AI.

To the person you quoted (whose posts I ignore on this forum and I feel happy to be usually unable to read): AI images already represent one tier of total images at Adobe. OF COURSE it's unfair competition for non amateur contributors.

But amateur/snapshot contributors already had negative impact by diluting quality photos in the collection by submitting en masse.
I think Adobe's algorithm is may be reviewing the priority display of best sellers.
The problem at Adobe is that the new photos, even if they are exceptional, are not very visible and do rarely sell. This is not the case at SS and IS.

Yes, the artificial rendering of AI has the effect of attracting the eye with a programmed visual impact, without having the primary intention of reporting a true reality in a true moment. The photographer wants to extract stunning from the ordinary by his skill, AI transforms the stunning into ordinary, automatically. Maybe the eyes connected to an organic brain will get tired of it.

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on October 22, 2024, 03:13

What's the story? This forum has become a place for political propaganda? 
Is there an administrator somewhere?

1. Where did you see propaganda?
2. Why did you decide that economic and political topics cannot be discussed on this forum.
3. What country are you from?

1. Where did you see propaganda?
Better place here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=660ZCEhvbnw

2. Why did you decide that economic and political topics cannot be discussed on this forum.
YOU decide propaganda, I decide to come here for microstock subjects

3. What country are you from?
Humans are the same in ALL the countries they inhabit!
but differents by the soul that inhabits them.

I am Ukrainian, and cow tongue is a dish of Ukrainian cuisine. I treat cow tongue the same way as cow thigh (ass). The question is, what country are you from that you don't eat tongue? You just don't know how to cook it!
In fact, tongue meat is very tasty and tender. It is great for salads or for a sandwich.

You can also eat cow tails!  This dish is eaten in Colombia. I tried it, but I didn't like it very much. There is little meat on the tail, and I didn't like the taste very much.

And do you kill the cow yourself or do you have to have someone do it for you to serve you, because you would be incapable of it but you like to enjoy it passively?

Adobe already has all your existing assets so what's the point of a strike? You can't stop the AI train we're on. It's either adapt or quit microstock altogether.

Although I don't like the direction we're going in with AI taking over, I won't pull my portfolio from Adobe. Right now Adobe makes up 70% of my revenue because other agencies failed to keep up with the competition. Shutterstock and iStock screwed us over with royalty cuts, so what do we have left once we pull away from Adobe? Nothing. It's the sad reality. Take what you can while you can.

Noedelhap is a pro-AI who also wrote:

Using AI you're not stealing from anyone in particular or infringing copyright. The results AI systems produce are unique, but based on what it learned from other sources. Similar to what someone could create from memory whilst being inspired by something they've seen.

Look! sure this guy takes what he can while he can.
Noedelhap is such an honest guy, we must hear and follow his lessons!!!
This forum is the place for good and honest people. 

His work is left (and he did many illustrations of it), on the right, is the famous La Linea by Osvaldo Cavandoli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Linea_(TV_series)
AI creates steals the way he does, so... where is the problem for him this Garbagetist?...


No comment. 

These corporations thrive off of apathy when they exploit us. We are already underpaid. We should fight, no matter how impossible the odds.

This whole AI art is disgusting. It makes people think they cannot create anything good. I can see it a mile away. I like the flaws in my work. I like the flaws in others' work. It makes us uniquely human. I don't need AI to make art or write. I certainly don't want my work being used to "train" a monster.

Regarding software and microstock, I use it as a tool to manifest what I sketch on paper into scalable art (and music). Not for content creation.

I completely agree with you. AI is a despicable technological turning point, just that machines ingest human creation and regurgitate it in the form of digital vomit. But alas, this forum is almost exclusively frequented by AI fans, who suddenly feel like competent artists, whereas before... The opponents have left this forum for the most part, and I understand them well.

For my part, I have blocked the profiles that only express a permanent pro-AI logorrhea, because the discussion is futile.

The only effect of expressing a divergent opinion can only make one feel alone and powerless.

Otherwise, it is true that you are arriving late, because it seems to me that the games are almost over.

Here are some quotes from myself, from useless not so useful messages

But what a shame, it is the worst humiliation that competence, art and reality are so despised. They have no qualms about despising photographers because with AI, they feel they no longer need them.
And very soon, they will no longer need the prompting sheep either.
Apart from the technological revolution (or rather extermination) aspect, it is also the advent of a new human generation without much qualms, having misled certain values.
Many good, honest, professional and competent people have deserted this forum which has given great room to this new generation of prompters (sometimes former photographers without talent) who consider that experienced photographers are has-beens. Because today, to be competent, you don't need an eye, extraordinary patience, decades of practice, exceptional equipment... you just need a sofa and a keyboard. But this couch will be very soon the most radical ejection seat for them

For my part, after 20 years, I have never produced so much quality, and I persist, without AI of course.

After the incredible raid they carried out on their contributors (mediocre photographers can rest assured, they are not affected), the only law for them: greed and cupidity.
Now, they prefer to sell this:

https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&k=storm+landscape+sky+lightning&order=relevance&price%5B%24%5D=1&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=filter-select&acp=&aco=storm+landscape+sky+lightning&get_facets=1

The AI generation is the dream for incompetent, lazy people who don't even have respect for the word "artist", who were previously only capable of producing photographic craps. Even ignorant kids play to destroy this previous world by using these new technological toys without even having to leave their room, under the watchful eye of their parents who see them as little geniuses.
But soon, they will wake up from this dream of easy money and realize that they have been the tool of these technologies which will shamelessly eject them from the production chain.

edit: My joke of the day: Do you want hands with 5 fingers? well, write in your AI prompt to generate 4-fingered hands ... 

You talk about faith and you assume a conspiracy theory. Of course, most here use AI generation and have lost all objectivity. Many with divergent opinions have left this forum or no longer express themselves. 
What about facts and ethics?
I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning. Adobe forced me(us) by giving money, to infringe my(our) copyrights on MY(our) own images. It seems to me that no choice was offered to refuse this money. In this way, they can suggest a mutual understanding, in possible legal procedures, and claim to act ethically.
Do you consider this ethical, really?
'Firefly Contributor Bonus'... Firefly or Fireburn?
because Adobe paid us for the match and the gasoline that will be used to make us take off high... as Fireflies...

Talent accessible to all, without learning, without effort, immediately and without singularity.
The reward right away, but without all the steps that precede it. False satisfaction, because true satisfaction comes at the end of error and effort.
Skill is no longer necessary, everyone can. We advocate diversity but in the same time kill authenticity.
The reign of the artificial, without truth, without soul.
We even reprogram the values. And most humans with software from another time are silent, the ignorants express themselves so much everywhere.
But machines amalgamate and regurgitate, they do not and will never create anything (except the abyss into which humans collapse with joy). 

We share the same goal, earn a livelihood. And I revised my expectations significantly downwards.
Realize that you kill yourself your own future (and other's) using AI. See you in a near future with more complaints, since I've got ideas about what this leads to, since AI will be soon autonomic. Of course, one could argue that if you don't do it yourself, others will do (Only sheep expect others to act like sheep too) However, I remain convinced that I made the right choice not to provide ANY AI generated fake photo IMAGE (Because yes, they are not photographs, even though the platforms sell them as such).
 
My portfolios are in no way polluted by these images and they will perhaps be spared during the big clean-up (who will come in his time, whether by deleting certain contributor accounts or by the eviction of their images by algorithms, which will lead to the same), since for me, a photograph is a subject (often living), a real place, an existing moment, even the memory of an event, the transmission for the future, the reflection of the organic, a skill resulting from long training, a subtle and sensitive testimony, unsuspected creativity, a personal visual interpretation of reality, but also imperfection, accident, unpredictable, and therefore charm.
 
Is this really the tool you want to use to secure your future?

Many contributors feel directly concerned by unfair competition.
Many contributors struggle to understand that Adobe is not developing Artificial Intelligence to manage submitted content more intelligently. They don't do it because it's simply not in their own best interest.
But the worst competition will be the generation tools directly offered to customers (without any need for skills), which will inevitably arrive and which Adobe is undoubtedly preparing, and which will absolutely no longer need the work of contributors, will no longer suppose a payment of royalties to a third party. Adobe is above all a business, a company that sees its financial interest above all else.

The enthusiastic sheeps, fans of AI image generation, making the �wow� effect accessible to everyone, are just deaf and blind, and not very capable of seeing what is coming. They are just the necessary shoehorn for autonomous AI products in the pipeline.

       Adobe's business is very lucreative: they feed us money peanuts (but about 30 or 40 millions dollars for peanuts if paid around $0.10 per image) for stealing us the "food" they gave to their filthy beast. Why didn't they pay before doing it? They had to be able to first analyze the excrement of this beast? Agree or not, everyone must feed the beast! This is how it is, and Adobe calls it �developing generative AI responsibly�, like the ironic words of a dictator.
 
       I am sorry, but I was not happy to receive that money, which I would have liked to refuse to preserve my freedom and image rights, as other more �responsible� stock sites permit us by an opt-out.
But the beast will always be hungry, and they will still use our products, perhaps for free. Products made always made more invisible because they are dissolved in the crowd more and more, and mistreated by search engines. But that will be perfectly well sucked up for use by their deep thing.
 
       They have absolute power, who would stop them in this corrupt world on all levels?
Justice? when the only certainty is lawyers win in any case... the money they get from the people who have been abused.

--> (Please readers, tick +1 if you approve this!) <--

Tip for Stock Agencies: when the "non AI images" option is chosen by customers, let propose as a result to the query only images from portfolios of contributors who do not submit AI images at all, portfolios that are AI free, with no risk... Or at least, make it possible for contributors to tick images that are real photos.

Customers will be delighted and reassured to have representations of Natural Creation and not of Artificial Creation made by IA.
They will know that if they feel pure emotion for a visual representation, if they see an exceptional performance, natural charm, a feeling expressed, a depth felt, a unique moment captured, a simple and magical performance, an exceptional true place, true outstanding event, previously unknown species, a rare representation of natural diversity, a unique moment captured and eternalized, Artist's soul that transcends, but also the simple photo of an appetizing culinary plate... it is NOT betrayal, nor manipulation.

I'm sure there will be a market for it, a way to stand out when AI is everywhere.
A kind of Organic Photo Label, or Real Photo Label. Make it!!!

--> (Please readers, tick +1 if you approve this!) <--

AI knows how to take steal photos
AI prompters know how to control obei AI
Adobe knows doing business in ethic prolific way

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 02:18

We have already reached the point where people upload AI generated images and just claim they were their real photos. So how can human created art be valued more, when everyone thinks AI generated contend IS human created?

True, and even worse: every buyer can think that the reality based uploaded content that is stunning is AI generated...
 
Truth is lost, real is discredited, the singularity of the human work is made invisible, acquired skill has become obsolete...
The people who think great photos come by simply pressing the shutter button on the camera are people who certainly don't have photos that stand out among the top ones out of hundreds of thousands on an Adobe Stock query. And these are the people who are passionate about AI, easy to guess why...  Developing skills, staging in the real world, getting or waiting for the good conditions for natural light, manage the hazards when it comes to photographing the living, waiting for the perfect moment, managing/choosing the necessary equipment, etc... takes too much work and time to be competitive with AI. And the motivation of those who got the fair compensation for a job that requires time and skill disappears. 
My argument holds particularly for the photographers in whom I recognize a real talent, I am not self-centered and I will not speak of my gains in microstock as an argument of credibility. I've seen people do it, and I found it laughable. Humility has always been my engine to evolve, not an AI engine.

�The wind is rising!�We must try to live!� Paul valery/Miyazaki Hayao 

[Edit]: And I anticipate the reactions of AI enthusiasts: This is not about creating art, but about producing stock images that stand out. Buyers have needs that go beyond images of a pasta dish!

Quote from: cobalt on July 11, 2023, 06:43

I agree, just "pushing a button" is not what makes our images sell. Just "writing a prompt" is not what I do when I create content with the assistance of ai. The whole research, mood board, concept, design choices for color, lighting, angles....it does not happen by itself.

Realize that you only enjoy being a tool for AI, that is what you are. And in a near future, this tool will become obsolete. After all, you already decided to become obsolete for taking photos.

Just look at the production of some AI advocates.
Look at the images they made before AI, and the images produced with AI that they proudly show off as their integral creation. Easy to check, since they expose a link to their portfolio or their website. Or go on Adobe stock and click on those latest AI stuff, and see the portfolio and what kind of production did the person before.
This simple fact is enough to understand what is going on. We can understand the temptation and the intoxicating feeling of having suddenly become great artists.
And some have (or will have) no qualms (and no state of mind) about flooding microstock sites with "their" art (of clicking a "generate" button).

...and they even complain that "Midjourney can legally sublicense any assets produced using it"... it's a competition of the unscrupulous!!!
What they don't realize is that they are only useful for this transition period, to select and check the images, they will be useless and discarded afterwards. The image generations will be autonomous, or directly driven by the final client. And this in a very short time, see you tomorrow!!! End of story.

Re: Announcing Adobe Firefly � A new family of creative generative AI models

"We are developing a compensation model for Stock contributors"

definition of compensation noun (MONEY): money that is paid to someone in exchange for something that has been lost or damaged or for some problem

Seems to be there is  (for Stock contributors), a prejudice confessed here... 

Basically photography is a memory, a testimony, a proof of the existing, a reflection of reality, an emotion, a singular creative exercise... What will be the interest of these soulless productions, apart from a cleanliness ascepted and suspicious?

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 14, 2023, 07:36

If this wasn�t the case it would be a huge failure of Midjourney. The whole point of it is to allow people get results with basic prompts. And lets not forget you can now feed it images and get a descriptive prompt, reverse engineering a prompt to get similar results.

Yes, it's like eating vomit, then vomiting again. Reverse vomiting produces a new vomit  oh sorry for my particular humour which may offend these self-proclaimed artist teleprompters, which before the use of AI only produced visual crap. They now think they are Picasso. It also reminds me of modern music, where the sound produced by the remixed singer voice evokes in me the idea of ​​digital vomit.

I think this metaphor is the correct one. It can occur following a massive ingestion, and it arises expeditiously. It is not very appetizing and is particularly repellent. But when the sheeps have nothing but vomit to eat, they won't find it too bad.
Imagine the dunce of the class who discovers chatGPT, uses it, proudly declares: "I wrote it myself", and who ends up being convinced of it himself.

It's very hard to get rid of vomAIt...

My point is if you want to sell by yourself, you don't use AI to produce received images. Steal one picture, it's bad. Steal thousands like does Deep learning methods : oh, it's good... Mediocre photographers can now feel like artists thanks to AI, while destroying the income of traditional artists.

I hear footsteps coming, it's the army of mediocre photographers and graphic designers who were unsuccessful, and who will exploit AI to finally sell images that they will have the conviction/impudence to have fully produced, only way for them to get success and reward for low and lazy talent.

AI is very smart, it understands that recycling is good for the planet where unscrupulous people live!!!

Hey! You've been nominated!

Okay, now lean forward, you'll see, it only hurts at first... 

.

The new generation of employees or procedures at adobe: PITIFUL!, incompetence and incapacity, but self-confidence as high as mountains
We have entered the era of mediocrity.

I'll be honest, I don't care about grapes. That wasn't the reason for my post.

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on September 10, 2024, 15:18

Maybe they just have the idea that selling AI images is not necessarily linked to a remuneration of contributors busy generating them. It's obvious, we are only living in a transitional moment. Microstock agencies will become largely autonomous. Doing without contributor royalties, a good deal for them!
You really have to be blind to yourself not to be aware of this.

This is why, oddly enough, the future is maybe better assured for photographers producing quality and authentic subjects than for AI prompters, which will quickly be replaced by autonomous systems.
In any case, the good times are inexorably at our backs.

I tend to agree. The new trick with Adobe is to get us to use five words to describe an image just to login. My bet going forward for most stock images (not all) is that when one searches for "ripe organic red merlot grape" as an example then an image will automatically be generated by Adobe and others in the future so that they can feed of our content and not pay us a royalty going forward. It'll take a few years yet, but that is the direction its going in.

Sure! others already took the direction:

In a few seconds at 123rf, zero royalty paid to anyone:
and the 3 apples are offered! 

As they write in the numerous emails they sent: "✨Stop Scrolling, Start Generating✨"

And Shutterstock offer, zero royalty paid either. Customer pays $0.015 per image:

This is acceptable if and only if each image that powered Firefly is purchased at the price of an extended license.
Logical, since it becomes a source of resale.

If this is not the case, where can we opt out and give up this bonus ? Please inform us Adobe.