I think that quality is important,but in any case there can be different ways of making microstock,I focus more on quality,I like to take care of the details.

It's more important to produce real content than AI,especially if you have some skills and experience,it's better to use it,but it is always better to try to do everything possible.

Regarding the growing number of beginners who start microstock,it doesn't worry me much,because I'm more than sure that most of them abandon after a year or two,when they realize how difficult it is today to earn real money with microstock,only a small portion of these beginners will continue.

Then for many this is just a hobby,and for them that's fine,this is the fastest growing category in my opinion,which can somehow clog up the microstock agencies.

But as I have already underlined several times,in my opinion there is a huge difference between Adobe Stock and the other "traditional" microstock agencies.

a label for real content is a good idea,i actually don't know if it's necessary,since if it's not AI it's real,but perhaps it can somehow highlight real content more.

@DiscreetDuck

you have all my respect,because you are consistent with your ideas.

unlike others who accuse Adobe of stealing,or unethical behavior because they used AI content to train Firefly,but then have AI content in their portfolios.

in my opinion,Midjourney will have maybe,for me 60% no and 40% yes,legal consequences in the future,Adobe will not.

because stealing content to train an AI is one thing,while using already generated AI content to train an AI is another.

in my opinion,as I have already said,Firefly is without a doubt the AI ​​that has been built in a more ethical way than other better-known AIs,such as Midjourney.

the main point where our ideas can diverge is this:

Is content generated by AI a stolen image?

my answer is no,for others perhaps it is yes.

but if we think that content generated by an AI is stolen content,then we are thieves too.

then apart from everything else and all the various reasons why in my opinion Firefly was trained in a much more ethical way than Midjourney,one of the main questions is:

Did Adobe steal something?No

Did Midjourney steal something?Yes

I already critisized this when it was happening, but not all that many people seemed to care?

https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-bonus-payment-for-adobe-firefly-training/

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 13, 2023, 09:22

Quote from: MatHayward on September 13, 2023, 09:09

Quote from: Her Ugliness on September 13, 2023, 08:47

Mat, do I understand this correctly, that the payment is solely based on portfolio sice and sales, not on whether the images were actully used to train your AI? Because if that's the case  that basically means that someone who has not done a single real photo or illustration in all his life, but has only created tons of AI content based off other people's hard work also got the "compensation". So they basically got PAID for generating AI images based off the work of people who never got paid for it.
That's a far cry from Adobe's statement that you were "developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center."

The initial bonus is based on the all-time total number of approved images you submitted to Adobe Stock and the number of licenses that those images generated in the 12-month period between June 3rd, 2022 to June 2nd, 2023. The bonus is weighted towards license.

-Mat Hayward

Yes, I can read. I understood that very well. I just wanted to clarify whether that REALLY means that you also compensated people who only submit AI images, so never had any images to offer for your training in the first place. Because that seemed insane. But apparently that's the case as you just copied the info from the mail Adobe sent out without adressing the actual issue.
Very "fair". 
So far, of all the agencies that use their database to create AI content, Adobe seems actually to be the most unethical one! No opt-out option AND giving money that was meant as compensation for having our real photos and illustrations used to train your AI to people who only use our content to generate AI images. I am sure these tons of new "contributors" that only submit AI content are overjoyed from now profitting even more from other peoples' work. But Adobe seems to care more about these pople than real photographers and illustrators anyways.

Adobe does not care whether their AI is really ethical. They just want to put that label on it to tell their customers it was ethical and safe to use. It's nothing more than a marketing stategy to make more money and nothing is ethical about it. It's  like green-washing, but for AI -  Ethical-washing. 

I beg to differ on this,the way Firefly was trained in my opinion is always the most ethical,even if they used AI images already in Adobe's collection.

this is an important point,from what I understand they only used AI images already on sale in the Adobe collection,images therefore without logos,signatures or watermarks,and not images stolen online like Midjourney did for example.

even if maybe,just maybe,they have generated more AI contents,apart from those already in Adobe's collection,definitely improved and corrected,before including them in Firefly training.

all content used for training was paid for in the Firefly bonus or with paid missions,Midjourney on the other hand didn't pay anyone anything,and they took everything they could wherever they could.

I don't know about all of you,but I believe that like me,many have generated tens of thousands of AI contents,so I think many like me have noticed the difference.

I have noticed,especially in the V6 version of Midjourney,that there are often elements attributable to incorrectly appropriate content,often logos,signatures or watermarks are present in the contents generated with Midjourney.

with Firefly I have never once seen anything like it.

so in conclusion:

Midjourney literally stole content for its own training,without even bothering to remove logos,signatures,watermarks,not paying anything to anyone,and asking substantial sums for subscriptions.

Firefly paid for all the content used,they didn't steal anything from anyone,and they didn't upload content with logos,signatures and watermarks,also leaving free access to the platform for months.

I think there is a significant difference.

I have said this (on Discord) from the moment when I found out that AI-only contributors were paid the Firefly bonus. It makes a mockery of Adobe Stock claiming to be ethical. They pass it off by saying that any AI content submitted and approved to their site has been designated by the contributor as non-infringing. But most of that AI content has Getty Images and Shutterstock and other stock agencies' watermarked images in its dataset.

@InJuisticeForAll On the Discord server Mat Hayward has said they used Ai images to train Firefly.

ok,if Mat said it I can start to believe it,however,I have only seen the contents with watermarks and various signatures on Midjourney.

I have never seen anything in the content generated by Firefly that could be attributable to content taken from other agencies,such as watermarks or signatures.

AI-only contributors were paid the Firefly bonus?this is new,have you been able to personally verify this?

as I said,I find it extremely difficult to think that an AI can be trained on the already generated renderings of other AIs,but ok,if Mat said it I can believe it!

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on April 19, 2024, 11:34

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 19, 2024, 11:04

It is better to never write to Adobe support regarding any issues. I once wrote, there was some kind of primitive question. In response, some Russian lady contacted me, who began to scare me with a ban and accuse me of not forming my briefcase correctly and she didn�t like what I was uploading. She made some idiotic demands on me. In short, I don�t write in Adobe anymore.

If your writing style and behavior is comparable to that in the "This should settle some different opinions" thread, Adobe's reaction is quite understandable. And of course it was a Russian Orc employee, what else 

Of course you can write to Adobe support.

Thanks, but for now I will wait and see over the weekend.

If nothing else, I have reported the issue here and tagged Mat in the thread. I'm sure Adobe will act quickly enough if the sales are suspicious and, although I'd obviously be disappointed, I'm not attempting to withdraw the earnings at this stage, so the money is still with Adobe if it needs to be checked further. I'm pretty sure anyone wanting to behave underhandedly would act to withdraw the earnings ASAP.

Hopefully it's a legitimate and established buyer.

what issue?why report?

Whatever the reason why you sold 15 times more than usual in one day,I don't think it's your concern.

perhaps a customer needed a lot of content that he downloaded from different portfolios,or perhaps your portfolio was highlighted,in any case,if there is a problem don't worry,Adobe will contact you,there is no need to report anything.

then for goodness sake,it's your call and it's your choice!

yesterday was a strong day for me too,you have nothing to worry about.

a few months ago I also had a spectacular day where I sold practically every kind of content in a few hours,I think these are normal fluctuations in Adobe's sales system,occasionally even for a few hours or just a day,your portfolio can be highlighted,and you start selling a lot more than usual.

when it happened to me I sold 30 times more in one day than usual,but I didn't worry in the slightest,because I know I didn't do anything wrong.

I'm glad it happened to you,because in my opinion it means it will happen to me too again!

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 17, 2024, 12:12

the point is that AI content,however real it may seem,simply isn't,and customers know this,so if AI content is good for their project,they download the AI ​​content,but if they need real content,they download the real content,simply this.

I cannot follow this reasoning.

If AI content cannot be told apart from real content (In the future, though with many photos it is already hard now and some people seem to not even be able to tell the most artificial looking AI image  apart from a real photo) , then why should any customer insist on using real photos?
Why would anyone "need" real content if no customer can tell whether the content is "real" or "Ai created"?

this is a good question 

the answer in my opinion is the idea.

you just need to know that something isn't real and for you it just isn't,ideas about something have great power.

it will never be possible for customers not to know whether they are downloading AI or real content,they know because AI content are labeled

furthermore this is also another good reason why AI contents cannot cost less than real contents,because if they start to cost less can increase the competition of real content,I'm talking about costs for the customer,in the library of a microstock agency.

not declaring the origin of content in a context is not exactly legal,I'm sure that many do it,but we're talking about small bloggers who don't have a large following,also because if they act in this way they can't have one.

in any case I believe that it is up to us to understand what should be done and what not in this context in which we live today, and in any case AI technology still has a long way to go.

"AIs are not a problem today and will never be,for real photos and videos,for illustrations can be a different matter.
all AI content is labeled as such and nothing will ever replace a real photo or video.
and then there is so much,so much commercial content that AI cannot do  "

I think you will have to eat those words when we look back maybe 3 and especially 5-7 years from now. Are you guys blind to the development speed of AI? Many tools will cost money but even the free ones will be mind-blowingly good. The whole point of these tools is that they give us what we need, in anything that is digital. It already blows our mind every 6 months, and you think it cant get as good or as "customized" as a stock photo library...?

Look,with all due respect,I think you're missing the main point.

It has nothing to do with whether AI images will be perfect in 10 years or whether there will be 100 billion of AI contents for sale,or whether it will be completely free to create AI content or whether it will be enough to simply think of an image without writing anything which will be digitized perfectly in a second!

the point is that AI content,however real it may seem,simply isn't,and customers know this,so if AI content is good for their project,they download the AI ​​content,but if they need real content,they download the real content,simply this.

Yes AI should get paid less for each image. And this will happen anyway. Already it cannot be copywritten.

But A.I. is not photography. At best it is digital artwork and the creator isn't buying a paint brush and paints and using talent to create a painting. Just typing a sentence and pressing go.

And the legal cases that are coming regarding A.I. are going to be rather painful. So yeah real photography should get more simply because it's called "Stock Photography". Selling A.i. images isn't anything but the work of an algorithm. I can see the A.i. owners suddenly appropriating all of your digital imagery as their property.

if you think this you most likely don't produce AI content,because if you try to do,you would see that it is not that simple to produce AI content as it seems,especially content that sells.

I also make AI content,but I'm giving priority to real content,because there is too much competition in AI content.

regarding the legal cases,in my opinion it's just smoke and mirrors,nothing concrete will happen that could worry us contributors,but rather AI platforms built in an unethical way can risk something,like MIdjourney,who in the meantime will have earned enough money to be able to pay any legal consequences,it was a calculated risk on their part.

in my opinion the AI ​​built in the most ethical and correct way possible is Firefly.

so back on topic,absolutely not.

yes Wilm,this is probably what ranking is for,then I'm pretty sure that some contents are highlighted if they are well done and original,interesting and all the rest.

I have a lot of content on the first search pages,but they are mostly very specific content,which have a lower demand than a cat,but when they sell they are always good USD,that's why maybe my RPD is going up,and also because I have some videos, and now that the beautiful season has begun I will add more.

in any case,congratulations! because you have a content page 1 of 8750 pages and it's a great satisfaction!

I had a content 1 of 20,000 pages for an entire year on Istock a content on which I worked for 3 whole days,after a year it remained on the first page for another year but not as first place...it was a great satisfaction!

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 16, 2024, 04:05

I tried wirestock a couple of years ago,after 2-3 months I deleted everything and closed the account,and judging by the gains I see from those who use it I have done well.

When they went pay, I left the account active. I still have around 500 images, which are distributed to sites where I have no account. 123RF, DP, Evanto, a bunch more, in other words, everywhere except SS, AS, AL, IS and DT. And some of those have rejects and other files, activated for sale, from WS. Odd how that works? Rejected personally, but accepted at WS and the agency that rejected the image?

It makes me as much a year as IS, which is a nice bottle of single malt. For free, I do no work, I'm happy. 

But I wouldn't pay for the right to upload or have them do the keywords and distribution. Maybe some other people find it a benefit? I'd have to have many more images, to make it worthwhile.

Of course,it's all subjective in the end,it depends on what works for you,or simply what you prefer to do.

as far as I know,based on what those who use wirestock say,more or less you get 10usd a month for around 5000 contents,then maybe clearly this will be different for someone I don't know.

what I know,and that's fine with me,it's just that it's not worth leaving content on display for thieves and copycats if an agency makes so little,not to mention the waste of time it takes to upload and all the various problems it can cause,such as in this case the free collection without pay.

If an agency doesn't make much money,it's better to let it go than settle for crumbs and have too much wasted time and various problems.