|
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 - Injustice for all
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 37
676
« on: November 07, 2023, 05:43 »
I'm writing it here too,because I think it's an interesting thing to know,because can be the reason for so many rejected contents.
in the terms for the account and submission guidelines I found this:"We don't allow multiple account creations to submit similar or identical content to inflate sales,or to bypass upload limits for generative AI content".
so now it is confirmed that there are AI content upload limits,therefore certainly limits in general on all content,so the trend I had noticed,that in the last months of the year the percentage of rejections increases,probably has to do with this.
In my opinion,all this has to do with Adobe's sales system,which obviously no one knows how it works,but is clearly linked to the number of contents uploaded.
677
« on: November 07, 2023, 05:32 »
I believe that tracing an AI output is allowed.
well ok if you wanna risk getting banned, but we all have lot at stake so maybe better not
I never said I'm doing it,and it's certainly not something I would recommend,better not to do it,because it's not clear.
I only reported the facts,the rules are those and acting in that way doesn't break any rules from what I read.
Also...what rules says about multiple accounts ?
Of course that you can have multiple accounts with different assets, but if you check for example, that japan web reddish icons it is obviously same author from a 40+ accounts. What does it says ? That it is something legal or what ?
ok,that's another story,if that's the case and the accounts belong to the same owner,it's a serious violation and the owner of the "japan web" results risks big. Yes,it is possible to have different accounts for different assets(video,photos,AI),only one account for AI content is allowed. in this case it is double violation,because not only are they uploading AI content to multiple accounts,but also AI vector content that are not still allowed,to multiple accounts. however I found something interesting in the terms of the account and submission guidelines: "We dont permit multiple account creations to submit similar or identical content to inflate sales,or to bypass upload limits for generative AI content". this is confirmation of my theory,that there are upload and acceptance limits for AI content. this explains the reason for the numerous rejections that many are having,entire batches rejected,because they have already reached the limit. is not specified what limit,but I think 500 or 1000 per month for AI content,but it's just my guess.
678
« on: November 06, 2023, 20:08 »
Another thing to consider is that Adobe Stock subscribers will have 500 credits to generate,this is not good news for me,it would have been better if the credits were only available to Adobe software subscribers,or less credits for Adobe Stock customers,500 for a month are more than enough for a customer I think.
in any case we'll see,in a year or less,we'll all have clearer answers,I believe and hope that Adobe has considered all this,we'll see! 
But Adobe users also need these credits for generative fill or other generative uses within Photoshop.
https://helpx.adobe.com/firefly/using/generative-credits.html
So I wouldn't worry too much about losing sales to image generation. As we all know that is still very time consuming.
but would it have been better to have fewer credits for Adobe Stock subscribers?probably yes,now I don't think it makes much difference,but in the future could be this difference.
679
« on: November 06, 2023, 19:53 »
that AI photo of bananas definitely predates my 3310 banana photos sent to Adobe! 
680
« on: November 06, 2023, 19:07 »
The point is that there is nothing specifically written about this in Adobe's AI guidelines,this explains the existence of many vector images labeled as AI in the Adobe Stock collection. I'm trying to make sense how the contributors reasoned,and why they are uploading these traced vectors,and the reason is that they don't directly break any rules. that's why we're seeing these traced vectors,because the only thing clearly specified is that it is not allowed to create generative AI vectors. a traced vector is not an AI generated vector. the box to label the vector as AI is not yet available,otherwise these traced vectors would clearly be fully allowed. and that's why we're seeing these thousands of traced vectors from AI outputs approved per day,even though they shouldn't be approved... or maybe they should? however,the box to label vectors as AI will soon be available,someone tried to be smart and get ahead of the curve,taking a minimal risk in my opinion because I don't think it risks permanent blocking if it happens for the first time,since nothing concrete is specified about it in the guidelines. don't try this at home!
681
« on: November 06, 2023, 08:05 »
I believe that tracing an AI output is allowed.
well ok if you wanna risk getting banned, but we all have lot at stake so maybe better not
I never said I'm doing it,and it's certainly not something I would recommend,better not to do it,because it's not clear. I only reported the facts,the rules are those and acting in that way doesn't break any rules from what I read.
682
« on: November 06, 2023, 07:15 »
Sorry,maybe I missed something,but I don't see any violation of the Adobe Generative AI User Guidelines in these vectors.
they are auto-traced vectors obtained from AI outputs,and therefore they are not vectors generated by AI.
i think there is a difference,they are not using Illustrator to create an AI content,but they are using Illustrator(or other software) to trace images.
I don't even see a particular set of similar ones,yes maximum 4 similar ones,therefore I don't see anything that violates the Adobe guidelines for AI content or the general terms of the contributor agreement in these vectors,they can't even be called AI content,even though the original output was clearly AI.
Maybe I'm wrong,but this is what I see.
In that logic of yours Ai generated "image" after importing to image manipulation program ,such as photoshop or lightroom, and changing few little things should become photo ?
P.S. Violation in a first place is that Adobe claims that all AI generated files MUST BE DECLARED SO and those files obviously aren't. Which is fraudulent activity toward buyers.
No,In my opinion this is only applicable to vector images,not to raster images. I believe that it is more important to AI label a photorealistic image than an illustration,It's important that AI images that look real carry the AI label so everyone can see that it's not real even if it looks like it. returning instead to the problem of vectors,at the moment Adobe does not allow the creation of AI vectors. an auto-traced vector is not a generated vector. from the Adobe generative AI guidelines:"Label your image as generative AI when the use of generative AI tools in Photoshop or Illustrator changed,augmented,or added a new primary subject of an image". Examples when to label your image as generative AI: -Generating new additions, such as a new person, animal, or object -Adding new subjects might compromise the accuracy of an image -Making significant adjustments or changes to a human subject in an image -Recoloring the primary subject of an image as you can see,a vector created by tracing an AI output does not break any of these points. all of this can clearly raise doubts,because it is not completely clear. what I know is that if it's not specified in the AI guidelines,it means that it doesn't involve a violation of the guidelines. However yesterday I took a look at Adobe Stock vector collection,and there are many AI,EPS,SVG vectors that are labeled as AI,so I believe that tracing an AI output is allowed. I also believe that this is not applicable to photorealistic images,i.e. auto-tracing a photorealistic image is not allowed.
683
« on: November 05, 2023, 18:47 »
Shutterstock is only interested in minimizing costs.
they should thank you that you still want to upload content instead of wasting your time!
I don't upload anymore until I see a clear signal that they are still interested in getting new content,so I guess I'll just wait forever!
684
« on: November 05, 2023, 14:07 »
In fact,not only quantity is important,but quality,that makes the difference,uploading useful and original content is not easy.
producing AI content that sells is not as easy and fast as it seems,and given the long queue you have to try to be selective.
with some experience as contributor is more possible to understand what sells,or what customers are looking for,and you can certainly have better results.
Up to now I have produced around 8,000 AI images,I repeat,produced,they are not all for sale yet,I'm working non-stop,it's going to be a long journey!
685
« on: November 05, 2023, 11:18 »
I'm not sure how well people are doing with "AI" images overall, but to me it seems:
(a) Some people may have 1-2 images that "take off" (i.e., maybe make them $100-$200 over the course of several months, if they are really lucky, maybe $200-$300). The rest never really get seen. If you live in a country where $3-$5 USD/hour is a "good wage", then you are ecstatic. (I.e., like an american say getting $700-$800 for an image).
(b) The "ai" stuff is being flooded from people in countries where that is the case. To properly post produce, edit, crop, find good keywords, properly title, etc is a very time consuming process - but I suppose that is why is a number of people just don't do that. (So you see 3 arms, strange titles, or simply the actual prompts, etc). And I've seen a lot of people skipping that process.
(c) I suspect it is a little bit like gambling on slots. If/when you "hit big" (i.e., generate $100 in cumalative sales for a single "ai" image) - then you think EVERY image is going to be like that, and you start going a little nuts (not realizing not every image is going to be like that).
One question - if you are spending $120/month on image generation, are you at the very least seeing that as a return? More specifically - a significant return?
My guess is the majority (i.e., 80%+) are just making say $100-$200/month from the "ai" images, while of course a very small majority making more than that...
you have to produce a lot of them,over time you start to earn more,you certainly can't arrive and start making 100usd a week from one day to another. the OP was right in making this investment in my opinion,and is an experienced contributor,who has managed to see what many experienced contributors don't want to see,that times have changed and we need to adapt,those who manage to understand this only have to gain from it.
686
« on: November 05, 2023, 07:35 »
Sorry,maybe I missed something,but I don't see any violation of the Adobe Generative AI User Guidelines in these vectors.
they are auto-traced vectors obtained from AI outputs,and therefore they are not vectors generated by AI.
i think there is a difference,they are not using Illustrator to create an AI content,but they are using Illustrator(or other software) to trace images.
I don't even see a particular set of similar ones,yes maximum 4 similar ones,therefore I don't see anything that violates the Adobe guidelines for AI content or the general terms of the contributor agreement in these vectors,they can't even be called AI content,even though the original output was clearly AI.
Maybe I'm wrong,but this is what I see.
687
« on: November 05, 2023, 07:17 »
It's satisfying, yes. But mixed with other feelings, also. At least in my case.
I, myself, started using Midjourney back in april, when I noticed that the "Recent Top Sellers" section at AS was flooded with AI generated content. I thought I could give it a try to see how it goes. Yes, the generated images are beautiful - as long as you watch them as a thumbnail. When you look at them in full size, especially after being upscaled, they look awful. A photo shot with the camera, or an illustration would never get approved if they looked like this. They are grainy, choppy, the details are off. If I were a buyer, I would be quite unhappy to get this level of quality in exchange for my money. So it took me a while to get the courage to submit the first batch. But I found out soon enough that these images get accepted and sell like crazy. And I thought - hey, who am I to judge? If AS asks for them and the buyers like them and keep buying them, then clearly someone should provide these images. And so I kept generating and uploading.
Yes, it's nice to see the $$ coming in. And it's very profitable - since you spend way less time and money generating an image with MJ than with your camera. And it's very satisfying, since you are only limited by your imagination. But even if you take the time and effort to carefully choose only the ~30% of the generated images that are correct (no extra limbs etc), you still feel (a little) guilty about putting some content on sell that looks like garbage when viewed at 100%.
I'm sure that somewhere in the near future (maybe one or two years from now), the AI based image generators will be able to produce clean and crisp high resolution images. But it's not the case right now.
the fact is that the quality is still not excellent,the generations are imperfect,and we need to improve the sharpness,resolution,and therefore they must be worked on in post production,this for the moment in my opinion gives us yet another advantage. I think they will always continue to be sold,it must also be understood that not all Adobe Stock customers are interested in generating with AI and will always prefer to purchase ready-made content,but I think now is the best time. when the Adobe Stock collection exceeds 300 million,it will already be different,but I hope I'm obviously wrong!
688
« on: November 05, 2023, 07:07 »
I pay $120/month on Midjourney
Are your images selling for at least $120 a month?
do you mean per week? 
689
« on: November 04, 2023, 10:48 »
I confirm,maybe it's because you can create whatever you want,but yes,AI are addictive!
690
« on: November 04, 2023, 06:52 »
For 15 years now, I have been uploading what a now, not so famous stock photographer called it "Snapshot images" I am an Exclusive and never looked back. I will never play with AI. My portfolio has paid my mortgage for a 2900 sq foot house in Florida every month from the third year I started. I am turning 65 next month and am very happy with the 22000 real life images I have in my portfolio. I don't worry or care what others do. I just focus on my own port. I can't believe 15 years has gone by so fast when this other photographer made me cry with every submission. I am older and wiser now. I can't lift my Canon5DM1V anymore because of fractures in my back but I still manage to get those "real life shots" everyone laughed at with my Iphone. And I must say, They do sell well. When AI came out I thought "oh goodie" I will just lay in bed and type words. I played around with different programs and the AI architecture pictures were so real looking. But nothing gives me the satisfaction of taking that"snapshot photo" and having it sell 30 times for the month. I still upload but not like I did every day for 12 years. Now I am just sitting back watching everyone look at other peoples ports instead of concentrating on their own and building the shots they have the talent to shoot. I am not with Adobe, but I do use all the photoshop programs. I am not going to upload the new version so there will be no mistake in my uploads. There are a lot of oldtimers in this thread that I have read for years without commenting but I thought It was a good time to drop in and say, shoot what you shoot best and you will never get in trouble with that. Your port won't be disabled. Keep looking at the fraudulent accounts and you will cause yourself a lot of turmoil on the very fast tract to age 65 when all you can hold is an Iphone. And actually I am very happy with the sales of my Iphone pictures. It isn't the camera, but the eye that looks through it.
I agree with most of what you say,but the fact is that your experience is different from the experience of another person. Everyone due to their own personal experience and the situation they find themselves in,acts and thinks differently. All this is fine,but as long as you maintain a certain respect in expressing your ideas,something that unfortunately is sometimes missing. I'm younger than you,but not that young anymore,and I think there's nothing wrong with reporting a portfolio that uploads images of Wonder Woman or whatever,that breaks the rules and that tries to earn easy money with other people's property,like thieves of which there are many. but I particularly like one thing you said,which I redefine in my own way:"follow your own path and focus on your work" for the rest,regarding AI,if someone have doubts about something,simply follow the Adobe Generative AI User Guidelines. of course,sometimes not everything appears completely clear,simply because it is something new for everyone,and it is easy to remain confused on some points. it's new for Adobe too,for everyone. Then we are here on microstock group to do what?to look each other in the face?no,so it is right that there is a more or less interesting exchange of opinions,with different ideas and different points of view,as long as everything happens always trying to respect the different point of view. ok,I finished my coffee and I'm going back to work!
691
« on: November 03, 2023, 16:57 »
Do not submit generative AI vector images. If our policy changes on that, I will notify everyone here.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
I strongly advise you do not submit vector images created with generative AI software. Instead, my recommendation is to fully comply with the generative AI submission guidelines: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
If the policy changes in the future, I'll be sure to let everyone here know.
-Mat Hayward
You are saying that generative AI vector images are going to be rejected ?
If it is so....how it is possible that EACH and EVERY day there is MORE and MORE obviously generative AI vector images in collection ?
P.S. If we ( as contributors ) are able to see that those files are generative AI - I'm SURE that Adobe moderation team can see it too.
Funny, I was expecting real answer from a man of your age and position within Adobe.
Unfortunately for us your quoting screams just one thing....that you don't have a clue why Adobe accept generative AI vector images.
are you sure these aren't auto-traced vectors? and please show some respect for those who are working,remember that Mat has rules to follow,he is working!
692
« on: November 02, 2023, 16:59 »
aprott, I really feel a bit sorry about the useless comments here for you.
Therefore my appeal (I hope others will follow, we are somehow a community here in the forum):
Mat, aprott seems to be a loyal, likeable contributor of many years who has expressed his cooperation and at least has not maliciously made some silly mistake.
Can you please ensure that the examination is accelerated ?
you forgot to say:"and God bless you!" if this thing would have happened to you with any other agency,it would already be a closed matter,they would have already kicked you out. luckily it's Adobe,which always act fairly,and so you have some chances. Adobe,instead of lowering royalties,has always looked for alternative solutions,because for Adobe if we are successful as contributors it means that they are successful,it is a completely different mechanism from the usual old-fashioned agencies. Unfortunately I have seen that many here still don't understand it,and I always try to give a different point of view,as I did here. I can assure you one thing,if you deserve to be restored by Adobe it will happen,but if you have exaggerated and it is not right to restore your account,it won't happen. I won't add anything else out of respect for the OP.
693
« on: November 02, 2023, 14:54 »
@thx9000 If you can't understand,I can try to explain it to you clearly. try rereading everything,maybe you'll understand! certain things you either understand or you will never understand,unfortunately not everyone can read between the lines.
694
« on: November 02, 2023, 11:34 »
I'm just wondering one thing that I really can't understand:
"given your considerable experience in microstock,didn't you realize that you were uploading content that violated the upload guidelines?"yes,you knew but you did it anyway.
As I wrote I am not aware of any images in my current portfolio which would violate the upload guidelines for AI.
I don't know this,but what I see is that your problem doesn't seem to me to be related solely to AI.
I say this because in the response that you received and that you reported here,it does not seem to me that there is reference to the fact that you have violated the guidelines regarding AI,but that you have violated intellectual property rights.
I had another look at the message from contrib support and it definitely says AI content:
-----
Your account was blocked after we noticed that you have submitted Generative Ai content that is not within our guidelines.
You have submitted files that refer to famous artists, people, characters from popular culture, and/or other existing subjects such as video games in the image, title or keywords. We take intellectual property rights very seriously and your uploads are a violation of these rights and thus violate the upload guidelines.
Your account will remain blocked until further notice.
----
Edit: Sorry for the confusion: I had omitted the first line in my earlier post because I had already talked about it being triggered by AI related images.
I meant exactly this when I wrote: "your problem doesn't seem to me to be related solely to AI". the real problem is that you submitted content that infringes intellectual property rights,whether they are AI content or not. did you reference other artists in the prompt?Have you created AI content that featured famous people or characters?Have you included names of well-known characters,people or artists in the description or keywords? I don't even want to know,I'm just telling you that you were blocked for one of these reasons. However,in my opinion,if it was an isolated mistake,you will probably be unblocked. if there is anything else,I don't know,only you can know.
695
« on: November 01, 2023, 19:22 »
I'm just wondering one thing that I really can't understand:
"given your considerable experience in microstock,didn't you realize that you were uploading content that violated the upload guidelines?"yes,you knew but you did it anyway.
As I wrote I am not aware of any images in my current portfolio which would violate the upload guidelines for AI.
I don't know this,but what I see is that your problem doesn't seem to me to be related solely to AI. I say this because in the response that you received and that you reported here,it does not seem to me that there is reference to the fact that you have violated the guidelines regarding AI,but that you have violated intellectual property rights.
696
« on: November 01, 2023, 13:19 »
I don't wish this on anyone,you lose sleep over something like that,I know it.
However,I read that Adobe previously gave you an answer as to why your account was blocked:
"You have submitted files that refer to famous artists,people,characters from popular culture,and/or other existing subjects such as video games in the image,title or keywords.We take intellectual property rights very seriously and your uploads are a violation of these rights and thus violate the upload guidelines"
I'm just wondering one thing that I really can't understand:
"given your considerable experience in microstock,didn't you realize that you were uploading content that violated the upload guidelines?"yes,you knew but you did it anyway.
As far as I know, accounts that in any way break Adobe's rules are suspended for a short period of a couple of weeks,and then are reactivated,if the problem is nothing serious,as far as I know.
from what I understand here we are not just talking about problems related to AI,it's not that you forgot to check the box for AI content,here we are talking about that you uploaded content that clearly referenced famous characters,people,artists.
now I don't know if you're right or if you're wrong,it's not up to me to judge,also because I'm not aware of the full version of the facts,as are you and Adobe,I don't know for example whether these contents had already been sold or not,I already think this makes a difference,and I certainly don't know anything else,regarding this sad matter.
in any case you have violated the upload guidelines,and did it intentionally,because you are a highly experienced contributor,and tried to delete the contents because you knew it.
I hope your portfolio will be restored as soon as possible,because we are all human and we all make mistakes,if this was your first and only mistake I think there is hope,Adobe usually takes this into consideration too.
697
« on: November 01, 2023, 12:13 »
698
« on: October 28, 2023, 06:26 »
thanks derby.
IMO the choice they made to give 500 credits to Adobe Stock subscribers,it is a choice that favors real content more,because 500 credits for customers to generate content is more than enough.
it is also true that these credits will end quickly for the moment because the generation still has many errors,which must be corrected in postproduction,some things are not really understood by AI,and cannot be generated,but for some things,AI manages to surprise you,and manages to create things above expectations.
the 500 credits given to customers will help generate traffic on Adobe Stock.
maybe it's simply a period in which they have to reject a lot to get the situation back to normal,in any case I believe that the amount uploaded these days affects rejections,so it's better to be as selective as possible,or you risk just wasting time.
699
« on: October 27, 2023, 20:00 »
@derby
just out of curiosity,were the rejected batches real images or AI?
i've had multiple entire batches of photos rejected over last few months
but you upload a lot,I don't know how you do it,seriously it's a lot for me! I assume you've never had all these rejections,am I right? I don't have all these rejections,but I upload a tiny part compared to you,as I said I can barely exceed a thousand contents in a year.
700
« on: October 27, 2023, 15:36 »
I can only tell you this: in the contributor agreement of Adobe Stock in section 2.3 social media,I found this: "we may allow our users and other relevant third parties to post or share the work directly or indirectly onto social media sites to better promote your work,subject to our payment obligations in section 6". I hope it can help!
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
