pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - cascoly

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 170
851
Selling Stock Direct / Photography link exchange
« on: September 26, 2022, 17:51 »
Im creating link exchange thru a series of blog posts with links to other photography websites, stores, and blogs.  Reciprocal links are encouraged. Each post will have only 4-5 entries, with blurbs from artists, to prevent posting a purely links page discouraged by google.  If youd like to participate, use the form at https://tinyurl.com/53spfk2m



My blog is https://cascoly-images.com


852
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?

Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?

Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.

This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand.  ;D
...
The problem is that AI generated photos have nothing to do anymore with the art of photography. ...

stock photography itself has little to do with art!  and who says art has to be created by humans?

853
another useful twitter group is #BuyIntoArt . i've gone from 300 to 1700 followers in 2 month - aiming for 5000

if you follow @cascoly I'll follow back
Has it increased your sales?
You write that #BuyIntoArt is a group. But I see on twitter that this is a hashtag that everyone adds. If this is also a group, give a link to it.

it's also a group

854
Results from my first DALL-E submissions:

Accepted:

AS   6 of 10
DT   2 of 16
SS   9 of 16
   10 different, none accepted by all 3!

855
AI is just a tool, like 3D rendering and other apps that help create images. the images created with  these apps have the creator's copyright - none of the AI tools attemp.t to claim such a copyright


For Midjourney that is only partially correct.  Yes, the person who types in the instructions owns the copyright and can sell the images, BUT unless you took the most expensive "private" subscription to the software (more than 50 euros per month on top of the standard subscription), every other subscriber can see, download and use your images.  And you don't have the raw format to prove they are yours ...  So yes, you absolutely have the (copy)right to sell them, but knowing that some one else can do the same thing with the same images does give an "insecure" feeling.

i should have noted I'm using DALL-E which doesn't work that way

856
another useful twitter group is #BuyIntoArt . i've gone from 300 to 1700 followers in 2 month - aiming for 5000

if you follow @cascoly I'll follow back


857


Not quite. If its a photo and contains any person, it requires a model release. My understanding is you can only submit your own work, you have to be the copyright owner. Submitting AI images you neither created it or own the copyright and therefore should not be submitting the image to the agency. End of.....
AI is just a tool, like 3D rendering and other apps that help create images. the images created with  these apps have the creator's copyright - none of the AI tools attemp.t to claim such a copyright

858
here's a set created yesterday - i checked each of these thru tinyeye & it didnt find any similar images
I have to say that at least they are of a much better quality then your own photos in your portfolio. So DALL-E might actually help you out here.
That is if agencies will not reject them or remove them eventually from your portfolio.
Good luck with that :)

if you're offering unsolicited critiques, it's common courtesy to provide a link to your portfolio

859
here's a set created yesterday - i checked each of these thru tinyeye & it didnt find any similar images


860
i've been submitting test images from DALL-E, noting that they are computer generated - i'll post results when all are reviewed

only 10 images were submitted to AS & 6 were accepted and agencies are accepting different images

of course the real test will be whether any of these actually sell

861
...

If they want a merlot grape on a vine they will most likely search for "merlot grape vine". So you don't use "wine" as a keyword, yet so many do.

The five W's Who What Where When and Why.

 but you'll lose those who search for 'grapes for wine' 'growing grapes for wine', etc

you need to tag both for a very specific interpretation of the image and how a more general search might interest the buyer.  using 'cat' on a 'dog' image is obviously spam, but including both 'elk' and 'deer' accounts for biologically confused users who just want a pic of a large ruminant

862

...
And the whole industry is full of examples like that. Bob Dylan career skyrocket after he did what he did with House of the rising sun or Blowing in the wind of which he changed complete verse later if I recall that right. He didn't even credit House of the rising sun and a career of a pure genius started like that.

Hello I love from the Doors is an example of a blatant ripoff and pretty much everyone did it in the music history not only at that or this times. Some things go a bit beyond "inspiration" :)

you're confusing copying with a cover

863
We're all being conned by this "AI" bullsh!t, there's no "intelligence" behind this.  And "train" is market-speak.  What's really going on is a new form of copying - one that's untraceable and unproveable - with multiple images used to create a mashup that's then refined by clever algorithms and filters.   If you want an analogy, think of "sampling" in the music business - and the lawsuits it's generated.

The only "training" going on is tuning this software to produce stuff that people like - and will pay for.

Yes, I'm ranting.  I'm a former software engineer and all this bogus hype is ticking me off.

machine learning & AI training are real, not buzzwords and are completely different from sampling -

there is NO evidence that DALL-E is either sampling or copying actual images or 'mashing up'.  i have provided an example in which the result had no direct connection to actual images

NO ONE, despite their chicken-little dramatics, has shown an example of an AI created image that was copied from an existing image.  if it is "untraceable and unproveable" then you're admitting you have nothing but an opinion with no actual evidence

864
back in symbiostock days i started some keyword analysis since we had data from multiple sites

http://cascoly.com/symbio/symbiostock-keywords.asp

i did some calculations for uniqueness, information value, and relative worth

there was little interest at the time so i didnt refine the calculations

865


I think a better way would be, they start a service, that charges for each image to be created, to specifications, and no one else gets their software or the code to make it operate.
that's what DALL-E does! with a few free images a month & about $.10 per image after that

Quote
On the other hand, lets say they license the software to people, and hundreds of thousands of people can make all the fake images they want of anything? The image market for that kind of work, would soon be so flooded that it wouldn't make sense to license the software. There would be 5 billion images of anything, anyone can imagine.
...

that's a big reason why this is unlikely for DALL-E since they have a commitment to prevent this scenario. Thus, they have to keep control of the software. 

  • Theyre rejecting image uploads that include recognizable faces, as well as generation prompts that seek to recreate the likeness of public figures (celebrities and politicians, for example), or realistic photos of real individuals.
  • Theyre improving their filters to block users from creating harmful content this includes violent, adult, or political content and also removing this kind of data from the softwares training altogether.
  • Theyre using both automated and human monitors to supervise the platform and avoid misuse

866
Tarantino first buys the rights to the book, even if the result has little relation to the original

No pretty much every single scene in Tarantino's films comes from a film he saw. He has taken hundreds of those influences and made something completely different (which is exactly what AI is doing). And he hasn't bought the rights to any of the films he's borrowing from but if you read his interviews, he's acknowledged quite openly where he's taken some of his moments from.

agreed, like many filmmakers do -it's called homage. but that's not the discussion  - the reference was to taking one book and making a movie from it

867
If AI can make any picture you want why would anyone need agencies? You just buy the software and add any picture you want to your article. So it's not just the contributors losing here. It's also the agencies. They will be redundant, like us.

What if you can't buy the software and the only way to create images is license them from the AI site? The companies are not developing this AI for pleasure, they want to make as much money as possible. They could become an agency no artists for an annual fee around the cost of a SS subscription. This would hurt the agencies, you're right.

but there are no images to buy on the AI site - they are more like PS than an agency

868
If AI can make any picture you want why would anyone need agencies? You just buy the software and add any picture you want to your article. So it's not just the contributors losing here. It's also the agencies. They will be redundant, like us.
because it's just not that simple -  RYFM - this has already been discussed

869
Ok then, I can read a book that you wrote - take detailed notes page by page - then "write" my own book and sell it. Hey, I just used yours to "train" myself.  Or as you put it, to "move towards" my own version. You can't point to any identical sentences so my conscience is clear.

Hey, that's how QUentin Tarantino makes his movies.
And how The Beatles wrote several of their songs. Then Oasis did it, and got all the criticism.

Tarantino first buys the rights to the book, even if the result has little relation to the original 

870
I am glad that the contribution is interesting. I was just thinking about the possibility that we creators will be entitled to some profit for the use of our work. But I suppose there is a legal loophole about it.

perhaps, but it would make SS look munificent - you'd be sharing the wealth with millions of other artists

871
Ok then, I can read a book that you wrote - take detailed notes page by page - then "write" my own book and sell it. Hey, I just used yours to "train" myself.  Or as you put it, to "move towards" my own version. You can't point to any identical sentences so my conscience is clear.

that's not how machine training works, and yours is an example in which lawsuits have been successful against the 'trainer'

machine training uses millions of images and the AI produces its results w/o specifically using any of those images

872

Eventually there will be an agency with no artists where the buyer types in what they want and gets a selection of AI images to choose from.
But that's already here and pretty much what people are talking about here.

no, since buyers want an image they can use directly & these AI need additional selection, processing, etc

873
What tools are you using? Has anyone tried putting the (uncommon) name of a microstock photographer and the full title of some of their images? Wondering what happens when you limit the pool it can draw from.


it really doesnt limit it, since it starts from nothing & tweaks using its entire knowledge.  once trained, it doesnt need to actually look at images, so there's no copying from any particular image

here's a quick example


none of my images look anything like this - my images are taken from the other side of the mosque! in fact these images are more precise than mine, where my images don't actually show the golden horn and these are taken FROM the golden horn

altho Yeni translates as 'new mosque' The mosque was completed in 1663.
https://cascoly-images.com/exploring-the-other-mosques-of-istanbul/

874
There's a quickly diminishing amount of creative/artist jobs already and this will just accelerate the decline. Once this is perfected over the next 5-10 years stock agencies will adopt AI and have little need for contributors. Free money for them and less of having to deal with us. AI wont kill the industry but it will be a big shift much like macro to micro. People will need to adjust to the shift and find a profitable niche. Editorial cant be replaced by AI.
 .....

it's not free if agencies create their own AI images - they have to pay the designers - much cheaper to rely on contributors to create, weed out, refine, keyword, etc

875
You realize that by "used to train" they really mean "ripped off"?

not really - no individual image is being copied - millions of images are used in training. the AI starts as a random assortment of pixels and doesn't copy any existing image, just uses them to move towards a unique image. no one has shown that there's a connection between an individual image and the AI result

what would you suggest as a payment for such a usage?

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 170

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors