Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on December 17, 2024, 15:46
When I looked at the genAI collection sorted by downloads, what stood out was how most of them could very well have been traditional stock images/illustrations/3D renders.

Actually there's nothing stopping the authors from uploading their traditional 3D renders to the genAI category. Just because an image is marked as genAI, doesn't necessarily mean it is.

Upvoting works strange on this site. You have to click on the + sign once, then wait for several seconds.

Envato was acquired by Shutterstock a couple of months ago, so you should probably take it out of that list.

Quote from: Unamas on May 07, 2024, 17:49
I finally decided to start with AI Generated images. I read a few articles, watch a few video and so far the process looks simple

1) Generate image with Midjourney. It look like it's the best generator now
2) Upscale with Topaz Gigapixel AI or Topaz Photo AI. Which one is better?
3) Create description, upload
4) Profit!

What I'm missing?

That was a good plan last year, when there was an option/trick to use MJ for free. Now you're gonna spend more on step 1 than you'll make from step 4. It will be a waste of both your time and money.

Quote from: gnirtS on July 31, 2023, 05:27

Quote from: Digital on July 29, 2023, 13:39
At least her fingers look normal...

Am i the only one bothered by the shiny, plastic face ?  Looks like a tailors dummy.

Or v1.0 Westworld.

This reminds me of a 3D rendering from 2008, done in Maya and Mental Ray. Fake looking skin and oversized hands... not much has changed in 15 years.

At least her fingers look normal...

I have to agree. Now that Dall-e2 is available to everyone it's a piece of cake to generate any image you want, all for free. The only extra step a contributor has to do is to upscale the AI generated art.

Theoretically even 7-8 year old children can be contributors now, if the stock site policy allows it.

It makes sense for a contributor to pay the agency a monthly hosting fee, but it should be proportional to the portfolio's size.

Up to 5GB - free
Up to 100GB - $2/month
Up to 2TB - $10/month

Ahaha, I think the correct term should not be "stock AI images", but "laughingstock AI images". 

OK I cheated and looked up the photos on Adobe Stock. It's much easier to tell when you can see the full-size images.

Actually they are all real photos, Photoshopped to look like A.I. 

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
I am trying to understand the theoretical reasons why some agencies accept AI generated imagery and others don't. Meanwhile, Adobe is one of the few (and the largest platform) that does accept this type of content for sale. And then Getty (iStock), Shutterstock (Pond5), Alamy, and some others don't accept it. Or if they do accept it then it has to be imagery created with their own native AI generators that are controlled by that platform.

The basis for not accepting and licensing the content for sale for most of them is that AI image generating models/platforms scrape millions of copyrighted images from the internet in order to source ideas and, thus the content being used to generate the AI imagery is not free from rights.

So is the reason that sites like Adobe, Dreamstime, 123RF and others do accept AI generated content is that they see the AI platforms as only gaining "creative inspiration" and taking "creative license" from all the copyright content that is being scraped by the AI image generators and thus making it a non-violation of usage rights?

I am not sure what the right answer is here, but I guess theoretically these AI models using copyright content to generate their own images would be no different than a photographer looking at an existing copyrighted photo of an apple and then photographing their own apple in the same spirit with similar lighting and composition to the copyrighted image they saw.

An interesting debate.

In theory, an AI which operates in the way you describe is possible. However, to have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of the popular engines like Dall-e and Midjourney, you'd have to analyze the code they're running. They could as well be taking bits and pieces from multiple images, and mangling them together. This would make the output so obfuscated, that you'd never be able to tell what source images were used.

On top of that, anyone could create a collage of other peoples images, then upload it on a stock agency claiming that it was created by AI.

An interesting side effect of fooling around with Dall-e2 is that it made me appreciate real photography even more.

I'm currently using the technology for quick mockups, but not for the final image production. It's fun and free, so nothing to lose, really.

Last spring Amazon shut down Alexa, after 25 years of operation. This year it's DPReview, again 25 years in business. Maybe they've calculated that this should be the max lifespan of a website.

Unfortunately this happens on a lot of forums, where the old-timers feel they have the right to bully the newcomers. I had to leave a forum a week after joining, after being attacked by one of the more "experienced" posters, because I expressed an opinion he didn't share.

Some people feel that the forums are their territory that they need to protect.

Quote from: cobalt on January 31, 2023, 20:13

Quote from: Digital on January 31, 2023, 11:19
All Midjourney have to do is to add this text to their End User License Agreement:

"By downloading this image you agree not to sell/distribute it through stock agencies."

If the customer doesn't agree, he/she simply won't be able to download the generated image.

No copyright doesn't work that way.

they need explicit permission of the copyrightholders to start training their ais and remixing their pixels.

They cannot make any claims inlcuding limits on content they simply don't own.

It is just like in the music world. Look at how extremely expensive it can be if an artist even accidentally somewhere has a riff from a song of a well known band. They will get sued to hell and back.

"Oh, I heard it on the internet somewhere, so I just included it"..and I don't allow you to sell my remixed song commercially...

Does not work.

If you steal, you don't own.

End of story.

I'm not talking about copyright here, but getting access to their AI generator. They have the right to grant access to the people who promise not to upload the generated images on stock sites, and deny access to those who don't.

And as a customer you can't have copyright over images that you've never been allowed to generate in the first place, because you refused to agree to the company's terms.

(But if you have generated images in the past, they can't limit the way you can use those images retroactively, of course.)

All Midjourney have to do is to add this text to their End User License Agreement:

"By downloading this image you agree not to sell/distribute it through stock agencies."

If the customer doesn't agree, he/she simply won't be able to download the generated image.

Quote from: derby on January 26, 2023, 08:21

Quote from: ADH on January 26, 2023, 00:44
David Holz, midjourney CEO, said less than an hour ago that he doesn't like midjourney-generated images being put up for sale through stock agencies. He said that he is seriously considering banning the sale of midjourney-generated images through stock agencies.

I can't find any source for this.
And it would be a complete nonsense, if real: why in the earth Midjourney would donate this market to dozens of competitor?
Also from legal point of view it seems very hard to say "You have commercial rights BUT not for this specific market". David Holz cannot "ban" that market, at the contrary the market can "ban" midjourney, that has been already done by SS and Getty.

By the way... it's a strange world and anything it's possible I would like to read the original source with the words of David Holz

It depends on the company's Terms. Take for example the two biggest marketplaces for 3D models - Turbosquid and CGTrader.

Turbosquid doesn't allow images, generated from their models to be sold on stock markets, but CGTrader does.

This can be done by rendering the 3D models in passes.

- diffuse color pass
- reflection pass
- specular pass
- shadow pass

Then they recreate each pass with vectors, and combine/blend them.

What about hybrid images? Say a photo of a hand holding a phone, displaying an ai generated image. Or a generated room interior, with a real framed photo hanging on the wall. There could be infinite ways to combine camera photos with 3D renders, ai images, and even hand drawn illustrations.

The only problem I see with AI (or SS, as I call it - Splice Synthesis) is the terrible thing it does to human hands. Once they fix that, it's golden.

Oh, and the lack of SSS. Without the SubSurface Scattering all those portraits look like 3D renders from 2003-2004.

DTroot>$sudo del kword={*kiss*,*child*} ext {.jpeg,.tiff,.png}

DTroot>Delete all files?[Y/N]: y_

DTroot>Deleting files from the server.........

Just wonder who'd be brave enough to become the new captain of this sinking ship.

I use the Dark Reader browser extension. It automatically switches every website to dark mode.

Quote from: Fyletto on April 04, 2022, 10:09
So, in other industries firms are rising pay as people combat with inflation and demand more money. We constantly loose. Wicked. With inflation over 10%, rising costs everywhere we keep getting less and less. Images or video, does not matter

Yes, the companies are raising the salaries of their employees. But in order to do this they have to cut the royalties for the contributors.