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 - angelacat
1
« on: May 21, 2024, 05:07 »
How would this even help other types of artists? Sony is a huge company with famous artists that has an interest in keeping AI companies from mining their content. They know AI is a serious risk to their and their artists' income.
But who would help photographers and illustrators? We don't have a lobby and the only ones who should have had any interest in protecting our artwork - the microstock agencies - are the ones who have stabbed us in the back by using our content to train their AIs.
I don't know the more companies that throw lawsuits against these AI degenerative software companies the harder it will be for them to continue. Is anyone going to invest in company who's always in court?
2
« on: May 20, 2024, 01:55 »
better than expected.
Congrats.
3
« on: May 20, 2024, 01:53 »
Good April - around the same for April 23 not complaining.
Past year quality of my work has suffered sometimes as I had a house move going on for around 1 year.
May 2024 so far - very slow.
4
« on: May 16, 2024, 08:19 »
Ah right I'll look into the meta data thing - see if mines missing somehow. Thanks
5
« on: May 16, 2024, 07:43 »
LOL yeah just sums it all up. AI this, AI that, AI will save the world - it's that latest "insane, gamechanger" (sigh)
6
« on: May 16, 2024, 06:46 »
8 photographs rejected by Adobe because they are "During our review, we found that it is likely to be generated by AI and not labelled as such".
It's not true, I've emailed Adobe support - just annoying I keep having to prove I'm not plagarising other's work.
7
« on: April 25, 2024, 06:28 »
This happens to me occasionally when I submit fractals and 3D renders and the reviewers think they are AI. Last time it happened I just re-uploaded the image and it was accepted. On other occasions I have written to Support with the file numbers and the files have been accepted. This is not the sort of thing that people get banned for.
Thanks - reassuring
8
« on: April 25, 2024, 05:46 »
Proof of their incompetence in handling situations. They are barely capable of giving a marketing speech, everything is fine, we are managing! And the contempt for honest contributors from the start is growing, as they depend less and less on them. The contributor community is divided, great for them, they can rule.
I still don't know how this will play out. If people are not getting any compensation for their work - why would anyone post anything to the internet other than for fun. If people stop posting anything high value such as artwork, photographs, video, written content what will AI work from - it's own outputs? Do tech bros think people are going to spend their own dime and time for them to profit from? To be fair to Shutterstock - they rejected some of my images under "AI" but I raised a support call and it was sorted pretty quickly.
9
« on: April 25, 2024, 05:06 »
Matt: I've had illustrations rejected by Adobe because:
- Non compliant use of another artists name. - Undeclared Generative AI Content
This is not true - I don't use and have never used AI.
Do I risk getting banned from Adobe from incorrect AI rejections?
Thanks Cat
10
« on: April 11, 2024, 03:53 »
I've let Blackbox know, I'm a contributor there.
11
« on: April 10, 2024, 11:46 »
Thanks Bennu99
SS asked me to resubmit with the case number I raised which I've done. Thankfully only 3 and the other 20 or so were not categorised as AI.
I think I'll lay off uploading illustrations until resolved. Ironically I've been very outspoken about my concerns over generative AI - I hate it.
Thanks again Bennu99
12
« on: April 10, 2024, 11:07 »
Hi
Uploaded some illustrations and some were rejected by SS
"AI Generated Content: AI generated content is prohibited. Repeated submission of such content will result in account suspension and/or termination."
Thing is they are not AI, I don't use AI. I've emailed SS to dispute this but it's a bit worrying if they can ban you because of their mistake.
Anyone else had this experience?
Thanks Cat
13
« on: February 29, 2024, 08:20 »
I think Youtube are tagging videos that contain AI, don't know full details but it's more of an attempt to warn people that the content may not be real.
Personally I'd like an option that blocks all AI videos but I'm probably on the extreme argument against AI.
14
« on: February 23, 2024, 09:21 »
Doesn't matter how much time it saves someone *if* it turns out AI can't be copyrighted you're not stealing.
15
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:55 »
Appreciate it is in grey zone but just because agencies adjust their terms of service if AI can't be copyrighted (ok debatable) why would people pay for AI images on the agencies they could just download and use for free.
16
« on: February 23, 2024, 05:55 »
Thanks Derby I'm not in US so I don't know how copyright laws are changed and made law (not asking you to explain) more research on my part.
Thanks again
17
« on: February 23, 2024, 04:44 »
In the United States, a federal judge ruled in 2023 that AI artwork cannot meet federal copyright standards because Copyright law is limited to the original intellectual conceptions of the author. With no author, there is no copyright.
What am I missing - no human author - no copyright?
I don't understand.
18
« on: February 23, 2024, 04:24 »
Thanks Her Ugliness
Yes I've misunderstood.
19
« on: February 23, 2024, 03:19 »
Or even put glaze options in the cameras at source maybe wishful thinking but camera manufacturers have a stake in this.
I don't post up personal photos on the internet but serious concerns for those that do.
20
« on: February 23, 2024, 02:56 »
21
« on: February 23, 2024, 02:17 »
My sales are up compared to February 2023 but down on December so it could be seasonal.
One question I have is that why would people sell AI images on stock agencies because if I understand correctly AI images can not be copyrighted?
Thanks Cat
22
« on: February 22, 2024, 03:03 »
"Well great big thank you, after they used everything for free."
Yes I know - although this has been raised in a US senate hearing and the fact that artists have not been asked permission to use their work or compensated. (BTW I'm from England so not familiar with US political structures).
In England copyright is classed as "fair use" and not for profit but AI is very much for profit. And if it's damaging artists income how is that "fair use".
Disclaimer I'm not a lawyer but just curios.
Thanks Cat
23
« on: February 21, 2024, 02:44 »
I contacted SS to to opt out last year but SS said that option was not available I've opted out now though for what it's worth.
24
« on: February 20, 2024, 12:15 »
There's a chap on youtube (Adam Duff) who's walking through some of the AI hearings. I'm not affiliated with this chap just thought they were interesting.
25
« on: February 20, 2024, 12:08 »
Maybe if it's improved (early days). I heard AI companies argue it could be classed as malware - they would though wouldn't they.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|