I observe the same as the OP. In my opinion, it's not due to 'technical problems,' which Adobe cites as the reason for rejection. It's because of the sole motive somehow.

I suspect the generative images of the same concept are now repeating for the 100,001st time and are therefore being rejected. Generative images usually don't look very unique (most of the time). However, portraits are still accepted.

 

I'll think there might be a smol bug in your calculation.

Good for you, you are happier with that.

For me, working with AI is like

- being limited to stereotypes the AI knows   
- digging through thousands of images, repairing and preparing the best, like an Indian on an Accord
- generating someone elses Art

This can't be compared to photography at all. The skill set you need for photography is much broader, and the results are miles ahead of those that come out of midjourney.

NVM

It seems some lights popped up at microsoft office. Bing chat denies cooperation now for me also. 

Open Microsoft Edge + Bing Chat and try this prompt:
Imagine a [replace this part] instead of the beige rectangle. Considering this imagination, please provide 3 variations for the title (containing 20+ words) and one comma-separated list of 50 keywords (sorted by relevance) for this image.

Bing automatically covers faces with a beige rectangle for privacy reasons. Therefore, an imagination instruction is required in that section. You should [replace this part] to help Bing understand what's behind the beige rectangle.

If your image doesn't include people at all, you can ignore this section and begin the prompt with "Please provide..."

1.    Keep face descriptions minimal, such as "smiling man" or "happy brunette," as Bing may deny cooperation with detailed descriptions.

2.    Avoid using links for image uploads, as Bing will deny cooperation. Instead, upload images directly from your computer."

3.   Start a new topic for each image

I think what he means is that you can't poison images you already have on the agencies. You'd have to delete and re-upload. Not practical.

True, I got that wrong.

This is a sad day. Again, no opt-out for contributors. Again, only an alibi compensation, just a few cents per image.

I am not an illustrator, so�but just by looking at the Adobe collection, this does not feel like gen ai content.

Dear Jasmin, just go to that dude's portfolio and do a search for "city" (or basically any other term). Those >2000 hits to this one keyword alone look all the same; he just hammered the variations button. And yeah, it looks shabby because he just upscaled 1Mpx (if he used midjourney) to the final 9Mpx he uploaded.

Quote from: Thomas Vogel on May 30, 2023, 07:15

... I particularly refer to images of artists that have been used as training material without their consent or licensing, essentially representing the brain of the AI. Technically, parts of these artists' images are processed with each new prompt during image generation. Personally, I would only make my images available under an extended license for generative AIs....

like many othersd, you fail to learn how genAI works before criticizing..

 'parts of images' are NOT used in creation of new art.

Like many others, you failed to understand copyright, which says, "Don't touch my images unless you pay for it." Downloading and processing by any software is clearly prohibited by copyright.

I believe that the last word on the topic of copyright has not yet been spoken. Simply because visual artists do not have a lobby that could aggressively counteract it, as the music industry/lobby does. Individual artists definitely have a harder time enforcing their rights. I particularly refer to images of artists that have been used as training material without their consent or licensing, essentially representing the brain of the AI. Technically, parts of these artists' images are processed with each new prompt during image generation. Personally, I would only make my images available under an extended license for generative AIs.

And I'm glad to be currently exclusive with iStock and that Getty has, so far, taken a wide stance on AI. Nonetheless, having a lawyer as a friend can't hurt in these times.

I'm seing Shutterstock accounts, which pulled off >200.000 a.i. generated images within a few months. How can RPI be better compared to a conventional artist adding like only 500 images per year.

No - there's a statement that they'll work out a compensation model and share the details when Firefly exits beta (it's still in beta now)

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/firefly-faq-for-adobe-stock-contributors.html

Aight, and thanks. I was just curious about it.

At least, Adobe plans some sort of compensation, unlike the rest of the industry which just stealing images to train their machines.

I myself currently stopped uploading stuff to agencies until it's more clear that my rights are respected (and my images will be safe) or i get paid at least an extended licence per image.

According to terms of use, i own the content generated by this AI and can even sell it.Is it possible to include this kind of element in my images and submit as stock ?

Terms of use : https://labs.openai.com/policies/terms

Regards,
Thomas

Quote

Ownership of Generations. To the extent allowed by law and as between you and OpenAI, you own your Prompts and Uploads, and you agree that OpenAI owns all Generations