Quote from: DiscreetDuck on April 21, 2024, 06:51

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 21, 2024, 05:15

Did Adobe steal something?No
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes

What about the notion of receiving stolen goods?
And make it the source (even partial) of a business?

so you assume that content generated by AI is stolen content?

so if you have AI content in your portfolio you are a thief too!

whereas if you don't have AI content in your portfolio,you are consistent with your ideas,and I respect that,but I don't agree with it!

It's a little bit of a "game" some people play.

Say someone steals a vehicle then resells it to you, and you didn't know it was stolen. Did you "steal" it? No - you paid for the vehicle - thinking it was good. However - the fact is, it is still a stolen vehicle, regardless of whether the person stole it sold it to you, or you now "own" a stolen vehicle.

Now question is slightly different. Say someone steals a vehicle then resells it to you, and you DO know it was stolen. Did you still "steal" it? I'd say it is a debatable point/gray area - but ultimately/"technically" no - because you paid for the vehicle, and you didn't do the actual 'theft' - so you didn't "steal" it - but you did know it was stolen. But fact is, in this case - it is still a stolen vehicle, regardless of whether the person stole it sold it to you, or you now "own" a stolen vehicle.

Is it 'right' (ethical) in ethical case? I'd say no - however... The large companies (i.e., 'midjourney') have set up an environment in which to "compete" effectively - it almost becomes necessary to use their "service" (which deals in pure stolen goods, the ceo according to google is also apparently jewsih- which is significant in that that seems to be the modus operandi of that culture and it's just how their businesses tend to operate, as the backers also are, the major investors, you need to understand the culture to understand how their businesses operate - but entirely different topic)...

So... then the question becomes...
a) If an environment is set up in which stealing is encouraged...
b) Sellers, in order to compete - feel pressure to buy/sell stolen goods... (And I think potentially a lot of creators don't fully realize that the "ai" systems are simply sophisticated theft, and might actually think they are using a 'magical' tool that can 'think', which of course it is not)...
c) Buyers willingly (either knowingly or unknowingly) participate in purchasing stolen goods... (i.e., it is possible and likely many buyers don't realize "ai" is simply sophisticated theft, and are actually under the illusion that it is some "thinking" machine, which of course it is not)...

To further add to that though... there is a small 'creative aspect' to the goods that the sellers have, albeit small - in that they do actually create a "prompt" (which is a 'new' item), and 'package' the goods (i.e., keywording, titling, etc)... in which case it is debatable - the goods that the "sellers" have - since "some" creative input was required - so it is not "direct" theft - is it still a "stolen good"? It is a "derivative" of stolen goods (i.e., it was 'based' off of stolen goods) - but does now the new "product" (which did require unique/creative input to create) - make it "not stolen"?

But then I suppose one could argue... if a vehicle was stolen, and the VIN on the car was changed, the car repainted - would one say that was still a "stolen vehicle" or a "new vehicle"...?

But it's a strange environment... when you have (primilary) east indians downloading complete portfolios (outright theft), making a new account to sell goods just to play whack-a-mole... jewhsi backed companies promoting theft-based environments (i.e., chatgpt jewsh/sam altman, midjourney jewsh/david holz) + backers that appear (through various shell organizations/etc) ultimately to be backed by blackrock/vanguard/etc (alsojewish, i.e., larry fink/blackrock)...

So how does one remain honest/ethical AND competitive, when dealing with people employing these dishonest tactics?

One super EASY solution though is the following...

Since companies like midjourney/chatgpt are based off of theft... Put pressure on them to make perpetual micropayments to the contributors whose works were stolen... Of course - they don't "want" that  - because they are extremely greedy and have a pyschotic sociopathic desire for "control" - but really doesn't matter what they "want" - because this would make it right. Also - with that system make it so contributors can choose what % micropayments they want, and if they don't want them, to opt out of the system. Despite what any wannabe-technie might say - it is EXTREMELY EASY to implement... "They" (the companies) have the meta data of where they stole the assets from, and it would be very easy (progrmatically) to set up a system to compensate contributors for their stolen works - and pay them in perpetuity (i.e., monthly for the rest of their lives) every time one of their works were referenced in a new "ai image" or "ai video"... It is also possible to make RETROACTIVE payments to all people's whose works were stolen.

At the same time... create awareness campaigns (social media/blogging/etc) to raise general public awareness that midjourney/chatgpt/etc are based off of stolen goods... regardless of whether they play the game saying "oh they simply got images from a RESEARCH company, so THEY didn't know it was stolen! <wink wink>". yeah, <cough cough bullsh_t>)... ultimately, they knowingly created tools based of massive scraping & theft, and want to re-package the stolen goods as their own, and are trying to create a system in which for a person to effectively compete need to use "their" tools (at which point they could grant/deny people access on a whim - they are pyschotic sociopaths and simply want "control", in addition to greed). That there is nothing "intelligent" about the current "AI" ("artificial intelligence"), and that it is simply sophisticated theft & pattern re-arrangment... So raise those types of awareness campaigns to help put pressure on them to do the right thing.

THEN... the tools are based off of ethically purchased/licensed goods, the derivative works become ethnically purchased/licensed, and a good situation all around...

That is one big solution in order to resolve the dilemma.

Sounds like a crediblity attack. The people at blackrock/vanguard (same ones that organized convid the fakevirus) are really trying to attack any competing company. Midjourney is a blackrockjoo/etc/company. Bloomberg/etc is owned by the same people that own/run/finance midjourney/etc.

"News" organizations aren't "news" - they are propoganda/manipulation machines... You don't see bloomberg attacking midjourney for stealing people's content, ripping it off, then trying to pass it off as their own, do you? No... because it's owned/managed by the same set of companies that own bloomberg, & most major "news" outlets.

1. re: cobalt stating "2,000 ppl making $1k or less from adobe" - how did the ppl in the forum arrive @ that number? seems like pulling #'s out of their butt unless they have some direct inside knowledge. of course - I am not sure what the # would be - just curious how they arrived @ those conclusions?

2. re: rankings - looking, I think my "best" rank was around 200th or so - but just looking @ my numbers, in some ways that is rather irrelevant, because
a) "income" is not really related to rank... looking @ some of my stats, my (weekly) income was actually higher one week @ rank 1000 than when I was @ rank ~200...
b) "income" also depends on a whole bunch of factors... do you luck out and get people purchasing full one-time non sub licenses (i.e., so you get a $30 sale), or is it a whole bunch of $0.33 subs... (i.e., you could get "500" downloads, but @ $0.33/a pop = $165 usd. conversely, if they were all $30 net sales to you, that is 500 @ $30 each = $1500 usd).
c) in some cases it is very seasonal, i.e., say Easter, when "everyone" is downloading Easter bunnies & Jesus pictures, versus say mother's day where it is all about flowers, etc... so you get "lucky" because YOUR picture of Jesus with an Easter bunny is more popular than the other 5,000,000 people with pictures of Jesus & an Easter bunny...
d) There is some degree of "luck" involved. While there are certain principles that are important (good subject, good lighting, trending, good keywords, etc) - sometimes you just have a picture that due to the mysterious nature of adobe's algorithms takes off, while others don't... if I knew the "magic formula" - obviously lol I'd only produce consistent "best sellers"...

There are certain topics which I know are being pushed by the blackrock/vanguard/WEF/UN/etc (the 'pyschotic' board of people) agenda, which "could" make extra $$$, but just choose not to participate in (i.e., the gay/trans/miscegnation crap designed to try & break up families/etc to make ppl easier to control)... others though - don't care - and they just want $$$ and keep pumping out some weird gay/trans/miscegnation crap... simply because some of the weirder, more perverted crap is really being pushed hard... some profiles seem to be pure perverted trans/gay crap... but - I guess they have to live with that - "that" is their "legacy"...

Anyhoo...

Only thing I would take from "rankings" is:
a) if you are ranked "higher" - meaning your downloads are higher relative to everyone else - means specifically with the "adobe" crowd of customers - you are providing the content they want. (Just because it sells @ adobe doesn't mean it would necessarily sell as well elsewhere - the adobe crowd tends to have specific tastes/styles/etc).
b) if you are consistently ranked "high" - it probably means you are consistently doing something correctly that is in demand.
c) bragging rights to make yourself "feel" better if you see you are "doing better" than someone else...

Quote from: cobalt on April 07, 2024, 20:39

Tried it with my own files to check how my images are described and what those prompts then create. Thankfully the resulting files were very different. Same genre but not copies.

I also test my image descriptions and titles to see if they create duplicates then modify my titles to be more generic if the results are too close.

I keep browsing their public explore gallery for interesting prompts, then modify them for my own purposes. I never go for copies, I always want the style and vibe for something very different, often a different genre altogether.

But there is a lot to learn about lighting, mood, composition directions. The more specific, the better the results. My descriptions are becoming longer and longer.

eta

now dropped to 5180

that is a low I have not seen in a very long time

Yeah, it's really interesting to browse on the Discord Channel. I love it. Really great to learn and get inspiration.
What kinda brutal is, how many user are now generating banners for youtube, linkedin, social media, etc.
And the most brutal is, how often Midjourney is generating really good stuff, which looks like it is photoshopped.

What I didn't know about Midjourney is, that you can "transfer" image effects of generated images to another.
Some users are creating complex effects, which normally are created with Photoshop's layer blending options.

I believe normal, boring stock photos / images will drop a lot in sales in the future. One have to create unique creative stuff.

And that's why companies like Midjourney, ChatGPT, etc - should be accountable/comepensate the users they stole their materials from, on a perpetual, recurring basis - the same income they expect to get from having stolen it from other people... the "man in the middle" thing (i.e., they got the images from a "research" company, aka "stealing") is total b.s. designed to try and it make it appear they didn't steal stuff, when in fact, they did, and they do. Their business is based off of theft.

Regarding "number of faces", this is one thing I don't get. I have also seen on Firefly where faces get almost repeated. With all the vast quantity of images these tools are trained on, how is it that they get stuck with a limited number of "faces"? Is it some kind of "flaw in the logic" of how they work? Is it a bug? If you take human artist, say painter, they don't repeat faces in their work, yet AI seems to do that. Maybe it's some kind of short cut in the algorithms which leeds to this? Just curious.

It's because... and many people still don't seem to get this - the "ai" isn't actually "ai" - it's essentially just stealing billions of images, and "blending" them together. It doesn't "understand" what you are asking - it just looks for certain tags (i.e., "black person", "white person") associated with the images it's stolen, "blends" them together, to make a black/white/etc person... that's greatly simplified (because it first creates "models" of the stolen material), but that's basically it.

Portfolio size does not necessarily seem to matter... 30k/40k files does not necessarily 'guarantee' one a top spot, especially if say it is 30k pictures of bananas

One thing I've noticed is it seems some very (relatively speaking) "small" portfolios for whatever reason - have a few 'best sellers' that take off like wildfire... Lol obviously if I knew what the 'magic formula' was- I just focus on producing those bestsellers

And then I suppose there are some that are difficult to recreate... yes, "ai" (its not real "ai", its basically copying and blending) - is getting better at stealing content & rehashing/blending it... but - definitely not "perfect"... There was one video (I think someone posted here, or maybe I saw it while looking at other things) - where I guess a woman was saying she made $8k from a single image... She shared it - and it was a very good picture of a baby under a white blanket... just happened to have the right expression, right lighting, etc and resonated with a lot of people... Now the "ai" could try and steal that - but it wouldn't be the same...

And then also - I think in some ways images sell in "different" ways... I.e., if people see that baby image, they want "that" image for their campaigns, etc... so that probably also helps propel some sales too...

I learned early on that if anyone is serious about making a career from this business, they should follow one simple rule. Do not divulge or give away details of what works for you including images that sell well. You have to treat it as a business and businesses do not provide, "Secrets of their success" to help their competitors take money from them. It sounds harsh but ultimately it will serve you well. Sorry if this sounds nasty but it's hard enough in this line of work without shooting yourself in the foot.

That said, I do enjoy teaching so when I retire, I would like to teach one or two people about how I did things. Not so much for money etc, just because I like the idea of passing something on.

Well... you could be the first! You mean, you aren't one of those guys selling a "How I make five BILLION dollars a day on autopilot in my underwear, while only working 30 seconds sipping a cappucino - and 29 of those seconds are getting caffeinated - and these secrets can be YOURS - for only $29.95!!!" type of people???

Mmm. I do agree - so was in generic terms if you had certain tips, but if not - that is okay too.

So... next question. When do you retire?

Part of the reason it seems to be "encouraged" - is it appears to be part of the blackrock/vanguard "strategy" to get people to "demand" a "digitalID". (I.e., id2020.org).
If they "let" people steal (usually east indians/different culture, considered "good business" if you can steal someone's stuff and get away with it) - then people "demand" to be "protected", and "voila", "digitalID" (and the digital ID is actually really really bad, because it is a control mechanism designed to take away people's income if they "disagree" or say something against a "govt" entity, i.e., what happened last 4 years).

That's the 'bigger picture' view.

And I also do agree since the agencies seem to just 'keep the income' if it is reported - it is a 'bonus' for them.

So in terms of what should be done...

a) Keep getting those accounts that steal shut down.
b) Get pressure on the agencies to give the income to those whom it was taken away from.

I'd say what this guy is doing is very good, making a public database of stolen accounts.

P5 sales for some reason dropped like a stone several months ago. "Slight" improvement over the massive drop, but not yet where they should be historically.

Finally I cracked above 1,000th because of yesterday's hot sales.  Also it's already the BWE for photo downloads this week.  Nice!!

Good job! How many times has your best AI photo sold? And are you seeing the majority of new sales from AI, or your previous/real life photography photos?

Simple (says it on the Adobe website as well).

If it looks like a camera could have taken a picture, then it's a photo.

If it looks handdrawn, and/or an unnature photo composite, then it is an illustration.

If you try uploading photos as illustrations, they will most likely be auto rejected.

From iStock? About $0, but I don't have an account there, so that could be it

Quote from: SuperPhoto on March 17, 2024, 09:11

Pond5 you can sell at 4k prices

This probably only applies to exclusive authors. On Pond5 they buy 4k videos very often at very low prices. There are also subscriptions and discounts for buyers from different countries. Prices are lower for poor countries.

As for 4K processing, the technology is the same as for HD.

Re: 4k processing - I'm talking about things like post processing, artifact removal/etc... It's much more "expensive" to do that on your computer, than simply working with HD footage, in both terms of CPU resources, & time involved... processing HD videos is a LOT faster...

But...  I guess not really any point in uploading new video footage there anyways...

Before - (i.e., 2-3 years ago) - you could get $70 for a clip... for HD/4k... Now... (as a bare minimum it seems) it's about $3, and 'maybe' a little higher if separate/individual packs were purchased... Revenue from clip sales has not gone up 20x to compensate for the difference...