At least her fingers look normal...

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

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Digital on January 31, 2023, 06:19

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.)

Quote from: ADH on January 25, 2023, 19:44

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with this image? I wouldn't upload anything better for the $0.10 they pay...

You're right, this doesn't make sense.. The 1080 sale should have been $0.01.