|
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 - Her Ugliness
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23]
551
« on: October 08, 2022, 00:55 »
I haven't been a contributor with Canva very long, so maybe there is something obvious I don't get, but I cannot find any good breakdown of commissions on their site. Usually my earning is made up by subscription earnings and individual sales. So far all my individual sales have been small ones, either $1 or $3, of which I seem to have gotten either a 35% or 39% commission, so $1.05 for a $3 sale and $0.39 for a $1 sale. This week I got my first big individual sale for $60. Sadly there is nothing to be happy about, because my commission for it was $1.15.  So I only got a commission of 1.9%? Can anyone explain to me why the extreme low commission on bigger sales?
552
« on: October 07, 2022, 01:57 »
We recently deployed an update where by all new uploads won't be tagged with the PLUS tab anymore. We hope this gives you assurance that your newer content isn't automatically opted into the PLUS program.
You should maybe have developed an update where old uploads won't be tagged with the PLUS tab by default instead, seeing as that's what people are complaining about here. Then you also would not have to waste recources un-tagging them after contributors' requests.
553
« on: October 06, 2022, 06:24 »
Interestingly, it obviously copies quite a bit as they were also including watermarks with the images they produce.
Might risk sounding like a broken record, but: The AIs sometimes generated images that have something resembling microstock agency watermarks, because they have been trained with so many watermarked (unlicensed!) images that they wrongly learned that the watermark was part of whatever it was supposed to generate. When an AI generates a watermark, it "thinks" it belongs in the picture like a suit to a businessman or the sun to a picture of a sunny sky. It's an issue of wrong learning, not an issue of copying. It recreates the watermark, just like it re-creates the sun or a suit. It cannot understand that the watermark is not part of whatever it is supposed to depict. If an AI was capable of thinking/realizing that whatever it is creating in images was actually something that exists in the offline world, then it would think that people walk around with floating watermarks in front of them. I start to think that many people do not really understand what an AI is. Artificial intelligence. It's not a computer programm that copy & pastes stuff. It is a program that has learning abilities. It gets input and it learns from it. Give it the wrong input and it will learn to create wrong results.
554
« on: October 05, 2022, 09:35 »
No.
555
« on: October 03, 2022, 00:30 »
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a company like say SS got paid by one of these places for access to the images and keywords.
If this had been the case, then the AI would not have learned to genereate SS watermarks on their images, because if SS gave them access to the images there would not have been a watermark on the images.
556
« on: October 02, 2022, 01:26 »
A.I. can't use images from microstock because they are watermarked
And yet they clearly did.
557
« on: October 01, 2022, 09:43 »
I just found this on one forum. This AI has totally ripped of microstock content.
The AI was trained with watermarked images so much that it thinks the watermark should belong to the image. It thinks the watermark is part of a businessman, just like his tie or glasses. This is an issue that has been discussed before and even adressed by members of DALL. It doesn't mean the image itself was "ripped-off", just that the AI was trained wrongly. Could have easily been avoided if the people working for /owning DALL and other AI image generators would have, well, I don't know... bothered to actually PAY for the images they fed their AI with? Can't say I don't feel a little bit gleefull that it's causing hiccups in the image creating process.
558
« on: September 30, 2022, 05:59 »
Question about the AI software itself. Can you specify a folder of artwork to draw from, or does it always just scrape the internet?
The AIs don't "scrap" the internet to create images. Images from the internet were used to train the AI to create images on its own. So the "scrapping" process already took part when the AI was programmed.
At least DALL let's you upload your own image to modify it, but you can't have it re-trained based on your own images.
Again, so they say. Their code is not transparent and they will protect it as propriety. The images they output up till recently would occasionally had identifiable watermarks from the stock agencies in them. They were saying the same thing then. So the app was and is copy pasting to some extent (lets call it what it is as calling it AI is really meaningless; when is something become AI). It has just gotten better at hiding its sources. The rest is just buzz words.
I was the one who pointed out the watermark issue above, so I am well aware. It has nothing to do with the AI "copying & pasting" pieces of image, but with the fact that the AI had so many watermarked images to train with, that it simply "learned" that this is part of the image. It doesn't understand what a "dog" is. Show it 10.000.000 watermarked Shutterstock images of dogs and it will think that dogs have watermarks.
559
« on: September 30, 2022, 00:50 »
Question about the AI software itself. Can you specify a folder of artwork to draw from, or does it always just scrape the internet?
The AIs don't "scrap" the internet to create images. Images from the internet were used to train the AI to create images on its own. So the "scrapping" process already took part when the AI was programmed. At least DALL let's you upload your own image to modify it, but you can't have it re-trained based on your own images.
560
« on: September 28, 2022, 03:52 »
Nothing. However, with regards to submitting work to agencies, they require you to be the original copyright owner. If you use AI software, you're not! Same as submitting someone else's work as your own.
AI software is scraping images and metadata from the internet without the original copyright owners permission and using it to create the images in the AI software. So, submitting images from AI software under your name is similar to you downloading images from the internet, slicing and dicing them, merging them and then selling them as your own. How happy would you be if someone did that to your portfolio?!?!
no - copyright is owned by the creator of the work & DALL-E makes this clear.
your description of how AI works perpetuates a false and misleading narrative - again RYFM - this is NOT how machine learning works and saying it 3 times doesnt make it true. no one making this argument has shown actual evidence that this is true. it's easy enough to do the experiment
I think you are both a bit right/wrong here. It's not like the AI takes our images and then just hacks them into pieces and puts them together again with parts of our images still intact, but it is STILL our microstock work the AI image generators are using as a base for their learning and there is evidence for this. In some earlier stages of DALL the AI would generate something strongly resembling the Shutterstock watermark on the image, because it had been trained with watermarked Shutterstock images so much, that it thought it belonged into the image. Boris Dayma from DALL even admitted so himself: "In early models, still in some models, you ask for a picture - for example mountains under the snow and then on top of it, the Shutterstock or Alamy watermark." This is a direct quote and I have seen screenshots that showed examples of this happening. And the saddest thing to me is that they did not even bother to pay for the images used to train the AI, as they were clearly watermarked. Yes, they give copyright to the "describers" of the AI generated images, but they used images to train it where they did not own copyright themselves. They can probably get away with this legally, but moraly I find all of this highly repulsive. They basically used our own images without paying for them to create something that one day in the future will most likely destroy our line of work.
561
« on: September 27, 2022, 00:11 »
I'll test it out on all agencies see if they accept it.
I doubt it as the Shutterstock release explicitly mentions Shutterstock many times. It is better to use the universal release, or even better EasyRelease app on phone
I don't think that's a problem. I have been using the Shutterstock release form for all agencies. They don't care that it says "Shutterstock", all they care for is that it contains the right information. Not sure it's different with the docusign thingy, but I can't imagine why it should.
562
« on: September 26, 2022, 10:35 »
Is anyone else having trouble getting horizontal and vertical versions of same subject approved? Many of my vertical images have been rejected for similar content lately.
No, but what exactly are you trying to submit? It's not allowed to submit the same image as both vertical or horizontal image. ( https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Similar-Content?language=en_US) If you want to have them approved you have to re-arrange the scene, change the angle, etc. on both vertical and horizontal shoot and best not submit them at the same time. That usually works for me, but just shooting the same scene vertically and horizontally is not allowed on Shutterstock. Though I remember there was a time when they suggested doing exactly that in some of their older blog posts. 🤷
563
« on: September 26, 2022, 01:15 »
stock photography itself has little to do with art! and who says art has to be created by humans?
Pretty much everyone. I understand that "What is art" has always been a tricky question. Believe me, I have a degree in art. But, while the definitions seem to be a bit different depending on who you ask or in what time period you asked them, it is most often defined by human activity that involves creative or imaginative talent, a product of imagination and creativity. Try looking up a few definitions online yourself. You will most often find words like "human", "Person", "creativity", "imaginaton", "expression" and so on. None of this applies to AI generated images. An AI might create something "pretty to look at", but AI generated images are a product of programming/calculation, not of imagination or creativity. Maybe there is an aspect of creativity in the process where a human describes an image to an AI, but take for example that AI generated image that won the art contest that was linked above. A human would have needed to write an essay that is several pages long to really describe this image as it is to every single detail like a fold in clothing and I very much doubt that is what happened. So, at least as of now I have a hard time accepting that an AI could create "art" the way it is defined now. Art is always meant to express something. Can you imagine how many hours I spent at university analyzing artworks? "What did the artist want to express with this?" "Why did he pick this color?" "Why this composition?" "What feelings did he want to convey?" Imagin sitting in a lecture analyzing AI generated art like this. No point in doing it, because all the AI really did is calculate some pixel. However, time changes, definitions change. I am sure one day the definition will include AI just the same as human produced products. But for now I still have a hard time accepting it. But you are completely right about the first thing: Microstock is not about art. Microstock is solely about producing useful images. An AI can do that. At least once it gets better. As of now I find the results I have seen underwhelming in too many case. I even tried to produce some images with DALL for my other job. After a few tries I gave it up and drew something myself instead, because the AI results never really looked good to me.
564
« on: September 24, 2022, 06:59 »
It's normal and happens all the time unfortunately. Since they redesigned the earning page that link does not work, but you can still see your adjustments when you click on "Detailed earnings summary". In the second line you have the sorting options "by month", "by product" and "adjustments". There you can see which images have been refunded.
565
« on: September 23, 2022, 11:33 »
Good job banning these AI images, but how do they know it was generated via AI? How will they be going back to purge previously accepted AI imagery?
It shouldn't be that hard. If it's a real model the person submitting the image will need a model release. You can't get a model release from an AI, so no model release, no acceptance.
Not quite. If its a photo and contains any person, it requires a model release. My understanding is you can only submit your own work, you have to be the copyright owner. Submitting AI images you neither created it or own the copyright and therefore should not be submitting the image to the agency. End of.
If you have created a rendered illustration, you are submitting your own work, you have the copyright and I'd imagine, if it's not the case already, you will need to provided a property release stating it is your own work (inc reference material).
Getty isn't banning AI images. They are only banning AI created models. That's what their e-mails says. If it's a real model the person submitting the image will need a model release. If there is no model release they know it was generated via AI or the person does not have a model release. In both cases the image gets rejected. Quite easy.
566
« on: September 22, 2022, 23:29 »
Good job banning these AI images, but how do they know it was generated via AI? How will they be going back to purge previously accepted AI imagery?
It shouldn't be that hard. If it's a real model the person submitting the image will need a model release. You can't get a model release from an AI, so no model release, no acceptance.
567
« on: September 21, 2022, 03:55 »
I do not know whether the removal rule is new, but the "we may modify pricing & payment"-thing is part of every agency's contributor agreement I know of and I am sure it has been there before.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
