Quote from: cascoly on February 23, 2024, 22:28

...

what's new? - this is the way capitalism has always worked. govt is controlled by money, esp'ly since hobby lobby decision - not understanding this just shows your naivete --> in general, too many posts here show a tunnel vision that focuses on solipsistic views about stock agencies without understanding basic modern economics & policy that play out on a macro-economic scale. this is just business as usual - both factions are complicit - it's just that democrats sometimes deplore it, republicans adore it - neither side does anything to change the underlying  conditions

And the Democrats just pass bills that help the stocks that they own in a legal form of insider trading. Lets not blame one party or another for what both do. And your twisted generalization of the laws, based on freedom of religion, is specific, limited to privately held corporations ONLY. I suppose the liberals just want to tell everyone else how to run their life, their business and make more restrictive laws and raise more taxes. Lets punish the rich for being successful?

Meanwhile back at stock. The plan long term, is like anything else that,s new and trendy. Pay to get people into the system. Offer rewards and hope. Then cut, cut, reduce wages, lower commissions, make it harder to earn a decent wage. The stock agencies have their inventory, now they don't care about the producers any longer. AI fits right into this, eliminate the expensive part of production, the humans.

Ten people working at AI can produce as many images as 100 people working with conventional tools. The ironic part is that some of us are being paid to scuttle our own ship. Data Licensing isn't worth whatever they might pay and once the AI research has the data, they don't need the same data again.

too many discussions here show a tunnel vision where folk decry microstock moves as something unique, so it's not off topic to expand the view to see this as the way modern economies have always worked -- i did say both parties are complicit - just their ideologies are different, but within the same capitalist meme

 what you describe as MS maneuvers is again basic capitalism - owners reduce costs to the detriment of workers and keep the profits - so, yes -'punish' the rich thru higher taxes (not by giving them huge tax cuts)

No more pilots in this industrial machinery which only cares about the money it makes. Absolutely No value except MONEY.
What are governments doing? Who makes the LAW?
Democracy Moneycracy

Be sure pdophiles will be able to have a lot of fun with the AI, and entertain many things before taking real action. Where is the metaverse police?

what's new? - this is the way capitalism has always worked. govt is controlled by money, esp'ly since hobby lobby decision - not understanding this just shows your naivete --> in general, too many posts here show a tunnel vision that focuses on solipsistic views about stock agencies without understanding basic modern economics & policy that play out on a macro-economic scale. this is just business as usual - both factions are complicit - it's just that democrats sometimes deplore it, republicans adore it - neither side does anything to change the underlying  conditions

Greetings, all.

I am trying to revive my somewhat lackluster "career" that got back-burnered for several years. This time, however, I actually have time to do the extra work to try to get myself in front of people.

I have what might be a dumb question. I did a small session for family that was posted on Facebook (by the family, not by me) and that post has received some feedback. Is it ok or ethical or not for me to copy those comments and enter them on my customer proofs site as feedback?

I hope that makes sense.

it's ethical IF you get  permission from the poster(s)

And so a random discovery became a mystery. 
If I could quote Agatha C. - "The impossible could not have happened, therefore the impossible must be possible in spite of appearances.�

or my favorite Sherlock quote:
Sherlock
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

- Sign of the Four

...................
Depositphotos can be a nice place for a newbie to experiment.

SS has tiny sales but if you simply want to learn what is it that customers like to buy, it can be a useful place just to learn and understand how customers think...

for other newcomers - the above are highly opinionated - many of us here report our best sales with SS (for me SS is 2x of AS). not directed at cobalt, but many of those who slur SS dont have SS accounts anymore and nurse a grudge going back several years

DP is a easy to upload, but i dont recall many folk reporting decent sales

it may be too late as they've recently  loosed an AI kraken that devours all submissions immediately.  but my older canva portfolio duels with AS each month for 2nd place

deleting your account  only hurts you - i haven't deleted my wirestock acct since they find sales on agencies i dont submit to. but i have stopped submitting to them.

i use same metadata for similar sets

captioning images is the most time-consuming part of submitting microstock - i have thousands of images needing metadata, so if i can do multiple images at once, i can submit more. and at the $ we receive it isn�t worth the time to tweak  each image without knowing if any of them will sell

trying to game the system without knowing the rules of the game is a losing strategy, especially when each agent has its own secret  rules

Quote from: Mifornia on February 07, 2024, 04:00

There are a lot of people wo are selling 120 images of dogs for $1.50 and seems to be making a lot of sales. Those images are not processed well, but just rendering them, converting them , zipping and uploading + customer emails - scaring me off from trying it myself.

Anyone tried it successfully?

I haven't but I have seen just what you say and they list sales, and they appear to be successful. I see sets that are nothing but a large selection of right click images, zipped and then sold for a low price. No I haven't done that and I won't.

I tried to make some high quality sets of specialized images, high resolution. No market. That's the way it goes. Crafters and scrapbook people just want bits and pieces, not high res, high quality.

since i already have galleries on my blog , and collections in FAA, all meta-dataed, i'll try this out -all i need to do is resize to 640-400 n& list on my dormant etsy acct - it's worth a try & will report on the monstrous sales i get

...
"each image is broken down to tokens and there's no way to reverse the process to identify where a token came from" Yes, and that's why we can't get credit for each new image. There is no one to one relationship from the original images to connect to the AI creations. Once trained the AI is on it's own.

I think Thaler intentionally went this way and more than once, has challenged, to cause a decision and bring Machine Learning into the court system as a test case. No one would try to register an art work as created by a machine, when they know the laws say, that can't be approved.

yes, that's the distinction most of the anti-ai faction fail to understand -- that scraping for training may have copyright violation implications., but is not relevant for the second component - making a new work

thaler's rejected case was provocative =- claiming the ai software was the creator. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/arts/design/copyright-ai-artwork.html

but that ruling goes against the copyright office (CO) view that ai gen is the creator and thus the human can't register a copyright.  So thaler was actually helpful by getting a legal decision that rejects the CO claim.  And if the AI is not the creator, then the human must be!


unfortunately, thalers case is mistakenly quoted to support the opposite of the ruling  (by those who didn't read it, or misunderstood it or purposely choose to misconstrue it) -- claiming that his loss means AI work is not copyrightable when it actually means the opposite

 the other point they ignore by claiming that the CO ruling means AI gen work is public domain is that a work is still copyrighted, by law, on creation.  the overwhelming number of copyrights never go to the CO but are never 'public domain' and that can only be changed by congress changing the law.

Quote from: cascoly on February 03, 2024, 14:13

in an often cited case, they rejected a copyright when the owner oddly claimed the ai was the creator and he owned the copyright as a 'work for hire' - the office rejected these arguments, which is not the same as saying an artist cannot copyright a work they CREATED using a computer program.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/us-cross-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf

the core of the decision was the Office �will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that
operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human
author.�  and the applicant undermined his case by declaring the work was �created autonomously by machine.�. this judgment was different from declaring ai assisted works cannot be copywrote.

my emphasis shows the issue that  remains to be directly litigated or legislated.

Yes, but you are biased towards one side of the decision and cherry-picking your defense.   


When an AI �receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, � users do not exercise ultimate creative control� and the resulting work is not copyrightable

When a human selects, arranges, or modifies AI generated material in a sufficiently creative way, the work may be copyrightable

Yes, AI work can be copyrighted, if a human selects, arranges or modifies... Thaler could have said, he edited the output and then what?

yes, that's my biased opinion - your 'biased' is my ' intelligently informed opinion'

Courts in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, have all held that only natural persons can be considered inventors.

Yes there is investigation and there will be more cases, but I don't think this is going to be as simple as, someone typed the prompt, so it's something that can be protected. Will AI chat text and articles be protected, because someone asked for the subject?

My best argument in favor of our work being protected would be, I generate the prompt, and there's an image, which, after that, I the human, edited and altered into a new work, which therefore means I can protect my human creation, based upon an AI, public domain image. 

A �guiding human hand� is necessary for authorship, and I am that human.

you keep agreeing with me!  another point is that the court has no way to know what the creative process was & how creative the artist was - they can only look at the work. what's their opinion when the work  alone is submitted with no indication it was ai generative? 

If I have ,say, 5 images all on the same theme (For example people playing tennis) Am I best to submit them all side by side?  Or should I  separate my submission of them out over a few days?

Thanks

the advice to 'choose your best' is just silly - no one can predict which technically similar images will sell best


 i'll submit several from the shoot, then others in later submissions.  AS in particular seems to be more open to a series where the images are similar in subject but distinctive in actual content. and i usually have the same meta data for all - that doesn't seem to matter, so not worth your time to make each description unique

certainly 5 isn't too many.

factors the agencies have finally realized is they can't really predict which image from aseries will sell the m ost, and that often buyers will take multiple from the series

YMMV

Quote from: cascoly on February 02, 2024, 14:43

Quote from: Year of the Dog on February 02, 2024, 07:04

Quote from: cobalt on February 01, 2024, 22:21

I had a look at the mage page.

In the terms of service it says that everything created is public domain.

Not sure if that is ideal.

Everything created is public domain because AI can't be copyrighted. A machine is not a human mind.

not true - the basic law hasn't changed so images are copyrighted by their creators (humans using tools) and there are cases i n several jurisdictions pending - even there, a decision on one US circuit does not apply to others. and EU and th er countries may have differing standards.

AI gen is not a 'machine' but software , the same as PS or others. the mind doesn't creates ideas, but it takes a tool/machine whether pencil or camera or computer to create the expression of that idea which is automatically grantved copyright

US copyright office disagrees with you, and contradicts itself, but China says they are protected. The EU doesn't know what they think. There's no unity to the union. When the supreme court decides we'll know.

true, but the copyright office is not he law, but offers its opinion on whether a partivcular work is covered. and only congress can change the udnerlying war. . the copyright office is currently conducting a review of the issue.

in an often cited case, they rejected a copyright when the owner oddly claimed the ai was the creator and he owned the copyright as a 'work for hire' - the office rejected these arguments, which is not the same as saying an artist cannot copyright a work they CREATED using a computer program.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/us-cross-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf

the core of the decision was the Office �will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that
operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human
author.�  and the applicant undermined his case by declaring the work was �created autonomously by machine.�. this judgment was different from declaring ai assisted works cannot be copywrote.

my emphasis shows the issue that  remains to be directly litigated or legislated.