|
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 - cascoly
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 166
76
« on: February 13, 2024, 16:01 »
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
77
« on: February 13, 2024, 15:38 »
istock 
Instead of mass uploads, try 25 absolute best files that will be superb bestsellers. Make it your absolute standout best looking portfolio.
i've seen a bunch of comments recently that it's quality over quantity which is certainly at least partially true. however i've found many of my "bestsellers" are not what i thought would sell and some files i almost threw in the trash have received a few downloads as well. you may be different but i'm definitely not the buyer of my own work and can only sort of guess at what they want. i've had cell phone snapshots sell pretty well and (in my opinion) much better photos that i spent more time on just sit there collecting dust.
if i was giving advice to a new person i'd say try everything and see what sticks.
i agree -i'm always surprised by what sells - eg my best selling travel images of ocean cruises are of the casino luckily most agencies have stopped or reduced rejects for 'low commercial value' as they realize no on can really predict which images will sell
78
« on: February 13, 2024, 15:33 »
...................
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
79
« on: February 13, 2024, 15:33 »
Thanks for your reply. You can find my portfolio here]
I do also aerials videos and photography. And that's my video portfolio at P5 https://www.pond5.com/artist/manandlife, sadly never sold anything there. I think it is a useless platform....
i took a quick look at your portfolio and what jumped out was your titles are too generic - eg, 'Beautiful Landscape Photography With Artistic Eye' for an aerial shot of the cliffs of Dov er - another shows a hill fort, but no mention in the title. that will hurt you in search results
80
« on: February 13, 2024, 15:16 »
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.
81
« on: February 12, 2024, 13:59 »
I am losing hope, if I am not wrong, an announcement for the bonus program was in late January or early February
last year's was late feb/early march
82
« on: February 10, 2024, 14:05 »
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 isnt 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
83
« on: February 09, 2024, 21:09 »
I liked some contributors portfolios but why there is no option to follow them? Why?
are you a buyer or a flaneur? stock is not fine art & names/branding don't really matter, except perhaps in extraordinary cases to work in stock photography, you have to abandon ego - buyers don't care about your brand/portfolio - this is a hurdle for 'pros' who want to sell stock, but it's easily overcome with the right attitude stock images are a commodity - most buyers aren't interested in the artist - they want work that fits their current needs - so broad portfolios don't add much, and like categories are a waste of time. at best when they view your port, tghey might look at similar im ages, but don't care about your other work.
84
« on: February 07, 2024, 20:05 »
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
85
« on: February 07, 2024, 18:48 »
I can't use Midjourney's imagine feature on the website yet I have over 5000 images in usage-Any thoughts?
how are you trying? i had trouble when i typed /imagine but when i just typed '/' and chose /imagine from the menu above, it always works. weird
86
« on: February 07, 2024, 17:32 »
...
"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.htmlbut 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.
87
« on: February 06, 2024, 14:34 »
yes, that's my biased opinion - your 'biased' is my ' intelligently informed opinion'
Thanks for understanding that I'm also intelligently informed and just came to a different biased conclusion. 
Two very simple points, as the laws are now.
1) Only natural persons can be considered inventors
2) AI creations from scraping the web for training, are fair use.
For #1 copyright will be rejected, no matter how intricate the whole creation process may be, or whether it can be detected as AI or not. #2 the current laws defend the right of the AI companies to look at images and use that to create training.
For myself, on the other side, I still say, we added the captions, or some human did. (unless someone uses AI keywording) The text, description and keywords, included in the images, is our work and individual writing, which can't be used for training as fair use. That's my data and I own the right to that. The keywords are being illegally appropriated.
detail #1 - inventions can't be copyrighted but can be patented, so the question comes back to creation. i spent an afternoon earlier and my initial prompt didnt give what i asked for, but eventually used it to springboard & eventually ended up with 6 distinct series - it was not a simple prompt = final image; instead using a tool to refine whhat the tool gave me individual keywords can be copyrighted,. and since the training only uses individual words, there's no violation. the main claim for fair use is that by scraping billions of images, no individual image is copied. instead each image is broken down to tokens and there's no way to reverse the process to identify where a token came from
88
« on: February 04, 2024, 14:21 »
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?
89
« on: February 04, 2024, 14:14 »
I'm surprised that anyone would buy a download of prompts. It just seems they are already done, and anyone can copy or use them. What's the value in making something that's already made and can be duplicated by anyone, with the same prompt? AKA, Sliced Tomato isolated on white.
rather than the text part, looking at the commands (stylize, aspect, etc) help create the look you want - but these are easily available on searches.
90
« on: February 03, 2024, 19:52 »
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
91
« on: February 03, 2024, 14:24 »
...
I don't see how this is diverse, as there are nothing but people of color? No Latino, no whites, no European South, no Asians. So much for AI knowing what diversity really means.
...
hard to tell without the prompt - did it actually ask for diversity? or for POC and then keyword for diversity? diversity doesn't mean all possibilities must be shown in ever work -- and i've seen diversity in MJ images where i didnt ask for diversity
92
« on: February 03, 2024, 14:13 »
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.pdfthe 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.
93
« on: February 02, 2024, 14:52 »
or look at the many books about ChatGPT & Midjourney - i have kindle unlimited so can get many of these for free - almost all are generic whaledreck. the only substantive ChatGPT book was stephen Wolfram's (mathematica)
94
« on: February 02, 2024, 14:49 »
That looks a lot better. Thank you!
or positively identify the color - in recent session, i changed prompts from 'red and gold' to purple and silver' and all images were correctly colored'
95
« on: February 02, 2024, 14:43 »
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
96
« on: January 31, 2024, 13:57 »
As I recall, you are not in the US. It seems this "revenue reduction" many of us are seeing (and is reflected in the poll results) is geographically dependent.
My best guess is that perhaps SS is spending its marketing dollars differently in different parts of the world.
Other agencies have been more or less on an "even keel", whereas SS has dropped like a rock for some (US based?) contributors.
and for others has stayed the same, but we still see these general statements claiming it's a disaster location of an artist has little effect, since we get global sales and one more time - the poll has been worthless for a long time -'self hosted' as really shot up to 4th over istock & SS?
97
« on: January 29, 2024, 15:35 »
This topic has been moved to new AI area.
98
« on: January 28, 2024, 13:42 »
...
But if you pick out special subjects, e.g. photorealistic wildlife shots of animals, of which there were obviously not that many used for the training, it sometimes happens (at least with Stable Diffusion) that you discover blurred copyright labels in the corner of the image.
So if the AI would generate complete new images than copyright symbols should not appear.
The AI image generators currently have no ability to abstract like a human and create new things by itself. It's only morphing of pictures. ...
one source of the copyright is not taken from 1 image but from the multiple copies of that image on free sites. once again, AI doesn't 'morph' pictures - the billions of images are each broken into many small matrices and transformed before being saved. then images are created de novo, starting with a completely randomized 'image' & making many thousands of passes as that new image slowly emerges. you can get an idea of how this proceeds by watching the midjourney cevelopment
99
« on: January 27, 2024, 14:48 »
Hahahahaha what is a "birther". I'm not going to even look that up it sounds annoying.
No the box experiment wasn't disingenuous at all and if you feel it was then you do 🤷 oh well. It showed exactly what the situation is. You a staunch stickler explained perfectly. Big Toe did as well .
...
thanks for a reasoned reply that addressed previous posts - as someone here would say "you must be inebriated"?!? if you don't know what a birther is, you're lucky - it's a US political meme
100
« on: January 27, 2024, 14:33 »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 166
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
