|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 287
176
« on: August 26, 2023, 13:51 »
I'm staying waaaay away from all this AI nonsense, but what's the latest on us being compensated for our work being used by Adobe Generative AI tools?
I had fussed about that with the Adobe Express announcement earlier this month. Nothing but crickets from San Jose. I believe the subtlety of Firefly beta being rolled out with Adobe Express - as opposed to Firefly being out of beta - got lost by headline writers. The original promise was that we'd hear about compensation when Firefly was out of beta... So I think the direct answer to your question is that we know no more than back in March when Adobe announced Firefly. If I consult my (admittedly broken) crystal ball, I'd say that based on progress so far, Firefly will be in beta for years. Making guesses about Adobe's goals with this announcement, I think it's all about getting the AI buzz wound up for the company as a whole, primarily related to getting the stock price up, and that we (contributors to Adobe Stock) were just the necessary CYA for the messages about Adobe's AI stuff being safe for commercial use. So Firefly could never come to market as a product and Adobe would still be able to win. There was never anything explicit said about compensation for generative fill in Photoshop even though what I read said to me that it was based on the same training. Additionally, if you consider that all Adobe's genAI competitors (Midjourney, Dall-E, Stable Diffusion...) are producing the 14+ million genAI collection at Adobe Stock - the stuff that Adobe was contrasting itself with and was painted as questionable for commercial use - the fundamental illogic seems glaring to me. Investors appear not to be paying attention to small details like that. So my based-on-nothing-but-my-own-flawed-analysis guess is that you shouldn't book a vacation paid for by your Firefly compensation any time soon 
177
« on: August 26, 2023, 09:15 »
I saw a tweet that referred to a badge used (in a kickstarter project for a graphic novel) which I thought was a great idea  I did a google search to see where the image came from but couldn't find it; possibly the creation of the person who did the novel?
178
« on: August 26, 2023, 09:08 »
As I was looking through all those AI generated stock photos, I realized 70-80% of stock photos as we know can be generated by AI. So, why bother to shoot stock photos anymore unless it's editorial news photos, I thought. It's over for real camera shooters. AI generators don't have to hire models, travel to locations and setup lightings. Can't compete against those.
And further, why would anyone buy an AI generated stock image, when they could just as well have their own unique image AI generated?
I've looked at a huge number of AI generated images accepted at Adobe Stock, and I think the reason that people are buying, and probably will continue to buy, human-produced stock images is that a very large number of AI generated images aren't usable. Impossible staircases in luxury interior shots, ladders you can't climb, kitchens with door handles at all angles, stools missing legs or sitting at bizarre angles, people with three thumbs, three legs or missing some body parts, hammocks suspended in thin air, table lamps growing out of books, doors you can't get to - it goes on and on and it isn't getting better with newer submissions. Buyers can't use these except as novelty items or to create memes. My experience with images that sell suggests that there are lots of real world businesses that need real-world images for their marketing materials and web sites. And then there are the people. By and large they look artificial - beyond any overdone retouching we've typically seen in stock shots. There may be a niche market for a small number of these, but I don't see this stuff going mainstream. If you risk eyeball damage by looking over what Shutterstock has for AI generated images (what customers made with their Dall-E based tool) you'll understand why in the earnings call SS said that they saw lots of experimentation but few downloads. They expected that would improve when the quality increased, effectively acknowledging the quality problem they have. Firefly is still in beta but widely available now via Adobe Express. Reviews of that earlier this month mentioned the poor quality of results (which my testing of the beta would agree with) Fantasy content seems to be where AI does best - because there are no rules. It's where it intersects with the real world that it has trouble - and that's where a huge segment of stock licensing operates. Edited to add: I just went to look at new genAI uploads and the first two images were of a kitchen. Just look at all the errors in this image (2nd one) - freshly approved...  The stool legs are missing parts of their supports; the cabinet handles are all over the place; stovetop knobs are mashed pixels; the stool on the far side of the island has mangled legs; there's a light cord on the left but no light; the fridge doors are missing handles - and that's just what I can see in the preview image. This is useless and should not have been approved.
179
« on: August 25, 2023, 09:12 »
I came upon this it-should-never-have-passed-inspection doozy...  ...so I did a few more searches for classic cars. There are a lot in the genAI collection where similar images in the "regular" collection are editorial use only. As with the other "oops" images, the contributor should have known better, but it is a total failure of the reviewing process to have so many of these items accepted: Model T FordCadillac. Some are very specific with year and model:  Ford Mustang That portfolio is full of classic cars, many of which probably aren't OK (I'm not an expert in classic car IP), here and here
180
« on: August 24, 2023, 19:55 »
181
« on: August 24, 2023, 17:14 »
Anyone who has been submitting stock content for a while (since 2004 in my case) has had images rejected for one reason or another. Sometimes one forgets a logo.
Ages ago I uploaded an image including the Pike's Place neon lights not realizing it was protected; another time there was a city shot with a poster that contained someone else's photograph I hadn't cloned out. Those images were rejected, as they should have been, but no one blocked my account over it.
It's fine for Adobe Stock to fix a reviewing mistake by retroactively rejecting an image they accepted in error. I don't know why, especially with established contributors with a track record of solid content and rule following, that wasn't done in this case.
To add insult to injury, on top of blocking the contributor's account, they won't tell him which images are a problem, let him delete them or get access to his account for other purposes - such as to request a payout.
They could block uploads while they investigate; they could send the reviewers who made these mistakes for more training; they could temporarily limit the contributor's upload quota.
Adobe's quarterly earnings will be announced on Sept 14th and I'm assuming they've realized they need to clean this mess up. That's fine, but taking reviewer mistakes out solely on a contributor who uploaded content they shouldn't have seems deeply unfair.
If I were a judge and were to apportion the negligence, I'd say the incorrect content mess is 75% Adobe Stock's fault and 25% contributor's - unless a contributor has been warned a few times and persists in uploading forbidden content in which case take away their upload privileges (but leave the account open).
182
« on: August 24, 2023, 12:59 »
I only made it through about half of your DT (AI) portfolio, but I'd wonder if the four pink Cadillac images would be a problem The title names them and the logo is pretty close to the real thing: https://blog.logomyway.com/cadillac-logo/For contributors who've been with Adobe Stock over a certain time (let's say one year), blocking a whole portfolio over what is, essentially a reviewing error on Adobe's part as well as an error on the contributor's part, seems extreme I looked at some of the items with piles of boxes on a doorstep to see if there were logos there and didn't see anything I recognized (there was one big black check mark that could perhaps have looked like the amazon prime curved arrow). I saw an iMac shape with no logo and I think Adobe Stock is allowing those in AI generated images (based on how many there are). A champagne bottle with gibberish text and a logo-like "seal" might have caused trouble - typically stock has to have plain geometric shapes to avoid inspectors seeing a logo. Good luck figuring this out
183
« on: August 23, 2023, 16:35 »
184
« on: August 23, 2023, 15:26 »
Mat Hayward has posted his address here for people to use if they need him to look into something: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-free-collection-$5-payments-are-back-vector-and-illustration-email-bug/msg588896/#msg588896 I suggest you contact him via email or see if the Adobe Stock Discord forum can help
185
« on: August 23, 2023, 11:01 »
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/22/23841822/google-youtube-ai-copyright-umg-scraping-universalThis article is primarily covering the use of AI generated sound-alikes in YouTube videos, but does talk more broadly about the issues (and lack of transparency) in scraping data for AI training. It also talks about web traffic, search and what content creators can do to deal with wholesale scraping of their work. Interesting (if depressing) read
187
« on: August 22, 2023, 13:01 »
Reminders for Adobe Stock about its generative AIIt shouldn't be news to Adobe Stock that its review process for generative AI content is largely useless. I'm so tempted to just forward the Apple logo fails directly to Apple, but in the hope that Adobe can turn this train wreck of rubbish content around at some point, here's a recent approval with two clearer-than-daylight logos in it (and I can't post in the discord QA forum because I'm not of a high enough level for them to be interested in what I have to say) (yes, I'm angry with Adobe)  How the #$%* do you miss those?  Suggestions: 1) remove the above image Edited 25 Aug - it's now gone, although the one I posted about Aug 20 is still there... 2) get new reviewers/better software to clean up future genAI submissions 3) spend the money to clean up all the "oops" images, not just the logos, already littering the 14+million items. 3.5) Leave last place in the genAI content quality race to Shutterstock
188
« on: August 20, 2023, 11:07 »
I'll call this the "We don't give a $h1t" collection
Good finds! I've posted 3 of them in the AS Discord #qualitycontrol channel.
Thanks for posting. I note that they're all still there morning of 20 Aug, so possibly these aren't viewed as a problem any more? Or everyone at Adobe's hair is on fire because of AI content imitating the style of copyrighted works?
189
« on: August 20, 2023, 11:03 »
Could be something to do with Midjourney slapping an Apple logo on almost every computer in an image. Given the sloppy attitude by both a large number of contributors and reviewers I can imagine a few hundred thousand made it through! (not just AS on this one, found another blatantly AI port on SS today, where AI isn't even allowed)
Someone mentioned Apple logos on approved genAI images?? From recently approved, page 4: 
190
« on: August 19, 2023, 18:51 »
I don't know who or where reviewing is happening, but the results would be funny if it wasn't undermining stock images as a useful resource 
191
« on: August 19, 2023, 18:47 »
I wonder if this is connected to a large drop in the size of the genAI collection at Adobe Stock between Friday evening and Saturday morning. On Friday evening the collection was over 14.7 million and on Saturday morning 14.19 million - were a number of infringing images removed?
Edited 23 Aug to note that the numbers had climbed back to about 14.5 million by Tuesday evening but were at 14.04 million Wednesday morning. Another large chunk of content gone
Late afternoon 23 Aug - 13,799,741. More removals (although there are new items at the beginning of the most recent sort order, so new content is still getting approved
192
« on: August 19, 2023, 18:45 »
"A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/Howell is the judge in the case. "The question presented in the suit was whether a work generated solely by a computer falls under the protection of copyright law.
In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No, Howell wrote.
U.S. copyright law, she underscored, protects only works of human creation and is designed to adapt with the times. Theres been a consistent understanding that human creativity is at the core of copyrightability, even as that human creativity is channeled through new tools or into new media, the ruling stated.
While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a mental conception of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.
Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright, Howell wrote."https://mashable.com/article/ai-art-copyright-debatehttps://www.theverge.com/2023/8/19/23838458/ai-generated-art-no-copyright-district-court"Nobody really knows how things will shake out around US copyright law and artificial intelligence, but the court cases have been piling up. Sarah Silverman and two other authors filed suit against OpenAI and Meta earlier this year over their models data scraping practices, for instance, while another lawsuit by programmer and lawyer Matthew Butterick alleges that data scraping by Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI amounted to software piracy."
193
« on: August 16, 2023, 15:31 »
194
« on: August 16, 2023, 10:32 »
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/16/23834146/adobe-express-firefly-generative-ai-release-design-app"The generative features in Adobe Express are neat when they actually work, but theyre not in the same league as other Firefly-powered features like Photoshop Generative Fill." I spent a little time with Firefly beta a couple of days ago to see if it had improved since my last experiments and IMO it's just not usable yet. This page still says (beta) for the generative AI features: https://www.adobe.com/express/?clickref=1100lxHLAxSQ&mv=affiliate&mv2=pz&as_camptype=&as_channel=affiliate&as_source=partnerize&as_campaign=skimlinks_phghttps://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/adobe-express-adds-firefly-ai-to-its-free-plan-for-next-level-creativity"We do want to warn you to not expect too much from this rendition of Firefly. Like a lot of other free image generators, the results can look rather nightmarish..." https://www.redsharknews.com/adobe-express-with-firefly-moves-out-of-betahttps://petapixel.com/2023/08/16/new-adobe-express-is-available-now-and-built-for-everyone/https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/adobe-firefly-generative-ai-is-now-available-to-all-adobe-express-usershttps://appleinsider.com/articles/23/08/16/adobe-express-with-ai-firefly-app-is-available-worldwidehttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230816666128/en/All-New-Adobe-Express-With-Firefly-Brings-Generative-AI-to-Creators-Worldwidehttps://www.bakersfield.com/ap/news/all-new-adobe-express-with-firefly-brings-generative-ai-to-creators-worldwide/article_eb6f740e-e550-5464-b83d-9500d0a3b0a0.htmlhttps://www.computerworld.com/article/3704794/adobe-express-with-generative-ai-exits-beta-available-now.htmlOn copyright issues: "One interesting note is that while Adobe has been working intensively with AI to augment its creative products, when it comes to generative AI the company was early to recognize the need to avoid copyright abuse. Already, weve seen instances in which assets created by these tools have abused the copyright held by creatives, and given the companys position as a provider of creative solutions for creative users it was smart to think about how to avoid being in such a position.
This is why Firefly and the gen AI used in Express and its other products has been trained on unique data, rather than copyrighted assets. Given that inadvertent abuse of other peoples intellectual ideas has now been recognized as a big problem, its reassuring Adobe got to this early."On Firefly: "The generative AI features are also really promising, generating some great results, though I would advise against using it to create faces, hands, or groups of people the tech finds it hard to create those convincingly."Usable or not, contributors were told that when Firefly was out of beta there would be a compensation model for us - I haven't heard anything from Adobe Stock about compensation for data training
195
« on: August 16, 2023, 07:45 »
6 days after crossing the 14 million threshold, Adobe Stock's genAI collection has topped 14.5 million - 14,502,719 this morning
196
« on: August 15, 2023, 10:51 »
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/the-new-york-times-prohibits-ai-vendors-from-devouring-its-content/"...in section 4.1, the terms say that without NYT's prior written consent, no one may "use the Content for the development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system." NYT also outlines the consequences for ignoring the restrictions: "Engaging in a prohibited use of the Services may result in civil, criminal, and/or administrative penalties, fines, or sanctions against the user and those assisting the user." "For now, what has already been scraped is baked into GPT-4, including New York Times content. We may have to wait until GPT-5 to see whether OpenAI or other AI vendors respect content owners' wishes to be left out. If not, new AI lawsuitsor regulationsmay be on the horizon."
197
« on: August 13, 2023, 15:33 »
Back in May, Google announced a feature "coming soon" that would provide more information about images in searches, including if the image was AI generated. https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/10/google-introduces-new-features-to-help-identify-ai-images-in-search-and-elsewhere/The example shown half way down of a midjourney image whose about text said "Image self-labeled as AI generated". It noted: "Google says several publishers are already on board to adopt this feature, including Midjourney, Shutterstock and others."It didn't say Adobe Stock, but based on a search I did this afternoon, (a) it needs to include all the stock agencies and (b) the feature is needed now and isn't there (Google didn't say when it would ship, but that article was 3 months ago). I saw a new genAI image supposedly of "Colorful morning scene of Sardinia, Italy, Europe. Fantastic sunrise on Capo San Marco Lighthouse on Del Sinis peninsula"  I did a google search in another window to see how close the AI image came to the real thing (even though it also went on my list of genAI images claiming to be of real places which Adobe says not to do). I was horrified to see the image page included genAI images from Adobe Stock and Pixta as well as photographs of the real thing (for the moment, Wikipedia and the photos on Google maps will have to be the reference). There is nothing that identifies these images as AI generated and there must be - from Google or Adobe Stock or both. I redid the search in an incognito window to be sure I was getting clean results. See below (click to see full size)  I think Adobe Stock should enforce its rule about not labeling real places or people for genAI content. I also believe that Google search results urgently need to mark AI images - they realize the need, but AI generation is moving faster than they are. Searches will be next to useless if the pretend content is indistinguishable from the real
199
« on: August 11, 2023, 16:16 »
I request payment once a month - typically at the end of the day (US east coast) on the last day. My payments from Adobe, going backwards from July to January 2023 were: 8, 9, 12, 6, 8, 9, 6 So they're a bit later than usual, but not totally off the charts. I don't see any reason for it to take as long as they say - a couple of business days should be enough for an automated process (and if it isn't automated, why not?). I'm assuming they'd rather keep the money longer and they set a deadline that avoids peasants (us) rioting, not because of any necessary part of the business process. If they'd implement an option for automatic payout and deposit in my bank account, (like I used to get from Alamy before I left them), I'd sign up. I don't think tending to the contributor interface, stats, tax forms, payouts, etc. is high on their priority list, which is why nothing much gets improved. However, I don't think we need to worry about them having enough cash to pay us. They're solvent. Edited to add that I got my (PayPal) payment this evening
200
« on: August 11, 2023, 10:19 »
...So, what is going on, i still am not sure i understand! They are building a crowd-sourced AI image collection, but made by customers testing their generator ...
In addition to the quality being uniformly terrible, the images are all square. They don't say the size, so it may be the default 1024x1024 of DALL-E
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 287
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
