MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - HalfFull

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22
101
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 19, 2022, 14:10 »
That type of reaction is what I'd expect when something is materially altered and basically passed off as real. People feel cheated when they visit the place and find it's not as expected. They certainly don't expect the National Geographic to alter reality for their convenience  ::)

Edit.
That is quite different from reality though... maybe a long distant relative of the original  ;)

102
I agree... Once things settle down, I think AI imagery will only used for "fiction" work. Anything that requires a degree of accuracy, tourism, guides & realism to a degree, people will look to use images created by humans.

I still feel we haven't seen the end of agencies banning AI imagery for sale as stock though. When companies buy imagery from agencies they want the security of knowing all required releases are on file etc and that there is no potential for a legal challenge. It's often the case that the client that buys the image is a designer or advertising agency and the damage that could be caused by their client being sued is often too big a risk to take. One bad case could cost them their client book.

The enquires I've made to agencies so far is they are very reluctant to give any answer on AI and I assume that is due to their legal teams reviewing the situation and watching what others will do. In a world that loves to sue each other, it is a sizeable risk and for what? The agencies already receive plenty of imagery without making things more complicated. I can see it more as a tool for places / people who want to cut out the stock agency / artist altogether.

If it's easier to look through a library of images that have already been created (rather than trying to come up with a written line of text to create an image) then people will often take the line of least resistance.


103
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 19, 2022, 12:23 »
As it stands, the list of agencies who have concerns over the legality of this is growing by the day and they do have a lot of legal minds who have experience in this field.

The only problem for the agencies is that they can't legally refer an image to an author: this follow the early decisions in USA about copyright on images created by AI. I suspect that this is the only reason to not accept these images.

Of course most of the thing I wrote are only my opinion, like for every one else :-)
But, once again, I suspect that the way in which AI works is much more a fact than an opinion...

As it stands, we don't know how things will pan out but we do see a lot of examples of AI imagery that contains watermarks. If it turns out, which seems quite obvious now, that it has, "Learnt" from our images without our permission etc, then it maybe forced to remove the data and start a fresh with data from imagery the have acquired legally (imagery without watermarks). Who knows.

As I mentioned in another thread. It should be interesting to see how AI imagery is used. I see real potential with uses that need images for fiction, places that don't exist etc.

For places that do exist I see plenty of imagery already available that is 100% accurate. AI imagery for tourism, guides, reference etc is unlikely to take off because unless you can 100% guarantee it's exactly right, then there are likely to be problems for those use types. You can imagine confused tourists looking up at XYZ and saying, it looks nothing like that in the book!

For fine art, I see real possibilities there as well. The creative side of things. Not so much in terms of imagery of real places to hang on the wall. People buy those types of imagery as they want to see the real thing. If they wanted a representation of it, they'd by an illustration.

At the moment AI Imagery is all new and people are rushing in and trying to make money from it but in the end, I think it'll end up being limited to specifics uses.

For illustrations, I know that I can create my own work that is better and it benefits from my understanding of how mechanically things work in the world whereas AI doesn't. Humans are a living organism that are conscious and always question what they see in order to make sense of the world we live in. AI on the other hand repeats what its been shown. It comes up with imagery based on what we've told it and It never questions it. It requires humans to provide it with new reference material, it doesn't think, "Oh, that looks dated I must shoot something new".

If we stopped providing reference material to it today, it will carry on producing images based on images of today. So, if all photographers are put out of work, what will it produce in 50 years time when there is no new reference material available to feed into the machine. If building A was knocked down in city B and it didn't have enough reference shots of the new view it wouldn't question it, it would carry on being wrong.

Mind you, the day AI becomes conscious entity and is able to question things, it will probably look for ways to get rid of us... to protect itself and stop us from pulling the plug  :D

104

...
What it's really bad at is named locations. It doesn't seem to be able to produce decent realistic images of Big Ben or Mt Everest or the Taj Mahal because those images require a single viewpoint and you can't combine images without it looking very odd.

these folk are likely screwed as well - just not as quickly as your other examples.  when i asked for images of crowds and the yeni camii near the golden horn, the results showed several different angles

only images got the minarets correct, but it's just a matter of time before that''s improved

3 of the 4 'sherpas on everest' pictures had a reasonable image of everest with a recognizable west ridge & summit pyramid

Probably not the best example to use... for fiction it maybe ok depending on the audience but certainly no good for anyone in the world of mountaineering.

You can't use an image that is similar to a mountain when you need the image to highlight a specific route up it. A lot of the books I have for different mountains in the Alps an the Andes were bought as a reference guide so we knew what to expect before we got to the climb. No point having something that looks similar as it could be very dangerous once you're at 4-8000 metres up.

The climbing community as a whole would pickup on it in a flash, they are very protective of tradition. Just try and bolt a route up a mountain in the Lake District, they would hunt you down.  Any images that weren't accurate would be ridiculed by the community. Even in the Lake District or Scottish Highlands they need to be accurate. Editors don't even like it when an image is captioned a little wrong as they could use the image incorrectly that could lead to climbers and hikers getting into difficulty on the mountain.

As a photo on the wall, a real photo of Everest and climbers hanging on the wall is like wow, amazing achievement and place. You think of the effort it took to get there, the dangers, the blood sweat and tears etc of each of those captured in the image... there is an emotional connection. An AI rendition is just an empty vessel in comparison. No value at all because it's not real. But I guess that's just the way I see it from a climbers perspective.

Maybe in the future that's what we'll see. People hunting out real imagery over AI as they don't want something that is fake. They want something that is real, something that can connect them to the earth we live in... something that does exist and was seem by a fellow human

105
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 19, 2022, 10:19 »
You're fighting a losing battle with this one I'm afraid. If you were to take parts (learnt) of X amount of songs to combine and form a new one, you'd have to pay the copyright holder of the original content

You're wrong
First of all in music there is a specific legal limit in terms of sounds and sequences in which you can claim a copyright infringment. That is quite obvious, because with only seven notes it's hard to create music without copying existing sequences.

Second, you are still thinking and telling that some parts of a copyrighted image is used inside the new image. That is simply not true.
AI create a completely new image, having an idea of how a wheel, a face, or a burger, is done.

Come on, it's called AI because it can do exactly the same operation that everyone of us do creating an image, having in mind the previous created images (created by others) with the same subject.


THERE IS AN ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUE BECAUSE THE FEED THAT AI HAS USED TO START IS PROBABLY STOLEN, OR WITHOUT APPROPRIATE RELEASE
This is the problem, and this is very serious.

But you think that a legal problem will be the use of copyrighted creation INSIDE a new AI generated image, you're wrong.
Any AI engineer will easily demonstrate that no part of copyrighted images has been used

In your opinion I'm wrong. While you're entitled to that opinion it doesn't make it fact. Neither you or I can provide the hard evidence at this point and it will end up in a court of law to determine it. As it stands, the list of agencies who have concerns over the legality of this is growing by the day and they do have a lot of legal minds who have experience in this field.

"Come on, it's called AI because it can do exactly the same operation that everyone of us do creating an image, having in mind the previous created images (created by others) with the same subject."

You're more gullible / naive than I thought if you believe that.

106
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 19, 2022, 09:03 »
Bringing new buyers from smaller agencies that are dying perhaps? I've seen a small drop in SS earnings, no change in volume, Increase in sales and $ at iStock but nothing close to that of AS. Nearly 3500dls in the last 30 days. All I can go off is my own data and it suggests that AS are making good decisions, as far as my port goes anyway! Also, I'd imagine he free images will bring in people who aren't signed up to any agency at all... new buyers to the market.

As far as saturation, as you say, images are far more abundant but so are the sales. Footage has dropped in $ a lot of late but the volume hasn't elevated to the point that it can make up for that drop. SS $0.38 basically treats footage the same as images. I stopped spending as much time with footage development as soon as I seen this drop and focus on what will earn me the most for X amount of time.

107
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 19, 2022, 01:54 »
Free "slag" is very likely be preferred by many "buyers" as an alternative to paid quality stuff.
Free distorts the market and competition, because free is not used, but is abused
Your statement is very controversial and reflects only your opinion. You have no evidence or calculations.

"Slag" at Adobe may be selling well at other agencies.
No one is forcing you to participate in this program. The more people who opt out, the more my videos will end up in collections and the more money I'll get. :)

 ::)
Very short-sighted.

Here are a few examples from my eligible clips:
1. AS: 0 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $199
2. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $391
3. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $562.55
3. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $143.91
4. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $371
.... and more

So, if I allow these clips to be given away for free, in exchange for 8 bucks, I'm not only shooting myself in the foot, but I may also shoot you in the foot if we both cover the same topics.
 :-\

I can't comment with regards to footage but the images I nominated for the free collection had zero impact on how they performed at other agencies.

I can only presume this comes down to the fact that most people who acquire the images do so from their companies Adobe account. They are not paying for them directly for them themselves and therefore they value their time more which means they won't shop around because A) takes too long and B) they don't have the ability to create / setup a second subscription account with another agency

Sales volume and $ for me has increased significantly since the introduction off the free images. My weekly ranking still holds the same 150-800 depending on the time of year. The only logically explanation is they have gained more customers. This may well be at the expense of other agencies but as they are my No1 agency in terms of $ I don't have any concerns there either. The drop in $ at Shutterstock per month is more to do with their pricing structure than that of AS. Incidentally, they routinely license footage at $0.38 these days.

I feel there is no right or wrong answer here and each person needs to decide for themselves But I can say from experience, the free images at AS still perform at other agencies. That doesn't guarantee footage won't suffer but it also makes me think there is also a very good chance that it will continue to do well (or as well as it has done).

That said, I do feel the $ for the free footage is a little on the low side but I can see why given the the sub price at AS and especially at SS.

108
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 11, 2022, 11:38 »
8 USD for a clip, with auto-renewal and I'm not sure if we are getting paid every year.

thank you, not for my work.

I had a batch of images that were in the freezer section last year and received an invite to re-submit them this year. They were all highlighted on the dashboard. I'm guessing they may do something similar with footage.

109
Adobe Stock / Re: PNG files on Adobestock - Some Questions
« on: October 11, 2022, 05:24 »
Have to say, so far not knocking my socks off in terms of additional sales. Hopefully when the marketing kicks in that will change.

No, it wasn't a mistake. It was a solid move. This is very early days so I would strongly encourage you to remain patient.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Indeed but selling very well already. I created a collection within AS to monitor sales and already notched around 250 sales so far.

110
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 07, 2022, 10:34 »
I am sorry, but its you who arent listening. You cant seem to grasp that a person can understand how AI works and still think it is unacceptable to use other peoples copyright protected work to make your product. Be that via training, learning or straight up copy-pasting.

The watermark has been used as an example as it perfectly illustrates that learning can perfectly reproduce parts of another image in a way identical to simply copying and pasting the image. The watermark looks the same because the program has assessed a business man always has this feature and it looks the same from any angle. It has come to this conclusion because all/ most of the images it is pulling from had this watermark.

It gives the game away because it neatly demonstrates whats going on. The same process is happening with all images it ingests. Just because it has more inputs for most features, producing results less like any one individual image, doesnt change the principle. However you try and cut it they have appropriated someone elses intellectual property to produce their own commercial product (the AI and resulting images).

You're fighting a losing battle with this one I'm afraid. If you were to take parts (learnt) of X amount of songs to combine and form a new one, you'd have to pay the copyright holder of the original content. You are profiting on the back of someone else's copyright material and the they were caught with their pants down when the images started reproducing watermarks... which confirms they used copyright material to develop their system.

The machine can't look at one picture of a tree and then draw a representation of it like a human can, it needs many hundreds of examples with matching keyword data to link the word "Tree" to the image and then take small samples of those images to form a new one.

The MTB cyclist was another good example, it doesn't know the wheel is an element on it's own so it included a sample of background from an images that didn't match the rest of the BG it created. It's like using content aware when filling in gaps in Photoshop, sometimes it samples (grabs) the wrong part of the image to fill in the gap but sometimes it grabs a section from the wrong part ands stands out like a sore thumb. The AI is grabbing multiple bits from thousands of images to create a new one. I'd imagine that's why the perspective at times looks off with the images they produce as the samples taken don't all have the same perspective and they have a wobbly look to them. If it had truly learnt how to draw a bike or skyscraper, the perspective would be consistent through the image rather than the Pablo Picasso look where the angles don't quite add up and it would not add a random bit of background to a wheel.

111
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 06, 2022, 06:41 »



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.

As someone who used to use machine learning for building credit scorecards I'm well aware of what is and how it learns but the point here is it's learned from using our copyright material without consent and with no real way of guaranteeing it doesn't create an image with more than a passing resemblance to others work. But hey, if you and others don't see a problem with this it's your future. The only way we could build scorecards via machine learning was to provide it the raw material from existing behaviour along lists of criteria we would tweak in order for it to produce what we wanted.

I understand a lot of people who aren't illustrators will love it as they can now supply material but this will only be short term as clients will cut out this middleman in the end.

112
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 06, 2022, 06:04 »
incorporating copyrighted elements, parts of someone else's artwork is inevitable

AI doesn't incorporate anything.
AI learn what is and how to recreate any object (or human faces, animals... everything)

Of course there are legal problems because images used to train are copyrighted; but there is nothing that will be "incorporated" in new images

It's quite new scheme, and it cannot be managed with "classic" discussion, it's completely new issue to solve.

Interestingly, it obviously copies quite a bit as they were also including watermarks with the images they produce. Of course, the programmers will write a bit of code to remove them in the future but it's obvious it's basing images on real content.

113
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 06, 2022, 02:39 »
..
...You yourself mentioned the concept of human-machine people but never mentioned the fact that after the singularity the next purely logical evolution doesnt bode well for humanity. Remove art, expression, individuality and perhaps most importantly trust from the equation and you are hastening the process.

the next steps will see AI for stock buyers, then they'll replace graphic designers.  AI will read & post to social media and decide what their humans (a la 'Mr Peabody's boy sherman') 'want' to buy

i mentioned earlier a thoughtful take:
https://www.cold-takes.com/ai-could-defeat-all-of-us-combined/

What I find interesting is what will people do to earn money once AI is encouraged to replace all the jobs. Yes I know new jobs will recreated but nowhere near as many. AI is writing books, news articles and the like and that's before things like automated cars etc become the norm. Thousands, millions of jobs gone. If a large % of the population is no longer earning money (or as much money) who is going to buy and use the services. Given the amount of price cutting in all areas in order to get an edge, a reduction in sales is the last thing that is needed.

I know this is somewhat "me me me" but I'm glad I'm a lot closer to retirement than most around here. The future will certainly be a lot different and I feel there is a rush from some quarters to embrace the end of human involvement in the creative process. It's not just a tool, it's creating a system that removes the person from the creative process. The end result will be a client and the software. It won't take many people to manage the software for a world wide audience and the client once they get used to it won't need someone to type in the words for them.

By the time they realise that part of the creative process was the actual thinking of the ideas, millions of people will have left the industry and they'll be left with a piece of software that finds it hard to think outside the box... because it doesn't think. It scraps data (visual and words) and try to learn from it. What happens when there is no one left to create fresh data for it to learn from?!? Will it just end up learning from images it's created itself, including the errors it makes as it can't think or understand what the real item should look like... other than from the scrapped data. Will it be able to come up with new trends?!? Invent different styles. So far, the images it produces seem very similar in style. So much so I tend to be able to spot them very quickly online. How long before people get bored? Hopefully I'll be sitting with my feet up in front of the fire enjoying a single malt (retired) by that time.

114
No, nothing unusual in terms of volume. The only thing different I'm noticing is the slow drop in value of some custom sales. This seems to be made up in terms of volume but still a little concerning.

115
I think the idea of using elements of AI imagery in illustrations would be good idea. My main concern as it stands at the moment is the spamming. If people are able to submit work in the 1000's very quickly it is likely to cause problems with imagery being found as we've seem with other types of spamming. Agencies are likely to be swamped

For now, I've emailed agencies to see if they're happy to receive images produced by AI software straight or used in your own work. I don't want my port locked, suspended for behaviour which they deem is outside there T&C's. Passing review is one thing as reviewers may not be aware of what they're passing so I'd rather hear from contributor support about it.

I know Getty Images no longer accepts any submissions created using AI generative models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall-E 2, MidJourney, etc.). That's ALL images as models refers to the AI modelling software used. I'd rather make sure before investing any time on it. It'll be interesting to see what they say!

Edit -
"As I was working on a concept, someone right after me simply copied my prompt verbatim and made a similar image. This is sort of encouraged, though they tell you to add your own words to the prompt. "

I was just reading the iStock/Getty forums and this came up. People were able to generate images that would look the same or very similar. If you submit work to an agency there is a reasonable chance that other people will end up with similar images in their own portfolios, especially if this is encouraged at the point of creation.

116
Starting to see the first images produced by AI software appearing at the top of searches. It's noted in the image description.

When looking at their ports, they have 100+ pages, 50 of which have been submitted literally within the last month or so and earlier work in the port that looks very average. This is going to be the new mass spamming

I seriously can see this damaging the business significantly. If it's allowed then we'll all have to do it to keep up and then the agencies will be stuff to the rafters with imagery that all has the same look and feel with all the other work buried underneath it. Concerning times ahead I think.

117
If there are buyers for it, if the agencies are accepting it, and it's proven to be Ok from a legal point of view, what's the problem?

Microstockers already took jobs from dedicated newspaper photographers (and others), so why are you still here?

Hiding your head in the sand, will not prevent progress to be "devastating" for you. You better embrace it.

This is why you should be thankful to them for generously sharing their experience, instead of playing their cards close to chest (as I would do), while "others" have their mouths full of sand.  ;D
...
The problem is that AI generated photos have nothing to do anymore with the art of photography. ...

stock photography itself has little to do with art!  and who says art has to be created by humans?

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?!?!

118
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).

119
Alamy.com / Re: Opting out of China in distribution scheme?
« on: September 21, 2022, 11:03 »
I've been opted out for years and it still doesn't stop them. They just say, "Oops, our mistake. We'll not do it again! Until next time!".

120
Getty & iStock have just banned all images from AI software and will be be removing all existing ones submitted to them over concerns around copyright of the raw images used to create the finished images as well as the metadata.

I have a feeling they won't be the only ones, it could be a potential legal minefield.

121
Adobe Stock / Re: Figma acquired by Adobe
« on: September 21, 2022, 09:10 »
Yeah, don't worry... it bounced back today. I'd imagine it might have been the initial reaction until the traders etc knew exactly what it meant. Once they did, catch it on the bounce and make more money. Who knows, but ultimately, it will head back up and exceed where it left off. As markets do.

122
123RF / Re: If you have work on 123RF PLEASE READ
« on: September 16, 2022, 16:18 »

I wrote to them last week and still nothing so I'm just deleting them. If it's of any use anyone, it takes approximately 5 1/2 minutes to delete a 1000 images. 10k in an hour... dull, yes, but worth it!

Edit... well, that's it for 123RF for me. All deleted now. I'll give it a month to monitor any activity and then close the account. This has been a long time coming.

What has surprised me over the years and now with recent issues at 123, why don't more people do what you've done. Obviously not worth the money, a place that has no respect for the artists, can't be trusted/missing reporting, slow reviews, yet people stay with them for what? $7 a month at best, according to the poll here.

Why do people intentionally support and feed the parasites?

For me I was being a little lazy. They only ever made me about $100 a month but dropped to $20. Basically 2hrs @ AS. So that new package reached a point where it was becoming damaging. They never had all my work and I'd stopped uploading a long time ago. There is possibly another 2 that could be culled. There are 4-5 I supply with 3 that get everything. For me, there is only one that seems to make an effort and consistently is increasing 10% reaching year.

123
123RF / Re: If you have work on 123RF PLEASE READ
« on: September 16, 2022, 03:41 »
anyone still having images in their PLUS collection deserves even less then 0.03

Maybe but some of us have been trying for weeks to get the moved or close account and receiving no reply.  And havent had the 4-5 hours it'll take to do each page individually yet.

I wrote to them last week and still nothing so I'm just deleting them. If it's of any use anyone, it takes approximately 5 1/2 minutes to delete a 1000 images. 10k in an hour... dull, yes, but worth it!

Edit... well, that's it for 123RF for me. All deleted now. I'll give it a month to monitor any activity and then close the account. This has been a long time coming.

124
"It's not so easy for buyer to give an exact description; probably most of the buyer only search for a subject without exact idea of the way in which they want to see it. "

Exactly. A lot of times people will look for something without knowing exactly what they want. They're looking for a Christmas background and after several pages, ah, that's what I want. But if you were to ask them to describe what they want before seeing anything... not so easy. Creatives don't just create the image, they come up with the idea... and for non-creative types, that is just as hard if not harder than creating the actual image.

Mind you, I'd have thought those who produce white background imagery would still make money. They'd sell them to the AI software companies who store them as reference and would either buy them exclusively or, as a per usage in an each AI created image.

125
Adobe Stock / Re: AS Editorial Rejections of current
« on: September 14, 2022, 03:23 »
These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines.

Adobe does not accept current news editorial image, they only accept illustrative editorials or their very own definition of it I don't understand half of the time.

.. we don't accept content that sells ....

Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if they did full editorial but they don't. They've made no secrete that they don't accept normal editorial work and it has been pointed out quite often. Why try to force a square peg into a round hole. Just submit them to an agency that accepts that type of work.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors