Thanks for noticing. I was wondering how many East Indians are Jews?  Oh I see, it's those two groups and probably more.

My view is, it's unnecessary to blame and label people for origins or their ethnicity or religion as the cause of problems in the stock industry or our business.

Could we stick to business and AI an skip the personal attacks?

Lol, hey pete. Not sure if you are trolling, just bored - or genuinely curious to the answer to your question. That question I don't know - I 'spose you could take a poll?

If someone gets upset at stating the obvious - it's like saying "hey, that car is GREEN!". And then someone replying "OMFG! yOU ARE an ANTI-GREEN CAR person! OMFG! ANTI-GREEN! ANTI GREEN! ANTI-GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (Which lol - in itself makes no sense - because you simply stated a car was green. One could argue that you are actually PRO green because you made people aware of the lovely greenness of the car).

It is significant understanding how different sets of people conduct business. Like, using a different example - if you went to China to do a business deal, and the first thing you did was to start discussing business, you'd have a very short trip. It's not how Chinese businessmen conduct business. It's relevant to understand what types of individuals/groups/background are responsible for certain things in order to deal with it effectively.

Otherwise - ignoring how a different culture/person/etc conducts business because you'd don't want to be "perceived" as some label (which - actually IS a "business tactic" employed by some groups - making ppl 'fearful' to be 'labelled' a certain way state the obvious) is actually rather foolish.

But then I suppose that is why some (of course, not all - because some microstockers are very intelligent) - but referrering specifically to some microstockers are on here whining & complaining like children, because they are not international businessmen, but rather hoping they can stick their head in the sand and if they through a big enough tantrum, someone might do something. Thing is -  if one wants to stick their head in the sand and figuratively go 'la la la la la can't hear you la la la la!' - while that is their prerogative - one should be aware that the different people/groups/etc find that incredibly funny and certainly would take advantage of a person who conducts business  "that" way...

yes, definitely a visually disgusting ad. btw, it's funny - after they got rid of steve jobs - the "innovation" (at least for consumer products for iPhones/iPads) has been next to nil. who cares about 1mm 'thinner', etc?

A few other things:

a) Remove 'watermarks' (periodically midjourney puts those in). Watermarks = copyright protection measures = meaning content was created based off of stolen content.
b) Look for artifacts, edit/crop/etc those (time consuming, i.e., 7 fingers, three legs, etc)
c) "profit" - depends what you classify as "profit". It seems to be hit/miss - "sometimes" people do get "lucky" and have their portfolio take off - but from what I've seen - in general it seems they need 5,000+ assets ("ai images") to get "1000" downloads, and since a download can be as low as (I think it is $0.25), that means basically you'd "profit" with $250 for 5,000 assets. And - it can take 3-4 months before you get that "1000" download mark (aka $0.05/image), meaning - you are basically getting $50-$60/month for however long it takes you to create, keyword/describe, touchup/correct, upload, categorize, etc 5,000 images... assuming you did 100 images/hour (50 hours), $250/50 hours = means you basically make $5/hr... which - is probably why the majority of new "content creators" are coming from countries like east india, where "$5 USD" could/would be considered "good" money... if you processed LESS than 100 images/hr (more likely the case because of the worked involved) - it's more like $2-$3/hr...

So... Is $2-$3/hr a good rate for you?

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on May 11, 2024, 03:21

Quote from: Injustice for all on May 01, 2024, 10:08

then as I already said,in my opinion basing a portfolio only on AI is a mistake in the long term,just as not making AI content is a mistake too!

Your positioning is clear. And you have some nerve to intervene on this post. 
You should look for the post with the petition: "Come on people! Signing! PRO AI" 
or go and pour out your views on the numerous posts that praise all the advantages of AI

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who still speak here are won over by AI.
Otherwise, the approach of this petition is commendable. But, I doubt Adobe will change its policy, they enjoy an all-powerful situation. And they dare to talk about ethics...

as I have already said,I am in favor of the petition,I hope it will be accepted. 

I think creating using AI is a good thing,but placing a limit on the AI ​​content that can be uploaded is an equally good thing.

I believe that 500 AI contents in queue per account are more than enough,it seems like a good wide limit to me.

but in any case mine is a limited vision,while Adobe has a broader vision of the situation,so I'm more than sure that they will do the best thing.

Aside from the fact there is ALREADY a 'limit' in place, there are several issues with this. Let's say you  made a limit of 100 per person:

a) East indian spammers would do what they are already doing, and that is set up another 10 (or more) accounts in friends/familys/etc names, and then play dumb and whine and cry if they get caught and their accounts disabled. And then come on forums potentially like this and whine about 'what is happening'? playing dumb, knowing full well they were deliberately trying to spam the accounts.

b) If you somehow eliminated that situation (simple solution, don't approve east indian accounts, and disable existing ones post jan 2023 when the media made a co-rodinated annoucement to 'officially' bring public awareness to theft-based ai, even though it's already existed for years, side topic - most high level "media" (i.e., t.v. "news") is jewish run, and most big "ai" companies (i.e., midjourney, chatGPT, etc) arejewish run - so basically it wasn't "news" - but rather massive advertising and scratching each other's backs) - you'd still then have an issue with let's say 50 people producing images of 'bananas', because they like bananas. You'd still have '5000' images from 50 other people, so even if you had the most amazing picture of a banana, you'd still be "competing" with 5000 other 'banana' images, and there is the issue of discoverability. (I.e., people aren't going to scroll 50 pages to find that 'perfect' banana picture, even if yours was the best in the world but located at the bottom of page 50).

c) Unless the current database was purged of ALL "ai" assets (not really a viable option because you'd have a huge outcry from existing community who already did a lot of work/etc) - then - with the existing HUGE database - that type of limitation wouldn't really do anything.

d) How do you arrive at the arbitrary limit of "50"? Why not "1" per day? Why not 100,000/day? Why not "1" per year?

The "REAL" solution - at least one (not the only one, but one) - is actually to push for the companies PROMOTING the theft (i.e., media + "ai" companies) - to basically retroactively pay contributors whose works they stole from, PLUS - set up REGULAR PERPETUAL payments (not one-time crap drivel) - each time an "ai" asset (which is essentially just 'blending' images (more specifically, creating mathematical models from stolen works, then blending those models) - each time an "ai" asset is generated - make a perpetual, regular payment to the contributors whose work was used in composing that model.

THAT is a good solution.

Crying about "limits" doesn't solve anything, especially because that pre-supposes you are "okay" with the "ai" generation model/payment model "as-is" - you just want to prevent new competition.

Instead - push for lifetime perpetual payments. THAT is effective.

I proposed this more than six months ago,but I didn't have many supporters about this idea!

It was important in my opinion from the beginning to impose a limit on the AI ​​content that can be submitted for review,my idea was 500 per month,which is already a generous limit in my opinion.

I'm not against AI,in fact I also have AI content in my portfolio,and I think that the mass uploading of AI content is still bypassed by Adobe's sales system,in any case,it doesn't matter much how many millions of contents there are,but the number of active contributors is more of a problem.

in my opinion,for a sales system like Adobe's,it may be more difficult to manage a higher number of contributors,rather than a billion new contents.

however I am very much in agreement with imposing a limit on AI uploads because:

-helps review times

-promotes quality

because it puts an end to the "mad rush",creators have more time to use tools like generative fill,and other tools,thus having time to create and also select the contents to send.

however,even if there is no limit,there are already many rejections.

I support you,but in my opinion it is already too late,when I proposed it,Adobe's AI collection was around 5 million,now we have already exceeded 68 million.

I also don't think this proposal will be accepted by Adobe.

They already DO have limits. Part of the "problem" is east indians creating 50+ "new accounts" to circumvent the limits.

I'm not sure what happened for me - but I uploaded a new set of clips to pond5 last year - and then sales dropped by about 75%... Was hoping it would recover, but it's been like that now... Doesn't really make sense. Any insights?

The problem with this is that it doesn't really "solve" anything - except actually hurts 'good' contributors in the following...

a) The deluge of east indian spammers will simply "hire" (in person in their hometown, on fivver/etc) to "create new accounts" to spam more entries. They ALREADY brag about doing that on some forums.

If one wanted to effectively do something - quite simply don't approve east indian accounts (and maybe retroactively remove them since 2022/2023). Of course, there are also some malaysian, some african/nigerian/etc + some arabic countries - but that tends to be where the majority of spam + uploading other people's (stolen) content originates from, on most of the agencies.

b) There already are limits. Just the east indian spammers do the 'whack-a-mole' by creating 50+ accounts from different east indians, and then using their names/ids to spam content.

c) 2nd - the "cat is already out of the bag' so to speak. There's already a lot of submissions - so if there were "no" new submissions tomorrow - sales for contributors would be the same/similar.

What WOULD be effective though - is getting companies like midjourney, "research" companies like stable diffusion/etc RETROACTIVELY paying all the contributors for the STOLEN content they used - and then setting up a system where they PAY IN PERPETUITY (i.e., regular monthly income) EVERY TIME an asset is generated using a model that was based off of stolen content. THAT would be effective + fair. It is easy to set up such a system.

Push for THAT.

lol, yes, funny + messed up. how about shutterstock gives the full details of the thief's account? ah, but then thieves would probably start filing fake dmca reports to steal  that info too...

simple solution:
a) don't allow accounts from east india/nigeria/etc - because most of the 'stolen' content originates from there. it's an accurate stereotype, because those tend to be the 'business models'.
b) if it has an east indian name, don't allow the account to be opened, again --^ see above. OR - require extra proof that the assets are indeed there's - OR - do a little extra checking before allowing such an account to be opened up.

---------

It's particularly odd that there are videos with model releases, such as the one found here: https://motionarray.com/stock-video/beach-girl-334517/. This suggests that either some content genuinely belongs to the uploader, or, more concerningly, there might be a case of falsified personal information.

if they are willing to simply steal THOUSANDS of clips and pass it off as their own, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to have any qualms about falsifying a "model release" which just requires a "random made up signature", etc.

Basically - any east indian accounts originating from east india/east indian sounding names should be banned, because the majority of the stolen content is from east indians. If that was done, it would solve the stolen content issue. Quite simple. Most east indians "business models" is just to steal.

At the very least, periodically audit east indian accounts for stolen content, then immediately delete them when it is discovered they did, in fact, simply steal from other people.

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on April 21, 2024, 06:51

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 21, 2024, 05:15

Did Adobe steal something?No
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes

What about the notion of receiving stolen goods?
And make it the source (even partial) of a business?

so you assume that content generated by AI is stolen content?

so if you have AI content in your portfolio you are a thief too!

whereas if you don't have AI content in your portfolio,you are consistent with your ideas,and I respect that,but I don't agree with it!

It's a little bit of a "game" some people play.

Say someone steals a vehicle then resells it to you, and you didn't know it was stolen. Did you "steal" it? No - you paid for the vehicle - thinking it was good. However - the fact is, it is still a stolen vehicle, regardless of whether the person stole it sold it to you, or you now "own" a stolen vehicle.

Now question is slightly different. Say someone steals a vehicle then resells it to you, and you DO know it was stolen. Did you still "steal" it? I'd say it is a debatable point/gray area - but ultimately/"technically" no - because you paid for the vehicle, and you didn't do the actual 'theft' - so you didn't "steal" it - but you did know it was stolen. But fact is, in this case - it is still a stolen vehicle, regardless of whether the person stole it sold it to you, or you now "own" a stolen vehicle.

Is it 'right' (ethical) in ethical case? I'd say no - however... The large companies (i.e., 'midjourney') have set up an environment in which to "compete" effectively - it almost becomes necessary to use their "service" (which deals in pure stolen goods, the ceo according to google is also apparently jewsih- which is significant in that that seems to be the modus operandi of that culture and it's just how their businesses tend to operate, as the backers also are, the major investors, you need to understand the culture to understand how their businesses operate - but entirely different topic)...

So... then the question becomes...
a) If an environment is set up in which stealing is encouraged...
b) Sellers, in order to compete - feel pressure to buy/sell stolen goods... (And I think potentially a lot of creators don't fully realize that the "ai" systems are simply sophisticated theft, and might actually think they are using a 'magical' tool that can 'think', which of course it is not)...
c) Buyers willingly (either knowingly or unknowingly) participate in purchasing stolen goods... (i.e., it is possible and likely many buyers don't realize "ai" is simply sophisticated theft, and are actually under the illusion that it is some "thinking" machine, which of course it is not)...

To further add to that though... there is a small 'creative aspect' to the goods that the sellers have, albeit small - in that they do actually create a "prompt" (which is a 'new' item), and 'package' the goods (i.e., keywording, titling, etc)... in which case it is debatable - the goods that the "sellers" have - since "some" creative input was required - so it is not "direct" theft - is it still a "stolen good"? It is a "derivative" of stolen goods (i.e., it was 'based' off of stolen goods) - but does now the new "product" (which did require unique/creative input to create) - make it "not stolen"?

But then I suppose one could argue... if a vehicle was stolen, and the VIN on the car was changed, the car repainted - would one say that was still a "stolen vehicle" or a "new vehicle"...?

But it's a strange environment... when you have (primilary) east indians downloading complete portfolios (outright theft), making a new account to sell goods just to play whack-a-mole... jewhsi backed companies promoting theft-based environments (i.e., chatgpt jewsh/sam altman, midjourney jewsh/david holz) + backers that appear (through various shell organizations/etc) ultimately to be backed by blackrock/vanguard/etc (alsojewish, i.e., larry fink/blackrock)...

So how does one remain honest/ethical AND competitive, when dealing with people employing these dishonest tactics?

One super EASY solution though is the following...

Since companies like midjourney/chatgpt are based off of theft... Put pressure on them to make perpetual micropayments to the contributors whose works were stolen... Of course - they don't "want" that  - because they are extremely greedy and have a pyschotic sociopathic desire for "control" - but really doesn't matter what they "want" - because this would make it right. Also - with that system make it so contributors can choose what % micropayments they want, and if they don't want them, to opt out of the system. Despite what any wannabe-technie might say - it is EXTREMELY EASY to implement... "They" (the companies) have the meta data of where they stole the assets from, and it would be very easy (progrmatically) to set up a system to compensate contributors for their stolen works - and pay them in perpetuity (i.e., monthly for the rest of their lives) every time one of their works were referenced in a new "ai image" or "ai video"... It is also possible to make RETROACTIVE payments to all people's whose works were stolen.

At the same time... create awareness campaigns (social media/blogging/etc) to raise general public awareness that midjourney/chatgpt/etc are based off of stolen goods... regardless of whether they play the game saying "oh they simply got images from a RESEARCH company, so THEY didn't know it was stolen! <wink wink>". yeah, <cough cough bullsh_t>)... ultimately, they knowingly created tools based of massive scraping & theft, and want to re-package the stolen goods as their own, and are trying to create a system in which for a person to effectively compete need to use "their" tools (at which point they could grant/deny people access on a whim - they are pyschotic sociopaths and simply want "control", in addition to greed). That there is nothing "intelligent" about the current "AI" ("artificial intelligence"), and that it is simply sophisticated theft & pattern re-arrangment... So raise those types of awareness campaigns to help put pressure on them to do the right thing.

THEN... the tools are based off of ethically purchased/licensed goods, the derivative works become ethnically purchased/licensed, and a good situation all around...

That is one big solution in order to resolve the dilemma.

Sounds like a crediblity attack. The people at blackrock/vanguard (same ones that organized convid the fakevirus) are really trying to attack any competing company. Midjourney is a blackrockjoo/etc/company. Bloomberg/etc is owned by the same people that own/run/finance midjourney/etc.

"News" organizations aren't "news" - they are propoganda/manipulation machines... You don't see bloomberg attacking midjourney for stealing people's content, ripping it off, then trying to pass it off as their own, do you? No... because it's owned/managed by the same set of companies that own bloomberg, & most major "news" outlets.

1. re: cobalt stating "2,000 ppl making $1k or less from adobe" - how did the ppl in the forum arrive @ that number? seems like pulling #'s out of their butt unless they have some direct inside knowledge. of course - I am not sure what the # would be - just curious how they arrived @ those conclusions?

2. re: rankings - looking, I think my "best" rank was around 200th or so - but just looking @ my numbers, in some ways that is rather irrelevant, because
a) "income" is not really related to rank... looking @ some of my stats, my (weekly) income was actually higher one week @ rank 1000 than when I was @ rank ~200...
b) "income" also depends on a whole bunch of factors... do you luck out and get people purchasing full one-time non sub licenses (i.e., so you get a $30 sale), or is it a whole bunch of $0.33 subs... (i.e., you could get "500" downloads, but @ $0.33/a pop = $165 usd. conversely, if they were all $30 net sales to you, that is 500 @ $30 each = $1500 usd).
c) in some cases it is very seasonal, i.e., say Easter, when "everyone" is downloading Easter bunnies & Jesus pictures, versus say mother's day where it is all about flowers, etc... so you get "lucky" because YOUR picture of Jesus with an Easter bunny is more popular than the other 5,000,000 people with pictures of Jesus & an Easter bunny...
d) There is some degree of "luck" involved. While there are certain principles that are important (good subject, good lighting, trending, good keywords, etc) - sometimes you just have a picture that due to the mysterious nature of adobe's algorithms takes off, while others don't... if I knew the "magic formula" - obviously lol I'd only produce consistent "best sellers"...

There are certain topics which I know are being pushed by the blackrock/vanguard/WEF/UN/etc (the 'pyschotic' board of people) agenda, which "could" make extra $$$, but just choose not to participate in (i.e., the gay/trans/miscegnation crap designed to try & break up families/etc to make ppl easier to control)... others though - don't care - and they just want $$$ and keep pumping out some weird gay/trans/miscegnation crap... simply because some of the weirder, more perverted crap is really being pushed hard... some profiles seem to be pure perverted trans/gay crap... but - I guess they have to live with that - "that" is their "legacy"...

Anyhoo...

Only thing I would take from "rankings" is:
a) if you are ranked "higher" - meaning your downloads are higher relative to everyone else - means specifically with the "adobe" crowd of customers - you are providing the content they want. (Just because it sells @ adobe doesn't mean it would necessarily sell as well elsewhere - the adobe crowd tends to have specific tastes/styles/etc).
b) if you are consistently ranked "high" - it probably means you are consistently doing something correctly that is in demand.
c) bragging rights to make yourself "feel" better if you see you are "doing better" than someone else...