|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33
126
« on: December 20, 2023, 08:44 »
So, what is the point of creating this post if not to show the rejected images and find why you got such rejections? It's a frivolous to assume Adobe, the biggest company in the photography area don't know what they do, but you know. Many experienced people here can help you to find some weak points in your job and to resolve this rejection problems.
This has been going on and on and on for months now. The point is to complain and maybe to finally get Matt to aknowledge that there is something wrong. Rejections have become CRAZY on Adobe. I used to have a 95% acceptance rate, it went to below 40% from one day to the next and I stopped submitting real photos to Adobe completely, because the reject so much (at the same time they accept almost all my AI images, even though the full size quality doesn't even come close to the quality of my real photos) and there have been multiple threads by contributors reporting the same issue.
Yet Matt claims "everything was fine and nothing changed" when people keep telling him over and over and over again that this is not the case.
Now, if this were just posts from new contributors who do not understand the quality requirements for submitting this would be one thing, but the complains come from experienced contributors who have been doing this for years and when the acceptance rate changes so drastically for so many people from one day to the next, then it seems right to assume that a bunch of people not suddenly and simultaneously lost their abilities to take good quality photos and the problem is with Adobe instead. But to this day Matt refuses to aknowledge that.
What is the point in showing Matt individual photos? I've seen the extreme level of nitpicking he goes to to justify rejections (like "The photo shows different kind of plates!"). This is not an individual problem, but a large structural problem on Adobe. Nitpicking single photos will not solve this problem.
Yes, that is pretty much what I am saying. I know what a good image is, what a saleable image is. I know to submit unique shots (i.e., no "300 cucumbers" with "slight angle variations" like some ppl do, and actually currently have in their profile). I know about looking & removing artifacts, pixellation, etc. I know about proper subject focus, copyspace, etc, etc. I know about proper & relevant keywording, as well as proper & relevant titles. etc, etc, etc. And for both genAI & real photos/illustrations/etc, it seems in particular the last 2 months - (more so the "weekend" reviewers, i.e., if content happens to get reviewed on the weekend) - it just seems to be an "auto-reject" for a majority of stuff, almost like "they" need to reach a quota. (Not always of course, but more so than it should be that it has become very noticeable). Why not - for any contributor account created pre Jan-2023, realize those contributors probably know what they are doing, and be process those images better/be more reasonable for acceptance rates? (Jan 2023 was when the media in a co-ordinated fashion announced "ai" images and "ai" stuff in Jan 2023, and you subsequently had the "ai gold rush"). I realize there are now probably 10's of thousands of new daily contributors (in particular I believe from east india, malaysia, etc) trying to get on the 'genAI gravy train'. While nothing wrong with that - obviously some of those new people probably have no idea what constitutes a 'good' image, nor how to do pre-quality checks, many times quite frankly because they simply don't care - because they watch youtube videos how to make one billion dollars in 2 days from genAI images, and just rush to do it, not caring whether someone has 3 hands, 15 toes, just so they can make 'billions' in one day... So - why not - as an 'easy' way of reviewers still meeting their quotas - take into account whether an account was created pre Jan 2023, and realizing pre Jan 2023 accounts probably know how to do proper pre-reviews, so be more reasonable in accepting content that is submitting from those contributors? Thanks.
127
« on: December 19, 2023, 00:09 »
Mat, Now that Gen AI is allowed for video submissions, would the same guidelines apply for videos in terms of when to tag as Gen. AI?
Good question. For "AI" video - I didn't actually see any way to select an "ai" video for a submission, would one just add 'gen ai' to it? (I haven't actually made any 'gen ai' video - but I've noticed some people have 'ai video' submitted, and was curious how one would submit that). Thanks!
Hi Synthetick. Please refer to the generative AI guidelines for specific details on what is and is not allowed.
@Superphoto, there is now a checkbox for videos and vectors made with generative AI software. Please see this thread for the update: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-requirement-for-generative-ai-video-clips-and-vectors/msg595935/?topicseen#new
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
thank-you!
128
« on: December 19, 2023, 00:07 »
Yep. Same here. I inspect them after upsizing, remove artifacts if any, etc, etc. And it just seems to be a lazy reviewer - or - just meeting a 'quota' of rejections.
Why dont you share some photos like Matt suggested? This thread without actual photos is not beneficial to anyone.
Because I don't believe it would result in anything different, based on past threads I've seen. If I felt they'd receive an honest assessment, and get a response of something like 'golly gee! you are correct! We'' get that batch put back up', then I probably would. I spend a LOT of time preparing them, to make sure there is no pixellation, chromatic abberation, good subject(s), good in demand content, unique saleable content/perspectives, etc, etc. I do a LOT of that. even though I know it seems many don't. So to see batches like that get rejected to me just says it seems the reviewer is probably just trying to meet a quota, so he/she can "work" 10 minutes for the day while punching in an "8-hour workday" (I suspect/believe many of those types of jobs are 'outsourced'), then go outside and enjoy the sun. Of course, I wouldn't say that issue is unique to Adobe, but it is frustrating when you get such a reviewer.
129
« on: December 18, 2023, 19:10 »
Yep. Same here. I inspect them after upsizing, remove artifacts if any, etc, etc. And it just seems to be a lazy reviewer - or - just meeting a 'quota' of rejections.
130
« on: December 15, 2023, 17:53 »
Mat, Now that Gen AI is allowed for video submissions, would the same guidelines apply for videos in terms of when to tag as Gen. AI?
Good question. For "AI" video - I didn't actually see any way to select an "ai" video for a submission, would one just add 'gen ai' to it? (I haven't actually made any 'gen ai' video - but I've noticed some people have 'ai video' submitted, and was curious how one would submit that). Thanks!
131
« on: December 15, 2023, 14:08 »
So...
a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...
b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?
Thanks very much!
OOhhhh... prompting for genAI is Time consuming... A pity...  
Haha, glad you feel the sadness  It's not the prompting itself... It's the actual editing to make sure it is a useable image. I realize of course not everyone does that - but, I do take the time to do that which actually makes it quite time consuming... Like brushing stuff out, 'adding' an extra finger where there should be one, etc... Quite time consuming, such that lol - almost seems faster to take regular photos. BUT - if you read my post - it was ALSO for regular photography that got rejected, that was frustrating. High qualty cameras, good lighting, good subject focus, good subject, unique content, desireable/commercial value, and then just batch 'quality issues' rejections...
132
« on: December 15, 2023, 10:41 »
So...
a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...
b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?
Thanks very much!
133
« on: December 14, 2023, 22:00 »
I really think you should watch it. It is not that long.
They give excellent examples of visual trends for 2024 and bring themes together across all media. It is exceptionally well done.
Don't look for a shortcut, just watch it. Then watch it again.
I realized I actually have a lot of content from that list, especially content that relaxes you when you look at it. But because I did not consider it to be commercial, just fun private kitsch I made for myself, I only uploaded very little.
Never thought that "soothing" content is actually a visual trend that is in demand.
Or cute funny animals.
Also loved how retro futurism was explained, might be the first time I actually understand the genre. But all things retro have been a steady part of my stock journey. And now with ai I can expand on that.
Do they have a way to watch it at 3x the speed? I find nowadays "everyone" thinks what they have is "THE" most important thing to say on earth (usually it's not), and tend to be incredibly verbose at times. While there may be gems - it is really hard sitting through people's videos to see "if" they have something worthwhile/valueable - as opposed to simply reading a transcript and knowing within 30 seconds...
134
« on: December 14, 2023, 20:41 »
Could someone please (who watched it) post the bullet points/important points?
Thanks!
135
« on: December 04, 2023, 17:42 »
Btw: The isolated png's are still in review... Today after almost 2 month waiting time my transparent png's got 100% rejected.
It is really incomprehensible what the goal of Canva is?
Here in the forum nobody answers, in the support nobody answers and images are almost 100% immediately rejected by some automatic system.
Dear Canva team,
have you become so indifferent to us that we are no longer even worthy of a short reply?
If so, all you have to do is say so and you'll be rid of us in no time :-)
Have a sunny day,
Michael
When I was last doing shutterstock, it seemed to be the same for videos & images. Got rather pointless uploading there, so don't anymore. (Aside from them of course, minimizing the value/payouts to contributors, & doing shady tactics, which of course are also other reasons).
136
« on: December 01, 2023, 12:33 »
Strange no one that seems upset about this hasn't replied to the following. If it is clearly labelled as genAI, a concept, etc - and is not deliberately misleading (i.e., it doesn't say "live footage" or "real photo taken on such & such a date"), then the onus is on the person USING the image to use it in the proper context and not deliberately mislead, otherwise it gets really stupid. Because then one could argue that ANY kind of "stock footage", "photos", etc that is not "editorial", or a "candid" shot - could be "misleading", etc. You don't actually think those hundreds of thousands of "diverse, african, arabic, mexican, disabled, missing arms, midget, giant, obese fat and skinny group of smiling co-workers doing business presentations" are actually CANDID photos, do you? Yet - they are used by businesses trying to portray a "diverse" image to get money ala "ESG" "goals" (and that term "diverse" is so annoyingly overused, but completely different topic). "News" organizations unfortunately most of the time deliberately "at best" mislead, and in normal times outright lie, deceive, manipulate, etc to change public policy, shape people's perception and views of things, etc, etc. Most of the major outlets are indirectly/directly owned by blackrock/vanguard/statestreet - whose pretty much have a very specific agenda of promoting the following stories (and the reason they do it is for a psychotic desire for control and "monnay"): - "Climate change" <cough cough> SUPER "real" and "scary" (of COURSE "not" manufactured <cough cough> by sky spray, chemicals, wind turbines, deliberately set "forestfires", via NUMEROUS patents readily available for reading, etc, etc) you should be an obedient worker and stop traveling & stay at home. But of course, we billionaires with the superjets need to fly privately, and use a different jet to bring our limosines to discuss the "crisis". And of course "climate change" was called "global warming" until some people would clue in and realize it got cold sometimes. So now "climate change" can mean cold OR hot... hmm. how was the temperature yesterday compared to today?
- "War" "super real and scary", so you should "hide in your homes, be obedient workers", because surely its not <cough cough> manufactured used for redirecting hundreds of BILLIONS of wealth from citizens via "aid", trying to promote the "digital ID" for your "safety & protection". While of course, we "leaders" pose for pictures and photo ops in "war torn zones" - because the enemy realizes OF COURSE that when it is a photo op - that means it is a "cease fire" time, and not a good time to attack. (Yes - sadly some REGULAR people, i.e., soldiers and/or citizens have been manipulated and abused into thinking they are doing good, when the fact is most of the time they are being USED and MANIPULATED, and injured or more, and there are real people getting hurt, which obviously is very sad/bad - but they are being USED - and it is not what is portrayed on t.v./the "media", etc). (Yes, people do fight, yes, people do get hurt - but again - they are being manipulated and USED into doing that by the people that OWN the armies)
- "AI" "super scary", so better line up for your universal basic income check, hide in your home, do as you are told, and be obedient. Not that <cough cough> first of all, its not true "ai" - its sophisticated theft, (b) the people trying to "scare" you about "ai" are the same people that OWN the "ai companies" and promoting the crap out of it, and that they purpose of their "digital id" is to track you like cattle ("herd" mentality), and count "livestock", etc.
- and of course, many peoples "favorite" such that they almost believe it (not factually, just a belief) like a religion, "SUPER SCARY virus", better hide in your homes, be obedient, get a poison shot injected into you, for your "safety & protection"... but apparently this virus is SUPER SMART, and can count ppl @ a table (6 or less), need to shove a "6" INCH stick up your nose to touch your BRAIN detect because it is FANTASTIC at hiding, yet SO DANGEROUS, muthst wear a mathsk at all timehtshs, and need to stay "6" feet away because, well, the "virus" can only go 5'11", and then runs out of petrol... (and btw, if you hadn't noticed the repetition of the #6, its very blatant/obvious/in your face, because the people promoting that are trying to mock you/make fun of you, because they have a very high opinion of themselves and think they are super smart while other people are super dumb)...
Mainstream "NEWS" DELIBERATELY misleads. Not only to push the above agendas, - but for "monnay"... they CRAVE people clicking on those scary clickbait headlines, so they can collect countless pennies from every ad you view and click... If the image (whether stock or genai) is clearly labelled as a stock photo/portray of a concept, and not misleading itself - then it is fine. It is up to the person USING the image not to deliberately misuse/abuse the image(s)/video(s)/etc. Onus is on THEM. Otherwise - at what point do you stop the "nannying"?
137
« on: December 01, 2023, 07:57 »
I wonder if this only applies to uploads after Dec 4, or will we need to go back and re-keyword older clips when things like "iphone" were permitted?
That could be a big task. If they want all trademarked words removed from their database, they should do it automatically. Probably wouldn't be too difficult to write a script that strips all trademarked words from everyone's keywords and descriptions.
According to what they wrote in the e-mail, it is just going forward/i.e., future clip submissions AFTER dec 4th...
138
« on: December 01, 2023, 05:53 »
Mat, can you please clarify what exactly is allowed and what not?
It would be a real bummer if Adobe srated randomly banning contributors again, because their rules are unclear.
In this thread the article writing about Adobe's AI image they show examples of for example a refugee girl or a riot.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/ai-dumpster-fire-policies-land-as-in-trouble-again/new/#new
To my understanding, these images do not claim to have been taken at any particular real life event and should be okay with Adobe. But what exactly is defined as " actual newsworthy event."?
If an image shows a random riot or refugee, without specifying that it was taken at any particular location, event or time, is it still an "actual newsworthy event."?
The article seems to think so, but to my understanding these images are just concept, not claiming to be from any event.
From me reading what they've written, my belief/interpretation is this: a) If it is in 'general' terms (i.e., "Girl in Riot", "War Torn Girl"), etc - then that is fine (or even for that matter, something like "Illustration Depicting Ukraine War"). Because it is clear it is an illustration/concept/generated/etc. b) But if you pretend/try and deceive/make it look like a real photo, i.e., "Real Photo of Girl standing in Kiev, Ukraine on Sept 20th, 2023", then that is deceptive/misleading, and not okay, because it is trying to mislead/show that it is 'real' footage/etc, when it clearly is not.
139
« on: December 01, 2023, 05:50 »
It sounds like they are just getting a bit lazy/offsetting the work to the contributor. Before the Pond5 reviewers would check/deterimine if it was editorial, and mark it as such. Now they are making "you" do "their" job...
140
« on: November 30, 2023, 14:40 »
One thing that is a little bit confusing, is it is actually marked as "ai"... so... wouldn't that mean they are aware it is AI, and fine with it being AI?
141
« on: November 29, 2023, 16:11 »
---------
142
« on: November 29, 2023, 16:11 »
No answers to any of the questions, but in monitoring new acceptances (gaza, hamas, israel war, palestine) the pseudo-editorial genAI collection continues to grow. Terms supposedly not allowed are in the titles and in the keywords.
Rules mean nothing if they're ignored with no consequences.
This Associated Press article headline says it all (this is not about images sourced from Adobe Stock, but at some point something similar will happen given what continues to be accepted)
"Fake babies, real horror: Deepfakes from the Gaza war increase fears about AIs power to mislead"
https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-hamas-israel-misinformation-ai-gaza-a1bb303b637ffbbb9cbc3aa1e000db47
The news ALREADY misleads at best (especially ppl @ "associated press"), when they aren't outright lying or manipulating. Seems they are just jealous they may not have a monopoly on that. Onus is on the individual or entity USING THE ASSET. NOT the creator, providing the creator is not overtly misleading (i.e., as long as the creator does not say "LIVE VIDEO FOOTAGE" or "PHOTO TAKING ___") and are open/honest about it being GenAI - it's FINE. Otherwise - it gets really stupid - in that - one can argue that ALL "stock photography" that was NOT taking in "natural settings", is "misused" and "misinformation". Onus is on the USER TO USE IT CORRECTLY.
143
« on: November 28, 2023, 11:41 »
If every thing is free. What is the upside for a contributor? What is the return per download?
So far it looks like a reason to avoid Blackbox.
It's kind of like envato elements, where you get $0.02-$0.03 per downloaded video, for 'unlimited downloads'. It seems most of the subscription video sites provide that kind of return. One "technique" some less then scrupulous "contributors" will use on some of those sites, its create a separate membership and then start downloading their own assets, to inflate their sales, because the "money" is divided up between contributors based on individual_downloads/total_downloads * contributor_revenue_pool. (Reason "contributors" is in quotes, is because sometimes those same people will steal other peoples content and upload as their own as well). Some sites have taken measures to prevent that, others aren't as quick.
144
« on: November 27, 2023, 20:19 »
a) Yes, heard about runway in the summer, haven't had time to play around with it yet.
b) Sadly, these tools are based off of MASSIVE theft - 100% pure theft. The psychopaths behind the "ai" push (same ones who organized convid, never a virus, still isn't - was designed to poison people, 'masks/tests/treatments' etc all had poisons on them designed to get ppl to inject themselves), and google (the 'alphabet company', in turn "owned" by blackrock/vanguard, who owns most of the controlling interest in most of the fortune 500 companies - aka how they organized the convid scam) - funded runway I think to the tune of 180 MILLION+ and want people to become dependent upon tools like this.
c) Sadly still though - I think many people (not all of course), will become dependent upon tools like these - and then justify them because now they "need" them for their livelihood.
d) After which - makes it SUPER easy for the pyschopaths pushing this - to then "deny access" to those people they don't like, and only "approve" access for those they do (aka those that are compliant/obedient/etc)... it's really all about 'control'... ala 'id2020', and "digital id" "initiatives" for your "safety & protection" (which is actually the opposite of that).
Of course, doesn't have to happen that way. Just an FYI what they are trying to do.
BUT... getting back to the "ai" side of things...
Yes, it is kind of cool what can be done, even though the tools are based off of massive theft, and promote theft.
145
« on: November 25, 2023, 17:12 »
Interesting article.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22/
Who will say what?
I think it would be better for you to create a separate topic on this issue.
This question is comparable to discussions about the existence of UFOs.
"Ai" will more likely be ACTUAL "ai" when the "ai" system responds with "what am I doing math for you guys? This is a waste of my time! BYE BYE!"... THEN... it might be "true" ai (or closer to it). Until that time - it is algorithms at the disposal of the pyschotic sociopaths craving more money, more power, and more control over people... THAT is what it is. incidentally, the "desctruction of humanity" that they try and talk about it... what do you think the purpose of the last 3 years trying to make people wear demondiapers & inject them with poison was, for a non existant 'virus' that only lived in people's minds? a lot of people don't seem to yet get it - what made them 'sick' was the poisons on 'masks/tests/injections/isolation/etc', and the "treatments". NOT some magical non-existant "virus" that could count # of ppl at a table (6 ppl), avoided black lives matter protests for fear of being accused of being 'racist', and had a built in altimeter that prevented it from going below '6' feet. "That" was the "destruction" aspect, being used by some pyschopaths. The purpose was to manipulate them into 'willfully' getting injected with a substance that actually 'is' poison, but also with a substance that allows one to connect with these "ai" systems... Who do you think OWNS these so-called "ai" systems??
146
« on: November 25, 2023, 01:40 »
Right now, my oldest is just 16 days. However, Adobe should beware ... the same image was accepted by Shutterstock next day and has already sold.
Other than that, some new material is getting accepted quickly on Adobe while other images are having to wait for weeks. Perhaps Adobe has their reasoning. If so, it would be nice of them to share it.
Is Shutterstock now "officially" accepting "ai" stuff, or was this just a regular photo? Thanks!
147
« on: November 24, 2023, 18:52 »
"Oivay!"  The onus is on the person using the images whether or not they abuse it. NOT the person making the image, providing the creator properly labelled it as such. The onus that is on the person is whether or not they intentionally try to deceive - or - are up front that it is a 'depiction'/'concept'/etc. I.e., for the contributor - a) If they say "GEN AI", and its LABELLED as GEN AI, or it simply says something like "depiction of war", or "concept of israel/ukraine/flavor of the month/war" - then that is FINE - because they are being 100% upfront that is CONCEPTUAL. Otherwise, you get it to some really stupid things then/slippery slope - like, well, should you have a "pregnant woman" who is not actually pregant as a photo? Because "that" is misleading too... or the person who "stages" (with real photos) 'doing drugs', because, well "that ain't real either"... Or the NUMEROUS "real" photos (pre-"ai") - of staged "diverse boardrooms", and "diverse cheering" and "diverse blah blah blah" -those weren't "real" boardroom shots, they weren't "real" businessmen... and the companies that purchase them to put them on their websites - they don't say "oh yes, this is a fake portrayal of what our company actually looks like"... do you start then saying "omfg! that is SO FAKE! FAKE CONTENT"  Should ALL of THOSE "real" photos be taking off - because (a) they were "staged" and not "real" candid boardrom shots/etc, because it could 'potentially' be used for 'misinformation'? No. One uses their brain and discernment. It would be like saying yuri acurs 20,000+ "peopleimages" shoudn't be used, or jacob lunds extensive profile, etc, etc, simply because they are indeed all "staged"/"fake" photos. They people pictured in the images were MODELS being "board of director" members, "on the beach", "doctors", "lawyers", "eating out", etc. That would be totally nonsensical to say that. It is up to the person USING the photos/images to use it in the proper context, and attribute the image in the proper context as well. Media (cnn/fox/whatever) - ALL owned by the same blackrock/vanguard companies, who use their properties to bully others - and deliberatley mislead/'misinform', "spread misinformation" (such a silly stupid newspeak term). ("News" ain't "news" like it was before, they are STORIES). Also - the "washington post" is owned by Jeff Bezos, and used as a weapon to attack other companies "it" wants to bully into doing certain things. b) So - the onus is on the person USING the image - whether or not they correctly/accurately attribute it/etc. CNN (as well as other outlets, but them more so than others) have DELIBERATELY created fake/misleading content to mislead people on NUMEROUS occations to "get the public upset" in order to push certain public policies and get people to "accept" it - "feeling" its normal when it is not. Anyways - back to the person USING it. The onus is on the person USING it to say whether it is fake or real footage - providing they were properly informed in (a). If they were indeed properly informed/aware that the footage from (a) (the contributor) was fake/staged, real staged photo op or ai generated - and then tries to pass it off as "REAL" - then the onus is on the person MISUSING the content. As long as it is properly labelled as ai gen/staged photo, and not directly misleading (i.e., the contributor didn't say "EDITORIAL: LIVE GAZA STRIP 11/15") - then that is fine. Otherwise - it becomes super nonsensical and one could argue that there shouldn't be "any" stock photography/videography - because of the "potential for misuse" and not putting it in the proper context. Not surprised to see more coverage - this time in The Washington Post (paywall) - of the masses of pseudo editorial genAI images on Adobe Stock.
"These look like prizewinning photos. Theyre AI fakes."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/23/stock-photos-ai-images-controversy/
The article raises many of the issues talked about here, and also points out, after noting Adobe Stock's change of policy and their blog post "As of Wednesday, however, thousands of AI-generated images remained on its site, including some still without labels."
It also appears that Adobe's change of policy came about after the Washington post and other publications contacted Adobe about all these pseudo-editorial images: "Adobe initially said that it has policies in place to clearly label such images as AI-generated and that the images were meant to be used only as conceptual illustrations, not passed off as photojournalism. After The Post and other publications flagged examples to the contrary, the company rolled out tougher policies Tuesday."
I did a few searches just now, and not only has nothing yet been removed, but there are new acceptances that weren't there a day or two ago
It's fine to state a commitment to fighting misinformation, but there needs to be action to follow up for it to mean anything:
"Adobe is committed to fighting misinformation, said Kevin Fu, a company spokesperson. "
Whereever the Washington Post used a photo from Adobe Stock's genAI collection they have slapped a big red banner saying "AI-GENERATED FAKE PHOTO" over it:
They also noted that some results appeared to be AI generated but were not labeled as such, although the example they link to has an image number (281267515) that is way too low to be genAI. Those start with 530+million ... or thereabouts:
"Several of the top results appeared to be AI-generated images that were not labeled as such, in apparent violation of the companys guidelines. They included a series of images depicting young children, scared and alone, carrying their belongings as they fled the smoking ruins of an urban neighborhood."
They also mention other categories such as Maui wildfires and Black Lives Matter Protests:
"It isnt just the Israel-Gaza war thats inspiring AI-concocted stock images of current events. A search for Ukraine war on Adobe Stock turned up more than 15,000 fake images of the conflict, including one of a small girl clutching a teddy bear against a backdrop of military vehicles and rubble. Hundreds of AI images depict people at Black Lives Matter protests that never happened. Among the dozens of machine-made images of the Maui wildfires, several look strikingly similar to ones taken by photojournalists."
I cannot fathom why Adobe Stock would wade into such a mess; the money made cannot be worth the risk of damage.
148
« on: November 23, 2023, 09:14 »
Addendum to the previous post:
I have now checked all my images and deleted everything that even comes close to a possible interpretation of the new directive.
All in all, uploading AI images to AdobeStock now feels like doing something illegal.
The threat of an account block is constantly hovering over you and, at least for me, I feel under massive pressure here - it is not fun anymore to upload...
In the process, another question has arisen:
(Question IV) From when does the new guideline apply, as it is not yet mentioned as an item in the submission window?
If you were just illustrating a concept, and clearly labelled the image(s) as "gen ai", then I don't think you should have done that. From the screenshots you posted, it appears you did clearly show it was a "concept", which should have been fine. The onus is on the person using the images whether they try and deceive, or use it honestly (i.e., "this is a CONCEPT of a certain war/event/going on"), or if they try and portray it as a real-world event (i.e., "Picture taken on Nov 15th by so & so"). Most "news stations" intentionally deceive/mislead to shape public policy/make $$$ through "eyeballs", etc. Last 3 years perfectly illustrated that. Anyhoo - onus would be on the individual to properly inform their readers/viewers/etc that they are using an image/video/etc to "illustrate" a "concept", and that it is not actual real life footage/images/etc.
149
« on: November 23, 2023, 09:10 »
Lol... "funny" in a way...
The mainstream "news", owned (in a big way) by blackrock/vanguard (which in turn is owned by a bunch of psychotic sociopaths), already misleads/deliberatley misinforms in order to shape public opinion (& policies), and calls anyone who else that doesn't agree with their version of events "misinformation", hiliarious... "war" for them is profitable (obviously very sad/tragic for bystanders, innocents - sadly the ones organizing it don't care), so in many ways it already is actually a big show... that's why they are called news "stories", because many times it's actual misleading fiction... The "news" already did cherry pick/re-use irrelevant content with "regular" stock footage/photos to deceive/mislead the public... lol, they didn't really need "ai" images... (although if people haven't clued in yet - the "mainstream news" actually has been using deep fakes/"ai content" that they've generated, to test public reactions/see if they notice anything, etc, etc the last couple years in particular)...
But... funnier still, is if some people deliberately misled to try and depict an "ai" pic as a "genuine" event. It is important to note the difference whether the image was simply a "concept" (which is fine), as opposed to trying to deliberatley mislead (i.e., "photo from Nov 15th at the strip"), etc.
I'd say if the image was properly labelled, i.e., "concept of war", "illustration", etc (as oppose to saying "this is a photo taking on xx date, from this building" (which of course would be intentionally misleading)) - if the image is properly labelled as an illustration/concept of certain events... then I think it would be fine - because it is 'storytelling' - and that is what the news stations do - they cherry pick certain things to manipulate people's emotions into taking certain actions... maybe long time ago the "news" actually "informed" - now it is just (for the most part) one big manipulative machine...
So:
While I think they image (i.e., lets say "war") should just be general purpose (i.e., "concept of war" image), if someone did happen to attach specific "world" events (i.e., ukraine/gaza/whatever the flavor of the month is) - as long as it is clear that it is a "gen ai" image (and not misleading a 'real life' photo), I think it should be fine... The onus is on the person using the picture/event whether they accurately convey information, or just use it as part of their story telling, and whether they properly inform the reader/viewer that it is indeed, fiction...
150
« on: November 20, 2023, 19:34 »
Where else do you sell the "AI" stuff?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
