|
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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 46
176
« on: October 03, 2024, 19:43 »
Does anyone know of any models that have had their careers launched or enhanced by appearing in stock photographs?
I know that I have seen one pretty blond Austrailian model all over the web and in print ads in the back of throw-away magazines, yet I have never seen her face in any high profile professional ads.
So, my guess is no...but I am hoping I am wrong.
One woman that became extremely successful goes by the name of 'maridav'. There are even facebook groups devoted to her to see which 'products' she's been licensed on. I've personally seen her on local hair care products, "medical" products, etc, etc... I wouldn't say she's a model in the "traditional" sense (i.e., runway model) - but I'd (educated guess) say she has had the same kind of financial success most of them do. So I would consider her a 'model' - she just licensed her images/likeness a different way... very successful person.
177
« on: October 03, 2024, 19:30 »
You go to a mechanic and he replaces your rotors and brake pads. Then you should pay him a fee, monthly, every time you use the brakes on your car? 
The images are used one time, to create a model and that machine learning model, creates the new images. Your images, and mine, are never USED again.
When you license a stock image, the contract often says in perpetuity now. Same for a training use for AI. It has been licensed for use, forever, not for a single use. If you prefer that to a single use, which is what the actual use was, then fine. We still get nothing more than what the training has paid for.
Another complication, if there are 10,000 images of a pickle, used to train the software, then every time the software makes a pickle, 10,000 people should be paid again, for having their image used in training the machine? How do you know which images were used for every new image? There is no direct connection back to any specific image, when the machine creates a new image, from what it has learned.
I'd really like someone to answer that last question.
You are comparing apples to oranges, actually more like apples to palm trees on a beach. Pretty much no relation whatsoever. a) The mechanic didn't steal the rotors, pads, etc to sell them to you. b) You aren't in the business of making rotors, pads, etc that someone else steals from you to sell forever in direct competition, and doing whatever they can to simultaneously try to prevent you from future sales while they make a lot of sales. The people behind the "AI" (which is not a thinking machine, and it is for the most part a jewish/"identify"asjewish consoratorium of people) are engaged in a combination of massive theft, and then trickery/deception/manipulation/etc to try to get you 'out' of business for a teensy tiny payment - because they want a "in-perpetuity" model where people use THEIR stuff, NOT yours. In other words - they are trying to trick you into selling your "asset" 1x (to them) for peanuts (i.e., $0.10) - so they can then resell it 10,000+ times without ANY compensation to you (i.e., to them $100,000+ for your single asset). Single use is one thing, because it is used by a single entity. Not for derivative works to be resold (i.e., you don't sell your license 1x so then the company that 'bought' it can sell it 10000 times). Re: 10,000 - since this is a SOFTWARE program - VERY VERY VERY EXTREMELY easy to do via micropayments. And yes - there IS a connection. You tag & tokenize the models - and then that is how you get paid. I actually DO know how to do that. It is VERY easy to do. I guess you don't have the technical background/expertise to understand that - which is fine - I do. And I am telling you - it is VERY easy to implement - it is simply a matter of doing it. Of course - the people running the "ai" companies want you to think you "can't" - but that is a load of crap - they want you to think that because then it makes it easier for them to try and steal your stuff from you.
178
« on: October 03, 2024, 10:34 »
a) Re: hiding the initial "opt-out" - I suspect it was so the big "google/blackrock/etc backed" companies could quickly steal/etc as much without many people knowing. The reason the companies offered the "opt-out" AFTERWARDS... is to stifle potential competition. because say if google has access to say 100% of the "clips", and a competitor only has access to 30% (because of people opting out after the trickery was done) - then the "google/blackrock/vanguard" companies can make models that look more realistic (& hence more 'desirable' to use, aka more sales).
b) Odd. I opted out - and yet - apparently my stuff was still used. "Possible" within the small window of having opted out from pond5 - and when they 'announced' it "maybe" they sold some data to someone else... unlikely, but possible.
c) Companies that "license" the dataset should be paying in perpetuity (i.e., monthly, regular income) for ANY "data training", because obviously they want to make "perpetual revenue"- and by stealing/using other people's data with the current "one-time peanuts payment" - essentially you are making extremely low cost competition for yourself for peanuts. You should be compensated EVERY single time someone makes an image/video/etc based off ANY kind of model derived from your works.
179
« on: October 02, 2024, 15:07 »
thank-you!
181
« on: September 21, 2024, 09:56 »
I'm surprised this seems rather confusing for a lot of people? I believe I even read where it stated what the weekly sales rank is?
It's simply your rank, in terms of downloads - relatively to ALL the other contributors - for that week. Lifetime rank is simply for all contributors over the LIFETIME.
So, if you get more downloads than more people - your rank goes up. If other people get more downloads than you, your rank goes down.
So you 'could' be ranked #1, if for example you had '3' downloads, and 'everyone else' had 1. Or, you could be ranked #10000 if you had say 1000 downloads, but 'everyone else' had 1001+...
Really quite simple. Your weekly ranking is just simply how many downloads you've had relative to everyone else in the system.
182
« on: September 18, 2024, 07:46 »
They are buying our silence and any legal recourse, that's all.
"we are developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center" They are probably talking about the center of the target for AI weapon 
Basic respect would have been to allow us to opt out, and they have decided not to allow it.
So don't be silent. DO something. Figure out something that gets other people aware, incensed and motivated into action to be compensated fairly, in perpetuity.
183
« on: September 17, 2024, 17:58 »
When Adobe announced Adobe Firefly in March 2023, we shared that we are developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center.
In addition to your regular stock licensing revenue which covers Firefly training, we want to recognize your contributions through our second-ever Adobe Stock contributor bonus.
The 2024 bonus is based on photos, vectors, or illustrations approved between June 3, 2023, and June 2, 2024, as well as, for the first time, the all-time number of videos approved through June 2, 2024, and the number of licenses that all those assets generated in the same 12-month period.
A banner on the Insights>My Statistics tab in the Contributor portal provides the specific amount that was added to your account.
We plan to base potential subsequent bonuses on new approved assets and licenses they generate annually.
We have put together an FAQ here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/firefly-faq-for-adobe-stock-contributors.html
Hi, a) Thank-you. If I am reading the following line correctly: We plan to base potential subsequent bonuses on new approved assets and licenses they generate annually. I.e., meaning that additional (in addition to the training aspect bonus) "potential subsequent" bonuses will be also included from assets generated from the AI tool itself, then that sounds very good. Companies in general (for 'responsible' "AI") - should be compensating authors in perpetuity - the same way the companies expect to be paid in perpetuity. b) As an FYI - authors should be able to opt-out of having their assets 'trained' (including having them removed from previously built models if explicit consent was not provided). Yes, companies like midjourney basically stole the data - and they should be held accountable for the stolen data (including retroactive compensation for stolen works). One step at a time. Then other companies that did sneaky 'sell data first, here's a few bucks to say we 'gave consideration', then say 'oh here's an opt out button' (i.e., shutterstock as a more visible example) should also retroactively compensate authors. That would be the next step. c) Anyways, thank-you for the current bonus.
184
« on: September 17, 2024, 16:46 »
In general:
a) It is nice to get a bonus. That is good. However - the author of the works should decide whether he/she wants to opt-in, or opt-out.
b) ALL "ai" companies (i.e., midjourney is more visible - but ALL of them) - should be paying authors in PERPETUITY. I.e., DAILY micropayments, say paid out every two weeks. "They" are trying to make "perpetual" recurring revenue - so since their ENTIRE MODEL references previous works - they should ALSO pay authors EVERY SINGLE TIME a model that is used to generate an image was based off of one of their works is used. VERY EASY TO DO.
185
« on: September 17, 2024, 16:22 »
a one time payment is all that is possible, since if you study ML, you'd realize there's no way to track back from the newly created dataset to the original images.
you mistake my post - i criticized your ideas - not you personally.
this is not twitter -- attacking a forum member as 'immoral' and continuing such will get you reported & banned. make your arguments, attack the ideas, but leave out the personal attacks.
Based on that statement, I'd say you may have only "studied" it, but not implemented it. If you actually really knew/truly understood how the models were constructed - and the actual "ai" engines - it becomes very clear that it is extremely easy to make retroactive payments. Even if a company "lost" the datasets - there are still other ways of reconstructing it (requires more work, but still possible).
186
« on: September 17, 2024, 16:18 »
The whole point of AI is that it learns and gets better and better at a much faster rate than humans. Right now most of it looks like the worst clipart you can imagine but over time and not too much time it will surpass humans in every way. What you're proposing is that we can find some tiny niche in the AI world. The only way we can control AI is by using the law to stop it from using our images. I saw an article on TV where a prominent illustrator with a distinctive style was involved in a class action law suit against one of the big AI companies to force them to stop it from producing images in her style. If they win, then there is a small hope for some of us who don't go along with this. Stop thanking AS for their generous contribution (cough) to our current bank account based on some equation created by them.
The other thing - people in general need to stop "waiting for someone else" to "save them". YOU take action. You make some noise. YOU get the ball rolling. Enough people do that - then the nonsense stops.
187
« on: September 17, 2024, 16:13 »
Injustice for all, can you not see beyond your nose? I may be wrong but this is how I see it all unravelling in the near future...
AI is being used by the agencies to make contributors obsolete. Our images were being used to train AI and now we are being used to improve it by using AI. AI images will exponentially saturate the market and without retaining copyright to the new AI images, the agencies will remove us from the picture, keeping only the AI images which will dominate the market. New AI images will be genetated by customers at the prompt, adding more AI to the database. AI will be used to generate titles and tags. Soon they will not need human artists and photogtaphers at all.
I see it completely differently.
I simply believe that if you want to continue working as you always have,you won't be able to get anything good out of this,you have to adapt,create content that AI can't do,or create real content that a customer can't generate with AI because it wouldn't be the same,for various reasons.
In February I stopped for a moment,I thought about the AI issue for a long time and I decided to take a direction,which now after a few months is generating good profit.
I see that "mino216" said the key phrase "our role is changing" and is exactly like this.
I don't believe that AI will make contributors obsolete,rather I believe it's up to us to make sure we don't become obsolete.
How do you explain to me that the AIs have already been there for a year and this month on AS I have sold 5 times more,than my previous BME?And the month isn't over yet!
you see,your theory doesn't hold up,if that were the case my sales should go down not up.
I remind you that my portfolio is AI free,I have never used AI in any way to create my contents until now.
For even greater clarity - "ai" (which is NOT a "thinking" machine btw) - "ai" tools for image + video generation have actually been around for THIRTY (30)+ years!! It's only become "easier" and "faster" for the masses to access... but it really is nothing "new".
188
« on: September 17, 2024, 15:50 »
1. What exactly does "training purposes" mean? Is it code for perpetual use of the images for a one time payment? Using parts of the image in new AI images isn't training. That's baking it in as part of the AI recipe.
2. I've been through my emails from Adobe Stock. I found one email at Dec 2022 saying you're now accepting AI generated images. I can't find one that notifies us that you're using our work perpetually for AI. When did you send us a clear notification that this was to happen?...
you should learn how ML works before making such inaccurate statements - #1 is just wrong - ai generators do NOT use 'parts' of your image - that's done once during training only
#2 you cant find it because they are NOT 'perpetually' using your image
Lol. I know how it really works. Do you have ANY coding (or actual "ai") background whatsoever? a) You are mistaken. "AI" generators DO use parts of your image. More specifically - (for ease of explanation) - (most) create compressed models/representations off of stolen content. (Part of the reason you see "watermarks" aka "copyright protection mechanisms" in certain types of assets that are generated). They assign "tokens" (i.e., keywords) to these representations - then essentially "blend" the images (or videos) together. In perpetuity afterwards - when a model is accessed - it indeed is referencing a portion of your image/video/etc. Programatically - it is SUPER easy to assign 'tokens' (aka authorship references) to all works used to create the model, assign weights (i.e., %'s) - and then each time a new image is generated - do a micropayment for the author. In otherwords - sites like midjourney want PERPETUAL revenue for EVER - while stealing massive amounts of data from other people. (It is a theft based tool). They can - and should - make micropayments to authors each time someone generates an "AI" image using their tool. Very feasible to do. Even more interesting - is they don't delete the data - so it is possible to retroactively pay EVERY SINGLE AUTHOR for EVERY SINGLE GENERATED image that has been made.
189
« on: September 17, 2024, 10:38 »
Hi, Im just here to report that after reactivation of my Account the sales returned pretty quickly to normal. The problem seems to have been:
- a customer bought around 50 images from me
- this customer even called me and asked if I had more photos on the topic
- he later realized that the photos were editorial, he needed commercial (this I know, he told me later)
- my assumption: He somehow reversed the transaction with Adobe to get his money back
- meanwhile, I had immediately cashed out (like I always do, as soon as I hit the 25 USD limit)
So I assume for Adobe it must have looked like a fraud, which is understandable to a certain point. But deactivating the account for weeks without any clarification is brutal.
Thanks again to all your good wishes and feedback!
How did the customer get in contact with you? There doesn't seem to be any place to list contact info for your public account, unless I am mistaken and there is somewhere?
190
« on: September 16, 2024, 10:28 »
Eh, probably an automated process - they did send out an e-mail to the effect that they were reviewing previous images that were 'incompatible' - i.e., like referencing other artists names (i.e., 'vangogh'), using specific places (i.e., 'eiffel tower'), etc... quite possibly you referenced that in the title/keywords, hence it was removed...
191
« on: September 13, 2024, 12:24 »
You already got your big payment last year. Adobe will not pay you for using the same images to train the same AI application twice. The training has already happened.
I don't understand how some people still believe having their images used for AI training would be any sustainable means of income. It's a one-time thing.
You will probably get a payment for new images you have added since then, but unless you are a new contributor or somehow managed to add as many new images last year as in all your previous years with microstock combined, the amount you will recive will be much smaller.
Indeed... and yet - the corporations (not referring to adobe, referring to midjourney + various other "ai" sites) - they want recurring perpetual income based off of stolen/ripped off assets... But yes - "they" (corporations) that train the images (and videos) - should make RECURRING payments as a % of the sales they get from the perpetual RECURRING income that they get...
192
« on: September 13, 2024, 12:20 »
[...]i.e., depopulation[...]
No! Since artificial wombs are on the way!...
mm, I think "they" already have those... it's pretty insane...
193
« on: September 13, 2024, 12:19 »
the people behind blackrock/vanguard attacking the christian/caucasian family unit (trying to 'encourage' boys/girls to cut off their body parts to become 'trans', or samesex, i.e., depopulation)...
Don't you have some pets to guard or something?
lol, what's the inane comments? mind you I forgot some people are just lost, seems you are, so sad... what are you... triple or quadruple boosted? why not get a free coffee card, and if you get 9 shots, you get a free coffee... you really should turn off the t.v. sometime, put down the pizza and bagel, and get some fresh air...
194
« on: September 12, 2024, 16:50 »
Thanks, would you say focusing on real photos is a waste of time ? Or doing Ai at the moment is the best option?
This is like asking which camera should I use to get more sales.
You should focus on content and genre, you can have great sales with real photos and ai. Most agencies dont even take ai and still people have sales.
The majority of sales in the industry are real images, not ai. ai is a niche.
Why dont you follow the various newslettersd and blogposts of agencies what they recommend to shoot?
They put a lot of effort and research into these newsletters.
Sadly, most producers never read them. They just sort by downloads where that is possible then try to copy the exact image.
Then complain they are not getting sales.
Look at subjects you understand really well, try to find what is missing. Then shoot that.
And get inspiration from the newsletters. The agencies want to make money, they recommend what people like to buy. They give great tips for styling and current trends too.
While I agree that smaller agencies may be putting research into what sells & sharing that info - the larger agencies (tend to be) pushing the "d.i.e." crap ("diversity, inclusion, equity") - which actually really has absolutely nothing to do with "equity", etc - but rather the people behind blackrock/vanguard attacking the christian/caucasian family unit (trying to 'encourage' boys/girls to cut off their body parts to become 'trans', or samesex, i.e., depopulation)... you don't really see them pushing "gay east indians" or "trans arabic women with hijab" people, it is primarily targeted at white people. So when an agency starts promoting that - that is something I say no to, because it is very evil/very wrong. The ppl behind blackrock/vanguard/etc are just trying to bring their slave classes into western countries & control them with "money", and sadly they've subjugated most of the other races via brutal attacks. "AI" (not just related to images) is part of what they are also trying to use as a control mechanism - absolutely zero to do with "safety & security". After all - how does massive survelliance 'protect' you? It doesn't - just makes it easier (if required) to see what happened 'after' the fact... anyways - getting a bit off topic... just saying - I disagree with the agencies that promoted the "d.i.e." content. It's not what is in "demand" - it is what they are promoting because they are being paid via $$$ to promote the attack on families units.
195
« on: September 12, 2024, 14:03 »
196
« on: September 12, 2024, 10:35 »
Come on, post your number like many of us do here. This is my week so far.
Don't you remember? You thought I was 'Yuri Acurs'... 
197
« on: September 12, 2024, 05:57 »
198
« on: September 11, 2024, 23:43 »
I believe/am pretty sure your 'lifetime' rank is simply the # of downloads you've had. If you go 'down' - it means other people start selling more than you and change your rank. If you go up, then it means you've sold more (# downloads) relative to other people.
If blv has a "lifetime" ranking of 1540, I'd guess the #'s in front of that were either $100k or $200k, correct?
$5 million.
Are you serious? Or... just joking? (I 'spose it could be POSSIBLE to be $5 million, but don't know)... what is the 'real' #?
199
« on: September 11, 2024, 18:20 »
I believe/am pretty sure your 'lifetime' rank is simply the # of downloads you've had. If you go 'down' - it means other people start selling more than you and change your rank. If you go up, then it means you've sold more (# downloads) relative to other people. If blv has a "lifetime" ranking of 1540, I'd guess the #'s in front of that were either $100k or $200k, correct?
200
« on: September 10, 2024, 15:36 »
I do both (buy + create/sell).
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 46
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
