I have actually noticed that too - it is odd - but several files seem to be "stuck" from a number of months ago. Not sure why - just seems to be the case.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on March 03, 2024, 10:17

Awesome earnings!

My guess is you probably are in top 100.  People who are doing very well wouldn't want to share their stats.  I wouldn't be surprised if you are Yuri Arcurs.

Hehe. I'll advise you to watch the same video I advised the other person, when saying "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXnybkQ24v0&t=10

Quote from: SuperPhoto on March 03, 2024, 10:17

Awesome earnings!

😻wow!!!!!

Thanks Secret is taking lots of pictures of bananas

Awesome earnings!

Quote from: cobalt on February 27, 2024, 03:50

At the moment I keep bouncing between 3100 and 5200. 4000 files.

Hope to move further up again soon, this is frustrating. But for a port this size it is probably ok.

I hate to ask, because someone will think the rank numbers actually matter.

But, why do you hope to move further up? Rank means nothing, except for your own personal information, how you are doing, compared to others. If you are making money, and happy with what you do and earn, it doesn't matter what some irrelevant number says.

My rank goes up during the holiday season, down in January, back up in April. My earnings, as in money that goes into the bank, is all that counts.

Rank is apparently, number of downloads, not earnings.

Because it makes you FEEL good. To know you had more downloads than an invisible unnamed bunch of people.

Just like - who really cares if a facebook post you make has "1" like, vs "100 likes", vs "1000 likes". For all you know, facebook could be inflating those numbers (and - they actually have used fb users as an "experiment" to see if they could manipulate half a million people's emotions without their consent, just by what they showed them. Apparently the experiment was successful). But it makes you FEEL good if "1000 people liked your post" as opposed to "1" person...

He already had this January with 90% down yoy on Storyblocks.  So, it's just a continuation of the new royalty structure on Storyblocks.  Honestly, I think they just overpaid in the past.  It just doesn't make sense he made $10k/month with his portfolio size on Storyblocks with their cheap monthly unlimited download business model.  https://youtu.be/Q1wtKL-hago?si=IGN970CkGs6uyw1b&t=162

For the Storyblocks to give $10k/month to a contributor, with their $30/month unlimited download subscription, that's 333 subscribers' total amount.  If Storyblocks takes 50% to pay for their expense, they need 666 subscribers to pay $10k/month to a contributor.  That's a lot.  Math just doesn't add up to me.

Yes, I agree with you... looking @ some of his (youtube) videos he says he was a "marketer", and usually when someone says that (not always, but many times) - it means they've figured out a creative way of keyword stuffing/spamming/"loophole", etc... so if he knowingly did one of those to artificially get more sales, he shouldn't really be sad. Just means that particular loophole is no longer effective - and if his numbers are accurate (and he's not just making them up to sell a course, as I've seen many people do before, people do lie about sales figures) - then perhaps that is it.

lol, interesting & funny too, especially the "stakeholder" language (aka treating gig ppl as cattle/etc, different story, read up on the wef for that).

1.  It's a good opportunity for lawyers to get rich.
2.  Quickly read through some of the details of these new "monopoly" game rules. It's "murky" and I suppose could be argued either way for microstock contributor, I'm not sure a sweeping generalization could be made, and it would almost need to be on a case by case basis, unless of course microstock contributors got together to push for one categorization or anything.
 
(a) (FAQ #13) Some microstockers use social media to augment their sales (i.e., youtube/twitter/etc) - which do influence sales - therefore entrepreneurial. However, those that don't and simply contribute could be argued to be 'employees'.
(b) (FAQ #14) Again, could be argued either way that things like cameras, using "ai" tools, etc, etc are either conditions unilaterally imposed by the 'employer' - or - they do in fact give an individual a competitive advantage (aka entrepreneurial) if they are say using an iphone, vs a high end dslr, vs say "ai/theft" based tools. (Faq #14)
(c) (FAQ #15) "Royalty income" is not the same as a "continuous working relationship". I.e., one can decide tommorow that they don't want to submit new assets. Now of course with the massive (east indian get rich quick) spamming, that could affect long term sales - in which case it could be argued that it needs to be a "continous working relationship" (i.e., by continuously submitting new assets to maintain a similar level of income, in order to counteract the eastindian get rich quick/spam) in order to maintain the same level of income. I suppose one would then need to argue whether the assets produced are 'commodoties' (i.e., 5000 pictures of bananas) - or if it unique content (i.e., "editorial"), the latter which could have higher sustainable long term royalty income.
(d) (FAQ #16, #17 & #18). This would actually point to a contributor as being an indepedent contractor, because for the most part they do bring specialized skills, and the "employer" (aka marketplace for selling assets) - while they do exercise control n terms of say royalty payout schedules, they do not limit to whom you can submit to (unless of course it was an 'exclusive' relationship - but then that is a little murky, because would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis). But if they are just like a monkey pushing a button 'click click click' with "ai" tools - then that is not necessarily specialized skills and could be argued to be an "employee". (But then again, it would depend on the content... Some "ai" prompts require creativity, which then is specialized skill - as opposed to monkey ppl who submit 5,000 images of bananas... so it might apply more to the banana spammers).

So, lol... It really depends on whom "argues" the best here, and unless it was done for a massive classification of microstockers in general - I'd say it would be on a case by case basis.

What is written seems to be designed more for:
a) Sites like upwork, or fiver.com, 99designs, where people hire "virtual assistants", as well as "hire your own filipino cheap" type of sites. That is a continous 'working' relationship, which many times does require "training", and if there is exclusivity - would be more like an 'employee' status. Of course, one-off projects would not constitute that under these monopoly game rules - although that type of thing might be imposed on "gig" relationships if the "gigger" was using those sites as a primary source of income and not doing any marketing/sales outside of that "relationship". In which case, I'd say upwork/fivver/etc would simply offset any potential costs to either the 'gigger' or the one providing the gig.
b) It could also be applied to things like "uber" driving, "door dash", etc, because driving is not (really) a "specialized skill", the driver is dependent on uber for "new work", does not have a say (too much) into how much they make, etc.

A deeper look into this is it really actually seems designed to protect "aslyum seekers", "new immigrants", i.e., east indians, fillipinos, somalians, (recent) latinos, etc that would more likely be partake in those types of jobs. It does not really seem to apply to microstockers. It does not really seem to protect born & bred americans - but rather panders/caters to what has generally been considered "3rd world country" people. Probably in line with the WEF/UN's goals of trying to make people poor, and make one rich super class.

For microstock contributors - I'd say there are too many variables to make a sweeping categorization, so my net takeaway from reviewing this - no, I do not believe it would change microstock in terms of 'labor' rules. It's just designed to protect 3rd world country people using "outsourcing" sites.

I know a person in India who has hired 12 year old kids from a school to generate AI images, add keywords and upload them to Adobe. He manages 16 different accounts using names of family members and is making thousands of dollars. He told me that he uploads over 1000 images a day and is trying to expand his business to upload at least 3000 images a day.

Lol. Yep - many east indian "business models are "steal or spam as quickly as possible, and try and get away with it before anyone notices".

Thing is... (a) "ai" is not "ai", i.e., thinking algorithms. it is sophisticated theft. (b) people SHOULD actually be taking action to get perpetual compensation (i.e., daily compensation) for ANY and ALL of their images/assets that were EVER trained. It is very easy to do. The companies stealing people's stuff just need to do it.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 20, 2024, 22:30

Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.

Because YOU say so.     But that's fine, we all have a right to our own opinions.

We don't have the right to make laws or insist that others accept our own personal version of reality. The world functions on systems, courts and laws.

I'm waiting for the system to investigate, debate, and come to a conclusion. Then we'll know if AI is fair use or theft.

Lol. Not sure if you are just having fun, for sake of having fun, because I am pretty sure you are smarter than that lol...

It's because it is a fact, not just because I say so - although I do happen to say so as well.

So... if you believe the court is above your own common sense - WOULD you actually let someone sleep with your wife - just anyone - if the court said it was "fair use", and accept that verdict?

One thing I dislike is when companies have 'new' agreements automatically overriding the 'previous' agreement that is not easily/readily available to view... and they don't tell you what the changes are so one many times has to 'guess'...

So good thing I made a copy of it so I could review it!

The "too long didn't read" version of changes are:

a) In section (3) Seems they just simply specify submissions (i.e., implied "ai") are not "deceptive/misleading"
b) In section (5) just stronger language in terms of the payment "only" is specifically according to the royalty plan outlined @ their URL
c) Section (6) has a lot of brand new stuff, which looks like it is specifically to address the influx of (probably 1000's) of brand new contributor accounts, and basically looks like they are trying to be better in terms of (potential) issues with new accounts/submissions/etc...

To me, if one accepted the previous terms, these new terms seem reasonable.

Here is the longer comparison, and then I've included the actual agreement (from March 1st/effective April 15th/2022) at the end...

======================================================

For those who are interested, these seem to be the changes between the current agreement (Feb 2024), and the (effective) April 15th 2022 version...

3) i)

"or false information, or contain any illegal or defamatory content."

becomes:

"deceptive or false information, contain any illegal or defamatory content, or contain any elements that may disrupt or harm the functioning of the Website, our products, features or services"

ii)

"For Work designated "editorial use only," you represent and warrant that: (1) the Work truthfully depicts the subject; (2) all corresponding keywords, descriptions, credits, and captions are accurate; and (3) the Work has not been modified in a way that alters its editorial context or integrity."

becomes:

"For Work designated "editorial use only," you represent and warrant that: (1) the Work truthfully depicts the subject; (2) all corresponding keywords, descriptions, credits, and captions are accurate and are neither deceptive nor misleading; and (3) the Work has not been modified in a way that alters its editorial context or integrity"

iii) This is brand new:

"You agree that we may apply the designation of a Work as "editorial use only" where deemed appropriate by us."

5.

"5.1 Pricing and Payment Details. We will pay you as described in the pricing and payment details at https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html (or successor page or URL) (collectively, "Pricing and Payment Details") for any sales of licenses to Work, less any cancellations, returns, and refunds."

becomes:

"5.1 Pricing and Payment Details. We will pay you solely to the extent expressly described in the pricing and payment details at https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html (or successor page or URL) (collectively, "Pricing and Payment Details") for any sales of licenses to Work, less any cancellations, returns, and refunds."

6. This section has a lot of new stuff: (brand new)
brand new: i)

6.1 Requirements for Work. You will (A) deliver the Work in the format(s) and via the delivery method(s) we request; and (B) submit the Work in accordance with the guidelines and procedures described at https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html (or a successor page or URL we designate) or as otherwise provided by us to you (collectively, the "Guidelines", which are hereby incorporated by reference into the Terms). If we remove your Work for violating the Terms, we will make reasonable efforts to inform you of our decision via the contributor portal or the email address you provided to us. If you believe that your Work was removed in error, you may submit an appeal by following the process outlined in our communication to you or as described at https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html (or a successor page or URL we designate)

brand new as well ii)

6.3 Contributor Account. We may refuse to establish an account or close any existing account for failure to comply with these Terms, for breach of these Terms or any other agreement that you have with us, or for our convenience. If we close your contributor account for violating the Terms, we will make reasonable efforts to inform you of our decision via the contributor portal or the email address you provided to us. If you believe your contributor account has been closed in error, you may submit an appeal by following the process outlined in our communication to you or as described at https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html (or a successor page or URL we designate).

iii) And removed this section from the previous agreement:

"Additionally, you will submit the Work for our review in accordance with the guidelines available on our Website or provided by us to you ("Guidelines"). We may modify the Guidelines from time to time. You should look at the Guidelines regularly. We may accept or reject the Work you upload to the Website or otherwise submit to us, at our sole discretion."

For reference, this was the previous agreement:

Published March 1, 2022. Effective as of April 15, 2022. Replaces all prior versions.

These Additional Terms are incorporated by reference into the Adobe General Terms of Use ("General Terms") located at www.adobe.com/go/terms and govern your use of the Adobe Stock Services as regards to the upload or submission of any Work to Adobe Stock, except if you are a resident of Germany, the terms at http://www.adobe.com/go/contributorterms_de apply. These Additional Terms apply to all Content, photographs, illustrations, vectors, images, templates, 3D assets, videos, and other pictorial or graphic works (collectively and including all associated keywords, descriptions, credits, and captions) that you submit to us or upload to a Website under these Additional Terms or any other prior version thereof (�Work(s)).� These Additional Terms and the General Terms are collectively referred to as "Terms." Capitalized terms not defined here have the same meaning as defined in the General Terms. "Website" means our websites and applications that facilitate access to these websites, including but not limited to contributor.stock.adobe.com, fotolia.com, stock.adobe.com, and adobe.com. If you submit Work on behalf of the applicable copyright owner(s), you represent and warrant that you have the authority to, and will, ensure that such copyright owner(s) comply with the Terms where necessary. If you submit Work on behalf of an entity, then the Terms apply to that entity and its affiliates. In such case, you represent and warrant that you have the authority to bind the entity to the Terms.

1. Licenses for Adobe. You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work for the purposes of operating the Website; presenting, distributing, marketing, promoting, and licensing the Work to users; developing new features and services; archiving the Work; and protecting the Work. We may use the Work for the purposes of marketing and promoting your Work, the Website, our business, and our other products and services, in which case you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, publicly perform, and translate the Work as needed, and we may compensate you at our discretion as described in section 5 (Payment) below. You also grant us the right, but not the obligation, to use your display name, trademarks, and trade names in connection with our marketing and promotional activities and our license to the Work under the Terms.

2. Licenses for Users. You grant us a license to further sublicense our right to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, publicly perform, and translate the Work on a non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual basis in any media or embodiment. We may sublicense Works pursuant to a written or electronic agreement between us and a user ("User Agreement"). The license to users may include the right to modify and create derivative works based upon the Work, including but not limited to the right to sell or distribute for sale the Work or any reproductions thereof if incorporated or together with or onto any item of merchandise or other work of authorship, in any media or format now or hereafter known, provided that such users� use of the modified Work is limited solely to the same uses permitted with respect to the original Work. For clarity, we may allow users and other authorized third parties (such as, without limitation, marketing consultants or service providers) to post or share the Work onto social media sites or other third-party websites, subject to any restrictions imposed by a User Agreement. We offer an Application Program Interface ("API") program that allows our partners to showcase and to facilitate sales of the Work.

3. Intellectual Property Rights.
3.1 IP Rights. You represent and warrant that you own all rights, title, and interest in and to the Work, including all copyrights, trademarks, patents, rights of privacy, rights of publicity, moral rights, and other proprietary rights (collectively, "IP Rights"), or have all necessary rights and license to grant us the licenses under the Terms. You further represent and warrant that the Work will not infringe the IP Rights of others, contain misleading or false information, or contain any illegal or defamatory content. You will not upload any Work that infringes or violates the IP Rights of any person or entity or that constitutes any libel, slander, or other defamation upon any person or entity. You must also comply with applicable law.
3.2 Releases. If the Work contains an image or likeness of an identifiable person, trademark or logo, or certain distinctive property that is protected by IP Rights, you represent and warrant that (A) you have obtained all necessary and valid releases or agreements substantially similar to our standard model and property releases for each person or property depicted in the Work; and (B) you will promptly provide copies of such releases or agreements to us upon our request. However, if we agree that you may contribute to our collection of editorial content and you upload a Work designated "editorial use only," we may accept it without a model or property release, at our sole discretion, and subject to any of our guidelines or requirements. For Work designated "editorial use only," you represent and warrant that: (1) the Work truthfully depicts the subject; (2) all corresponding keywords, descriptions, credits, and captions are accurate; and (3) the Work has not been modified in a way that alters its editorial context or integrity.

4. Ownership and Use of the Work. Neither title nor any ownership interest in or to the Work is transferred to us as a result of the Terms. Except for the licenses granted by you pursuant to the Terms, we do not claim any ownership rights to the Work. Both we and our users who use a Work have the right, but not the obligation, to identify you as the creator or source of the Work in a customary manner. You understand and agree that, in commercial uses of the Work, (A) creators are not customarily credited in such uses; (B) users will not be obligated to credit creators; and (C) Work may be modified and used in connection with any subject matter (except pornographic or illegal). You therefore waive any right to object to these common business practices; however, User Agreements do not permit use of Works for pornographic or illegal purposes. In addition, metadata may be altered, removed, or added, without any liability to us, our distributors, or users. We are not liable for non-compliance with the terms of a User Agreement or for misuse by any third party. You grant us the right to enforce your IP Rights against infringers, but we have no obligation to do so. If you believe your Work has been misused, you agree to notify us and take no action without our prior written consent.

5. Payment.
5.1 Pricing and Payment Details. We will pay you as described in the pricing and payment details at https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html (or successor page or URL) (collectively, "Pricing and Payment Details") for any sales of licenses to Work, less any cancellations, returns, and refunds. We may modify the Pricing and Payment Details from time to time, including but not limited to updating the categories of Works, updating pricing and payment terms, and directing you to new Pricing and Payment Details for pricing and payment information. You should look at the Pricing and Payment Details regularly. By continuing to submit or upload Works or by not removing Works, you are agreeing to any new Pricing and Payment Details as revised from time to time. You may designate Work as free content, in which case we may distribute such Work without liability or payment to you. If you are not the copyright owner of a Work, you are solely responsible for compensating such copyright owner(s) where applicable. We may use third-party payment processors such as PayPal to facilitate the payment to you. If we or our partners offer a promotion, trial, test, or watermarked version of your Work, we are not subject to the payment obligations in this section.
5.2 Taxes. You are responsible for completing any necessary IRS forms in order to receive payment. A "US Person" (as defined by the IRS) must submit a completed IRS Form W-9 to us. A "Foreign Person" (as defined by the IRS) must submit a completed IRS Form W-8 to us in order to claim a reduced rate of, or exemption from, withholding as a resident of a foreign country with which the United States has an income tax treaty. If any fee payable to you is subject to tax withholding or other tax collected at the source by any taxing authority, we will deduct such tax from the fee payable to you. We will make reasonable efforts to provide you with a copy of the official receipt covering such payment of tax, if such a copy is available. We will reasonably cooperate with you in order to obtain the benefits of any applicable tax treaties pertaining to such taxes.

6. Delivering, Submitting, and Managing the Work.
6.1 Delivering and Submitting the Work. You will deliver the Work in the format(s) and via the delivery method(s) we request. Additionally, you will submit the Work for our review in accordance with the guidelines available on our Website or provided by us to you ("Guidelines"). We may modify the Guidelines from time to time. You should look at the Guidelines regularly. We may accept or reject the Work you upload to the Website or otherwise submit to us, at our sole discretion.
6.2 Managing the Work. You may remove any Work from the Website at any time, provided, however, that you do not remove more than 100 items of Work or 10% of the Work, whichever is greater, in any 90-day period without 90 days' prior written notice to Adobe. We may remove Work or terminate your account at our sole discretion without prior notice.

7. Indemnification Obligations. Without limiting your obligations in the General Terms, you will indemnify us and our subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners, licensees, and licensors (including users) from any claim, demand, loss, or damages, including reasonable attorneys� fees, arising out of or related to Works or other content that you submit to us, your use of the Website, or your violation of the Terms. We have the right to control the defense of any claim, action, or matter subject to indemnification by you with counsel of our own choosing. You will fully cooperate with us in the defense of any such claim, action, or matter. Any amount that is or may be owed to you under section 5 (Payment) above may be offset and reduced by any amount owed by you pursuant to your indemnity obligations hereunder, without demand or notice to you.

8. Termination and Survival
8.1 Termination. We may terminate these Additional Terms, remove any Work, or suspend your account, without prior notice. We will have no payment obligation to you if we terminate these Additional Terms for cause. By way of example, you may not download Adobe Stock content for the primary purpose of artificially inflating the number of downloads of content by a given contributor or for the primary purpose of artificially triggering payments. You may terminate these Additional Terms at any time with at least 90 days' prior written notice to us via email to [email protected]. We will use reasonable efforts to have any Work that you have removed from the Website removed from the websites of any of our affiliates (including co-branded websites) within 60 days after removal of the Work from the Website. Before the termination of these Additional Terms or removal of the Work from the websites of any of our affiliates, our users may continue to obtain new licenses to the Work.
8.2 Effect of Termination; Survival. After termination of these Additional Terms, we may continue to use the Work solely for internal archival and reference purposes or as stated in this section 8.2 (Effect of Termination; Survival). Sections 3 (Intellectual Property Rights), 4 (Ownership and Use of the Work), 5.1 (Pricing and Payment Details) (if Adobe has any payment obligations), 5.2 (Taxes), 7 (Indemnification Obligations), 8 (Termination and Survival), and 9.1 (Relationship) will survive the termination of these Additional Terms. Any licenses to a Work granted to our users or to us prior to the removal of that Work from the Website or the date of termination of these Additional Terms will survive. Additionally, users whose User Agreements allow them to license and possess a Work as a comp version (e.g., a preview sample) may further convert that license to a usage license. We will provide payment as stated in section 5 (Payment) for any license fee that we receive as related to the Work after termination of these Additional Terms.

9. Miscellaneous.
9.1 Relationship. If you reside in the United States, your relationship is with Adobe Inc., a United States company. If you reside outside of the United States, your relationship is with Adobe Canada Services Corporation, a Canadian company. The relationship between you and us under these Additional Terms is that of independent contractors. For clarification purposes, we are not joint venturers, partners, principal and agent, or employer and employee. Nothing in these Additional Terms is intended to, nor will, confer upon any third person or entity any rights, benefits, or remedies of any nature whatsoever.
9.2 Disclaimer. We expressly disclaim any liability for information, feedback, materials, or answers to questions provided by us or our representatives, all of which are provided as a courtesy only and do not amend the Terms or constitute legal advice. Without limitation, we make no representation or warranty that you or any other party may or will achieve any level of payments or revenue under or arising out of these Additional Terms.
9.3 Communications. You acknowledge that Adobe may contact you via e-mail or other means in order to communicate with you regarding Adobe�s content needs and effective ways for us to work together.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 20, 2024, 09:12

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 18, 2024, 13:56

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 17, 2024, 11:58

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft

A big thing you might remember is, that's a personal opinion, the courts and laws haven't decided that, yet.

Lol - "theft" is "theft".

If a court decided that a cat was actually a kangaroo with a mexican sombrero, would it make it so? No, of course not. It would still be a cat. (It's funny though, I suppose perhaps that's why a lot of ppl acting insane the last 4 years and did very foolish things, because they actually believed a 'court' had 'authority' over their own common sense/own two eyes/etc). Kind of like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes". Most people were "afraid" to state the obvious (i.e., never was a 'virus', wearing a "mask" was pretty dumb/foolish to suffocate yourself, which lol 'caused' 'respiratory issues', etc, etc).

It really doesn't matter what the "courts" say - a cat is still a cat. And regardless of what the "courts" say - if they declare stealing to be okay - it is still stealing. (& the "courts" are heavily influenced/owned by the corporations $$$, and the corporations heavily influenced by the people that pull the strings of those corporations).

Perhaps though - that is what a "kangaroo" court is. When people act extremely dumb like they did, and it takes a child to say 'Hey! The emperor has no clothes!".

While your argument is entertaining, and reality is, a cat is a cat, legal and illegal is not a physical object or scintific definition. You can't compare a concept to a doorknob and say, the same rules apply to both.

Besides, against your cut and dried, everything is only what it is, and theft is theft because "I say so." The laws are different from place to place, country to country, and in fact, locally, state to state. Laws don't argue that a cat isn't a cat. What is allowed in the next state from here, all four directions, will get you some jail, possibly, we can't legally posses or burn, some specific natural herbs. 

Legally, until the courts have decided that AI is fair use or theft, I think it's not reasonable to start and argument with a false premise or statemnt of fact, that is not true.

AI fair use, is not theft.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 17, 2024, 11:58

The big thing people need to remember is essentially these "ai" tools are:
(a) based off of massive theft

Nope. But the rest you are right. I'm not impressed by some moving images tricks. Not yet. I'm not sold on the still images, that are distorted monsters much of the time, improbable and impossible physical objects. But they are fun for making the impossible into an image.

Let the courts decide the laws.

The "court" system is a game, that's why it's called 'court' (i.e., like a basketball court, etc). Many things are cut & dry. If someone doesn't see it that way, again - I suppose that's probably a big reason why so many people ignored the obvious the last 3-4 years, many acted rather insane, and obediently wore masks, shoved sticks up their nose, then poisoned themselves with injections, and some currently march around like penguins, and look like penguins too.

If someone sleeps with your wife, and a court says 'Wellll... no, he didn't 'actually' sleep with her, he was just keeping her warm inside and out because she her cloths just all of the sudden fell off, and she didn't want to get cold - so its "fair use"'... I'm pretty sure (assuming you love your wife and are married), you won't go "Oh gosh, well - the COURT said it was 'fair use', so MMkay!'. If someone takes money out of your wallet, or cleaned out your bank account, if the court ruled it 'fair use', pretty sure you wouldn't just rollover and go with their verdict.

Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based on theft. It's not "because" I've said so (even though what I said and stated is accurate) - it's because it a simple, observable fact.

"They" scraped 5 billion images, didn't compensate the authors - and one of THE biggest peskiest "problems" those same companies have is how to get rid of WATERMARKS - aka "marks" indicating it is COPYRIGHTED material. Or rather - that the asset belongs to another person that did not have the intent of making it 'freely' available.

You can put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. It doesn't magically become your wife (although lol some people might argue the prefer a pig in lipstick).

Theft is theft. The current "AI" systems are based off of theft, pure and simple.

What the "courts" are actually "deciding" (or - rather the people who pay off the judges/politicians/etc - and whether or not those same judges/politicians/etc are corruptible or have principles and go along with it) - is how "easy" it is for someone to go after the people who ARE, in fact stealing the assets - through the "legal (game) system". Doesn't mean there aren't other options - it just means the (basketball style) "court" system may or may not make it easy for someone to get compensation for stolen assets.

So to be ACCURATE... if you are looking for retribution/compensation via the "court SYSTEM" (it is not the only way of getting compensation/stopping the theft) - then to play the "court" game correctly - one would need to be well versed in their owellian doublespeak/definitions of language. But regardless of whatever they "call" it - theft is still theft.

The companies creating the "AI" tools are stealing, pure and simple. They can put lipstick on the pig by calling it "research", or "community development" or whatever double speak they want - it's still lipstick on a pig.

Current "AI" systems are theft. Not "fair use", but 100% pure theft, pure & simple. Simple, observable facts.

The courts can call it whatever they want, and make it as easy or difficult as they wish for people to be compensated for the theft, but it is still theft.