Quote from: Roscoe on March 02, 2023, 13:39

Maybe some stock agencies offer the possibility to exclude the use of your content in certain context... options here are very limited I guess.

I know that SS has an option (or at least used to) to exclude sexual and political content, but that's it. I don't know of any agency that would allow you to exclude usage for news or medical content.

I remember that too, not sure it's still an available option.
But if it is, it's useless as Shutterstock doesn't accept AI Generated content from their contributors.

Shutterstock will not allow AI-generated content to be submitted for sale on our platform. We want to ensure contributors can prove IP ownership of all submitted content and also want to be confident that artists are properly compensated if and when their work is used in AI training models. Given the availability of various AI content generation models in the marketplace, we are unable to verify the model source for most AI-generated content and therefore are unable to ensure all artists who were involved in the generation of each piece of content are compensated.

https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Shutterstock-ai-and-Computer-Vision-Contributor-FAQ?language=en_US

Quote from: Roscoe on March 01, 2023, 15:51

Interesting points. I wonder how this is different than submitting an editorial image as commercial, or an image without model release, which the agency lets slip through? Who's responsible for the error? The contributor for having made an incorrect submission, or the agency for letting it slip through and offering it with wrong license terms?

I always thought that the contributor was still responsible in such cases.

Good question!
In this case I would say the author is resposable, because he does not own the copyright.

But you're still not considering the other side, the use of image:
Following your example, if I should put for commercial use something like, let's say, a well known and famous car...
The legal problem would eventually rise only and when the image would be used for commercial.
In other words, it's not the image that break the rules, it's the use of it that could do

Still trying to wrap my head around this.
I understand that there's a difference in having copyrights and terms of conditions.
Thanks for clarifying that.

I guess the latter, violating terms and conditions, would generally mean less trouble than violating copyright?
In the case of selling an AI Generated image that ends up in a political campaign... copyright is not the issue here, but terms and conditions might be? I mean: the contributor generated the image and made it possible to be used in a context that violates the terms and conditions of the AI Generative Tool?

Quote from: Roscoe on March 01, 2023, 03:40

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 28, 2023, 12:38

Open AI would have to object and go to the user and then the agency and then back to the innocent artist. I wonder if the terms of use on Adobe and SSTK, for example, also say you can't use them for the above proposes that Open-AI doesn't allow? What if the images aren't marked created by AI or created by Open AI / DALL-E? Very complicated.

True, it's quite a chain a complaint would have to follow, but in the end, if it's a serious complaint, it will land on the contributor's desk. In most cases, chances are small anyone would really take the effort to sit it through I guess, but the problem with political campaigns for instance is that they have a high visibility and a potential debatable and polarizing exposure. We already had cases of political parties using editorial stock images pulled out of context for political campaigning. Media and independent journalists were very fast in identifying where the image came from and clarifying correct usage conditions.

Personally I'd like to steer away from any use of my content for certain use-cases like political campaigning for instance, but that option is not available when submitting content.
We cannot exclude certain context.

Again, not my field of expertise here, but to me, it sounds like the usage conditions for AI generated content by DALL-E or OpenAI are not in line with the usage conditions that stock agencies apply. Or they must have different usage conditions for AI generated content to their customers.

BINGO! 🔔 🔔 🔔

We are not responsible for the license terms, nor are we allowed to add conditions like the restrictions that Open-AI and others have placed on use for images we have created using their system.

Telling the person who wants to license images, that there are restrictions, is the duty of the agency.

No the complaint will not come back to the contributor. First off the person using the image, and then the agency, and then a slim possibility that someone from the AI company would try to chase down an artist. They would go for deep pockets first, not after the little that we have.

I don't know Pete. This is what's written in Adobe Stock's Generative AI requirements:

You must have all the necessary rights to submit generative AI illustrations to Adobe Stock for licensing and use as described in our contributor terms (e.g., broad commercial use).  You must review the terms of any generative AI tools that you use to confirm that this is the case before you submit any AI-generated content.

Do: Read the terms and conditions for generative AI tools that you use to ensure that you have the right to license all generative AI content that you submit to Adobe Stock under the contributor terms. For example, you cannot submit any content if you are not permitted to license it for commercial purposes.

Don�t: Use generative AI tools that are known or recognized as having serious flaws in their design or outputs (for example, tools which generate identifiable people or property from generic prompts).

Don�t: Submit works depicting real places, identifiable property (e.g., famous characters or logos), or notable people (whether photorealistic or - even caricatures)

So you must have the full rights to submit it for "broad commercial use".
I assume (again, not my fleld of expertise) that this also means: political campaigning or other contexts which are excluded from DALL-E or OpenAI's terms of conditions.

So I see that as a responsibility of the contributor: make sure you have the full rights before submitting.

Admittedly, agencies are on the lazy side here as they can easily identify AI generated content, and they can apply different customer terms on them if they would want to. And they can whitelist certain AI Generative Tools which terms are in line with the agencies terms.

It all sounds like a theoretical discussion and complaints in this area feel like a rather unlikely event to happen, but it's not impossible either. Remember Alex and his news stand images receiving a complaint via Alamy.

DALL-E could be use for Adobe Stock or another agency? 
i only see this about.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/usage-policies/disallowed-usage

Not my field of expertise, but I guess it can get you, theoretically, in trouble.

You generate an AI image, submit it to Adobe Stock, where it finds it's way to a customer who uses it for political campaigning.
Sure, how the image is used is beyond your control as you cannot specify the usage conditions or context, but it's still an image that you generated via OpenAI and your responsibility to make sure it's usage is not in violation with the openAI policies?

Since the email is out, slack is for me not able to reach anymore.
I guess they select the most critical persons not to critic anymore or just closed slack for all, because now also the last prayers for Wirestock will search alternatives.
I'm very disappointed, but not really surprised about their decision.
I'm pretty sure it is the nail to go bankrott in less than a year from now.

Yes, they also communicated the shutdown of their Slack channels yesterday... on Slack.
They mentioned to be working on another way to have direct contact with contributors, but did not went into detail.

Too bad. It's one of the few things they did well. They had direct contact with their contributor base, which provided them very helpful feedback, mainly in reporting bugs and errors. I was not a very frequent visitor there, but from what I saw, it was a constructive and positive community. So I really wonder why on earth they decided to shut it down.

Wirestock lost me a year ago, and they didn't really improve since then. 
They don't seem to review content anymore (lots of complaints), and the content that was reviewed has an uncertain status.
Will they submit it? Nobody knows. To where? Unclear.
To which bottom of the barrel future agency? Hope for the best. (they seem to automatically submit all your content to new agencies they onboard, it happened with Getty for my content and I don't like what they did with "Extra Channels")
When will their front-end be free of bugs? Never, probably.

They still have the potential to be  useful, even with the 300 images/video's cap, but as things stand now... even if you're only half-serious on submitting to stock agencies, you're better off with maintaining your personal accounts.

You could try selling it as editorial, without a release form. I would consider an airshow to be good editorial content.

But even then, you'll need approval from the organizer?
I always thought that everything that's subject to entry fees/entry tickets is not suitable for editorial content without approval of the organizer.

Think music festivals, museums, airlines, and also airshows.

Yet I see a lot of editorial content from activities that require entry fees or tickets to get in.
So either I'm wrong, or the contributors take the risk (and are getting away with it)

Contributing to EyeEm is absolutely something to avoid. The issues started last year around May, after they were acquired by Talenthouse.
Contributors got paid eventually somewhere around July/August if I'm not mistaken, but most of us didn't see any payment since then.

EyeEm also stopped reporting the Getty sales? I saw a few Adobe sales coming in, but no Getty sales anymore since December or so.

If I could get my content removed from their partner collections I would be happy to do so, but the frustration and hassle of dealing with unresponsive and otherwise very bureaucratic support is somehow holding me back to start climbing that mountain. Not worth it to let it mess up my mood, not worth it for the few 100 images I have there that only bring in lunch money every month.

Anyhow, be warned, don't upload to EyeEm (anymore).

Quote from: Dimaximus on January 05, 2023, 10:18

the rating was 1500-2000, after unlocking for 1 week the rating was 18 800....

Where can I see my rating ?

in the dashboard, select "Lifetime" in the timeframe drop-down box in the left upper corner.
You can also check your position for "this week"

The latest e-mail from SS has: "The Contributor Fund will release earnings every 6 months"
If that's all we get for 6 months of usage, it is very underwhelming.

Really? It's a 6 months thing? Very underwhelming indeed.
Feels like iStock/Getty connect.

This is interesting:

On my computer I still have the old dashboard, on the pad it's the new one now.
I find the old dashboard better because I can see immediately which images were bought last. With the new dashboard, I need more clicks.

Same here. One computer has the old dashboard, the other one displays the new.
Might be a cookies thing.

Quote from: Diana Herrmann on November 02, 2022, 10:18

Quote from: Caymia on October 03, 2021, 06:07

Quote from: Jaggy on October 01, 2021, 09:13

Hardly anyone uses the SS forum. It's the same few posters all the time so I can understand why SS doesn't want to spend money on it. If SS was upset by criticism they would have closed it down long ago.

Anyway, we always have this forum to fall back on. Maybe the demise of the SS one will breathe some life into this.

The SS forum is quiet because they purged all the active and experienced members a while back. They cut the heart out so it was bound to die. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner though.

I'm guessing a lot will migrate over here, me being one of them! Been a member for years but not really used it. May be that will change now 

You saw the future and those who were worried that the SS trolls would ruin this forum, were right. Now we have millionaires and a group that claims to have sources who make $10,000 a month. Friendly and civil discussion has been taken over by the big dogs and high rollers. No wonder the forum here is dying, hardly a new post anymore except to complain or brag. I think I'm done.

I will say that I am not going to leave MSG because I still find good intel here and confirmations of things that happen to me. But, I don't participate much any more, much of the reason is threads that are same thing different day, mainly by new sign ups.  There are heated political threads in here that simply drive me away from the group.  They are allowed, yes, so I choose to direct my time elsewhere.  Overall, for me, the threads do not interest me. Some do, but mainly most don't. There are some posters in here who I really value their input (zero talent, Justanotherphotographer, StaceStockFootage, Uncle Pete are among them), and others who just want an argument. Unlike the old days when I started here in 2007, MSG is now a passer by thought for me, and I check in now and then.  But that's it.  Probably still a good place for new entrants but I find little value in the platform anymore, except for updates on micro stock sites, new findings, new royalty cuts, things like that...still helpful.

Right. There's an abundance of places to discuss a niche like Microstock.

I still check in here, but there's also Reddit (to a lesser degree), social media platforms (my impression it's mainly complaining or bragging about sales), and the forums of some agencies, e.g. Dreamstime and Alamy.

Information, if there is any, is scattered around, so you'll have to make your own puzzle.

AI is here to stay, the question is how can it be integrated in an intelligent way?

First step for SS (and others) could be mixing on-the-fly AI generated content based on a search string with real content in the search results.
Customers can choose between AI or real photo's/illustrations. If they can see the difference at all.
Data coming out those "experiments" is very useful for further training of the AI.

Next step might even be a customer selecting 10 images as a baseline for unique AI generated content.

I read a lot of comments from people claiming that most AI generated images are far from perfect.
And I think they're right. For now. But we might be underestimating how fast technology advances.
And we can easily turn it around too: have a look at the average stock library and you'll notice a lot of junk and far from perfect images too.