|
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 - DiscreetDuck
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26
1
shift happens - join or wither
Another shift will happen later for all those ephemeral human generators who 'joined'
2
« on: Yesterday at 13:37 »
@DiscreetDuck
...let's try to understand for example how to behave or when to label AI content and when not,and what we can do and what not.
Adobe should name "AI generated Images", and exclude any of them from the term "Photo". Playing on ambiguity, they don't really want to separate the naming of these two types of content. Guess why... What would Adobe say to photography contributors who don't want to use AI? Either you produce with AI, or your content will be permanently drowned? (by photos that are not) Is unfair competition still a relevant concept?
3
« on: Yesterday at 07:27 »
Scaling moderation capabilities by:
- Doubling the size of our expert human moderation team who specialize in content review
- Creating and training the team on new generative AI specific policies and best practices
- Introducing specific generative AI moderation systems to efficiently categorize and review content for any potential policy violations
- Refining our audit systems to monitor the existing collection more efficiently for content that may violate our new generative AI policies
- Reviewing and removing thousands of existing assets from Stock and continuing to actively monitor the full Adobe Stock collection
So, the distance between a blog post and a dedicated forum is... one week.  'You' see here, they only talk about content, the contributor already no longer exists when it comes to moderation. The future is autonomous Adobe, without (or with a minimum) of contributing suppliers, with less(no) royalties to pay, but an in-house team to manage the content and systems. And all customers will be so happy to feel like artists... All this will be in their financial interest, it will inevitably happen! AI content don't belong to contributors. Soon, AI content will no longer come from contributors. The brainless prompters sheeps will realize too late, once they are ejected by autonomous systems and will come here to complain en masse. See you very soon! They will still be able to apply for a job to join the "expert human moderation generation team" at Adobe... but it will be a small enclosure for a small herd.
4
« on: Yesterday at 05:17 »
The days of stock images as a means of subsistence are numbered, we are much closer to the end than we imagined.
Sure
5
« on: Yesterday at 05:12 »
Matt: I've had illustrations rejected by Adobe because:
- Non compliant use of another artists name.
- Undeclared Generative AI Content
This is not true - I don't use and have never used AI.
Do I risk getting banned from Adobe from incorrect AI rejections?
Thanks
Cat
Proof of their incompetence in handling situations. They are barely capable of giving a marketing speech, everything is fine, we are managing! And the contempt for honest contributors from the start is growing, as they depend less and less on them. The contributor community is divided, great for them, they can rule.
6
« on: Yesterday at 04:40 »
On 12.03.24 Adobe has blocked my account with a portfolio of over 50,000 images and over $2000 on it because of "terms violation".
I dont work with AI Generators, I have no idea why the account was deactivated and what I can do to reactivate it.
After using the contract form, I still haven't received a response (over a month). On Discord they just tell me to keep waiting.
I find it very unpleasant to keep someone in the dark for so long and to be at the mercy of it all
This is ridiculous. Adobe needs to do better.
You know the details and facts, could you explain how they could do better and why this is ridiculous?
I Ignore posts from blvdone (and some other ridiculous posts), it saves me time I don't say it's the case here, but even a thief can come and complain on this forum, he will be supported by some ridiculous people.
7
« on: April 24, 2024, 17:20 »
So when there was no "AI Images" upload type yet, 123RF accepted AI Images as photos (last year)
I had over 1000 images accepted with all needed keywords and titles, marking them as AI.
They were selling ok, but, last month sales dropped 90% and Images were just deleted, not moved to AI images, deleted.
1000+ approved images removed from site without even saying anything, I have no words.
Good news if they want to clean their collection. AI image is not a photo. As a customer, I would be please not to get AI images in download, described as true photographies. It's fake, and lying.
8
« on: April 23, 2024, 13:58 »
This seems extremely shocking.  Really, I doubt Adobe would do this sort of thing lightly. Your portfolio had 200k images in 2021, 50k in 2024?
9
« on: April 22, 2024, 02:48 »
^ Little Up!
10
« on: April 21, 2024, 10:48 »
Did Adobe steal something?No
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes
What about the notion of receiving stolen goods?
And make it the source (even partial) of a business?
so you assume that content generated by AI is stolen content?
so if you have AI content in your portfolio you are a thief too! 
whereas if you don't have AI content in your portfolio,you are consistent with your ideas,and I respect that,but I don't agree with it! 
Of course, I will NEVER generate and/or sell a single AI fake photo. Does pushing a "generate" button makes you copyright owner? At ADOBE Stock: -> https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.htmlContent submission guidelines[...] Content submissions made using generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools must meet the Generative AI Guidelines. -> https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.htmlEnsure you have the appropriate rights to submit. You must have all the necessary rights to submit generative AI images, vectors or videos to Adobe Stock for licensing as described in our Contributor Terms -> https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20220415.pdfAdobe Stock Contributor Agreement
Additional Terms to Adobe General Terms of Use
Published March 1, 2022. Effective as of April 15, 2022. Replaces all prior versions. 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. 5. PaymentIf you are not the copyright owner of a Work, you are solely responsible for compensating such copyright owner(s) where applicable. You will se in the Future. And sorry, but the Future is no today, but tomorrow...
11
« on: April 21, 2024, 06:51 »
Did Adobe steal something?No
Did Midjourney steal something?Yes
What about the notion of receiving stolen goods? And make it the source (even partial) of a business?
12
« on: April 21, 2024, 06:33 »
Sadly today's world is a fake world of fake food, fake textiles, fake movies, false human relationships and so on. Of course as continuation today we have fake photos. I'm positive person, but that is the reality.
The people want a lot, want it fast and cheap and here we go, the cheap fast photos(just like fast food, fast fashion..) are here.
Totally agree. Talent accessible to all, without learning, without effort, immediately and without singularity. The reward right away, but without all the steps that precede it. False satisfaction, because true satisfaction comes at the end of error and effort. Skill is no longer necessary, everyone can. We advocate diversity but in the same time kill authenticity. The reign of the artificial, without truth, without soul. We even reprogram the values. And most humans with software from another time are silent, the ignorants express themselves so much everywhere. But machines amalgamate and regurgitate, they do not and will never create anything (except the abyss into which humans collapse with joy).
13
« on: April 20, 2024, 08:40 »
You talk about faith and you assume a conspiracy theory. Of course, most here use AI generation and have lost all objectivity. Many with divergent opinions have left this forum or no longer express themselves.
What about facts and ethics?
I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning. Adobe forced me(us) by giving money, to infringe my(our) copyrights on MY(our) own images. It seems to me that no choice was offered to refuse this money. In this way, they can suggest a mutual understanding, in possible legal procedures, and claim to act ethically.
Do you consider this ethical, really?
'Firefly Contributor Bonus'... Firefly or Fireburn?
because Adobe paid us for the match and the gasoline that will be used to make us take off high... as Fireflies...
14
« on: April 20, 2024, 04:23 »
15
« on: March 23, 2024, 16:42 »
Hi. Is anyone here have experience selling 360 images?...
I there. Many years ago, I sold 357, then 358, then 359, then 360 images! And this on many platforms! After, came 361, 362... And the number today is much more! ...   Sorry 
16
« on: March 22, 2024, 04:47 »
Hello all,
I have a simple question regarding uploading AI images to Adobe Stock:
Is it better to upload them as 'illustrations' or as 'photos'?..
Looking forward to your anwers.
Kind regards
devy
Since it seems to be you ignore what photography is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography
17
« on: March 19, 2024, 02:43 »
In my opinion, the author of this post is bored in life
18
« on: March 16, 2024, 04:05 »
Yes.
AI can't make anything that's AUTHENTIC. Can't do news. Can't do illustrative editorial. Can't do anything real.
AI can make pictures, but most of them are crap.
I do agree! Some greatly appreciate that the only skill required of new "photographers" (or old snapshooters) to work is sitting and keywording for flooding their crap...
20
« on: March 14, 2024, 15:02 »
It has not been fixed, since if you tick "Exclude Generative AI", you still get tons of AI pictures 
21
« on: March 13, 2024, 09:05 »
I'm sure you'll never hear from him. I sent messages here, and by email, on October 1, 2023, 5 months ago! NEVER received anything. His silence is worth money... We must definitely mourn this money
22
« on: March 11, 2024, 06:44 »
1. Might as well try to squeeze the last remaining drop of earnings in this otherwise dying industry
I do think the same. But well, sometimes, not so bad surprises can happen, I just got 150 for an exclusive licence of an old image. Btw, I think we must convert earnings anytime we can, because a closing stock site can make good money by closing and keeping contributor royalties... Honesty and loyalty are distant memories.
23
« on: March 08, 2024, 10:01 »
Come on. This is just ridiculous as an argument.
So human competence no longer exists? Everybody is on the same foot of equality? like sheeps maybe!!! But tell me, for example, how many foreign languages do you speak?
24
« on: March 08, 2024, 09:50 »
(a) It's REALLY important to remember "ai" tools are based off of THEFT of assets. The biggest "problem" "AI" companies have is figuring out how to remove WATERMARKS. I.e., because they STEAL assets.
(b) It's important to push for/request with companies you deal with that you be compensated for the stolen assets. It's very easy to 'backwards compensate' people - it requires some programming - but definitely doable.
(c) Authors should be compensated in perpetuity, because the "ai" tools (goal) is to sell in perpetuity.
Why do you think that artificial intelligence steals things?
, they wanted to pay for it, they wanted to make a semblance of compensation!!!
They wanted to clear their conscience and avoid legal proceedings, but in fact, it is a mistake that they made, because by doing so they recognize their great accountability.
The developers say that this intelligence is like the human brain. He is taught by the example of some works, but then he creates his own works. You also learned to draw or photograph from the example of other peoples works and copied them at the beginning. Then you started creating your own works. So is artificial intelligence.
Have you ever developed a skill in your life? What is your competence if we unplug the machine? The AI did not scrutinize reality to learn, it ingested the work and expertise of real people. His vision is not objective, it is oriented and inspired by human work (which has been copied/looted). And human vision is driven by emotion, real organic intelligence, not a machine vision.
Come on. This is just ridiculous as an argument. What's your skill, if the supermarkets will be closed. Can you grow potatoes in the field, milk cows and make cheese?
Or can you sew your own clothes?
These are all skills that only a few special ones do today because of the industrial revolution. The same will happen to photographers. Why do you think that a skill of a photographer is much more worth than from a farmer? Because it's based on emotions?
Knowing how to do something does not mean knowing how to do everything, your arguments are really ridiculous. As of tomorrow, I am fully capable of managing my food autonomy; I have developed this skill over the years. And I have quantities of organic, non-hybrid seeds... You can well imagine that machine learning was done from the work of competent people, having produced quality images that sold, the machines did not ingest the unsaleable crap produced by those who today feast on generation by AI...
25
« on: March 08, 2024, 09:27 »
(a) It's REALLY important to remember "ai" tools are based off of THEFT of assets. The biggest "problem" "AI" companies have is figuring out how to remove WATERMARKS. I.e., because they STEAL assets.
(b) It's important to push for/request with companies you deal with that you be compensated for the stolen assets. It's very easy to 'backwards compensate' people - it requires some programming - but definitely doable.
(c) Authors should be compensated in perpetuity, because the "ai" tools (goal) is to sell in perpetuity.
Why do you think that artificial intelligence steals things?
, they wanted to pay for it, they wanted to make a semblance of compensation!!! They wanted to clear their conscience and avoid legal proceedings, but in fact, it is a mistake that they made, because by doing so they recognize their great accountability. The developers say that this intelligence is like the human brain. He is taught by the example of some works, but then he creates his own works. You also learned to draw or photograph from the example of other peoples works and copied them at the beginning. Then you started creating your own works. So is artificial intelligence.
Have you ever developed a skill in your life? What is your competence if we unplug the machine? The AI did not scrutinize reality to learn, it ingested the work and expertise of real people. His vision is not objective, it is oriented and inspired by human work (which has been copied/looted). And human vision is driven by emotion, real organic intelligence, not a machine vision. But I'm laughing, I looked at the two faces posted here ( https://ibb.co/N23HqZk, https://ibb.co/5knKyjz), it looks fake, plastic, artificial to me!!! Is everyone already fooled by this?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
