The days of stock images as a means of subsistence are numbered, we are much closer to the end than we imagined.

even before AI appeared, many us held this was the case - witness the stories in the 'days of yore' thread.

 the 'end' is behind us

Quote from: Injustice for all on Yesterday at 04:54

@Bauman AI contents are illustrations,in the end it is just a rendering of pixels,but it is certainly a form of art like 3D or painting,even if painting requires more skill and experience,there's no denying that creating AI content is an art form.

The problem is that many people use AI as if it were a photograph and not an illustration.

And this is not good for us photographers (because we lose sales) and for those who look at these images, because almost always, when they are published, it is not specified that they are AI and therefore they are confused or even deceived by fake photographs.

And this is not good for us film photographers (because we lose sales) and for those who look at these images, because almost always, when they are published, it is not specified that they are digital and therefore they are confused or even deceived by fake film images

I take landscape images from real, but the web is full of fake landscapes that are believed to be real. Maybe you book a trip to a location that isn't the one you see in the photos.

first, you assume all those using 'fake' landscapes believe them to be real - if i'm writing about castles in general, i may just want a generic castle

you describe a different problem - artists are responsible for proper description of their images - eg stock images of an ocean with tags 'atlantic' AND 'pacific'.  and even more so, those selling the booking are responsible for accuracy - all images can be mis-used  (eg, insects or plants with incorrect latin names)

interesting read.thanks.

For my part,as I have already reiterated several times,I am more than sure that Adobe has made every effort to build Firefly in the most ethical way possible,respecting all parties involved.

i am not an AI expert,but I've generated about 20,000 images between Firefly and other AIs and from the results obtained,the difference seems clear as day to me,I have never found anything in the contents generated by Firefly that could even suggest that content was used incorrectly for AI training,while unfortunately,I cannot say the same thing about Midjourney,as too often there are pieces of logos,watermarks or signatures of authors in the generated content,so even a 6 year old child would understand that they used content inappropriately for AI training.

thank you for all the efforts made,like FAIR act,in trying to build a better future for us artists,contributors,in a very complex era of important changes.

keep it up Adobe!

How are we different from a herd of cows or rams? We are no different !!!

Speak for yourself!

Where does image retouching fit into this? Should only completely unretouched images be allowed as "natural creations"?