pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock "Contributor Fund"  (Read 9033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: December 22, 2022, 17:27 »
+1
And another $0.61 appears in the Contributor Fund column.


« Reply #76 on: December 22, 2022, 18:03 »
+1
Yeah, another $4 dropped in today.  That makes four payments, every two days for a week.  Strange.

« Reply #77 on: December 22, 2022, 19:46 »
0
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

I think images wasn't purchased in the traditional way, but they sell the right for the AI to check all of them to get info from them.

« Reply #78 on: December 23, 2022, 02:50 »
0
Me, 8,24 US$ this month... What this means?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #79 on: December 23, 2022, 04:33 »
+2
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.

« Reply #80 on: December 23, 2022, 12:10 »
+1
I usually don't mind extra payments - but I don't like how this "Contributor Fund" is being done. That said: Keep an eye on your totals ... their math is little off, at least in my case.

On my husband's account it's just the opposite: .61+1.84+1.64 = $4.09 in my world of math, not $4.10 like in theirs.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2022, 12:22 by TortoiseProductions »

wds

« Reply #81 on: December 23, 2022, 18:54 »
0
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.

Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?

« Reply #82 on: December 23, 2022, 19:01 »
+2
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.

Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?
No images were "purchased".  Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content.  So yes, more than one "asset".

« Reply #83 on: December 23, 2022, 20:37 »
+10
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.

Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?
No images were "purchased".  Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content.  So yes, more than one "asset".

Exactly, the portfolio that took us a lifetime to make was used to make our profession obsolete.

Welcome to the future.

wds

« Reply #84 on: December 23, 2022, 22:56 »
+3
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.

Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?
No images were "purchased".  Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content.  So yes, more than one "asset".

Well one or more of our images were payed for and used for a purpose, I don't see the difference between an image being purchased to use in an ad, an article, or to train some AI....in other words they should still tell us which images were used regardless of purpose....not that it makes any difference in the end.

« Reply #85 on: December 24, 2022, 07:02 »
+1
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.







Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?
No images were "purchased".  Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content.  So yes, more than one "asset".

Well one or more of our images were payed for and used for a purpose, I don't see the difference between an image being purchased to use in an ad, an article, or to train some AI....in other words they should still tell us which images were used regardless of purpose....not that it makes any difference in the end.


even more, each image used should count in level determination, and at time of usage, not every 6 months.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #86 on: December 24, 2022, 11:31 »
0
even more, each image used should count in level determination, and at time of usage, not every 6 months.

They aren't counted? How much do we make per use?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #87 on: December 25, 2022, 02:50 »
+2
What's the justification for not telling the contributor which images were purchased for this usage?

Probably nowhere near enough space to list them all.

Are you implying that these line items we see correspond to more than one asset?

I have no way of knowing either way, but if some people are getting up to $100 payments on a single day then I'd be very, very surprised this isn't from several items/uses. I don't know how much this images cost the buyer, but 10 cents, minus SS's cut, divided by however many dozens or hundreds of items used to train the algorithm... or however it works. That's a lot of slices of the pie. As I say, I don't know the specific but I would have though a new AI image would have drawn from multiple sources to create a new image. 

« Reply #88 on: December 27, 2022, 05:21 »
0
This explains why the "Total downloads" on some days in december doesn't match the number I get when adding the numbers in the details for each day. I have been wondering about that.

"Contrubutor Fund" sales are reported in the numbers, but are not shown in the details.

« Reply #89 on: December 27, 2022, 13:23 »
+1
Got another $ 0.36. So alltogether I have made an impressing $ 0.43. Yeah!

I must be doing g something right if I've beat Wilm. 58 and 25 cents.

« Reply #90 on: December 27, 2022, 20:59 »
+18
So they're paying us a small amount for using all our hard work spent accurately keywording images to train the robots that will soon replace us.  Wonderful.  I guess it's better than just using our work to train the robots and give us nothing, which they probably considered.  And next week we all get set back to level 1 again.  Don't know if I can take any more exciting news.

« Reply #91 on: December 28, 2022, 08:34 »
+1
even more, each image used should count in level determination, and at time of usage, not every 6 months.

They aren't counted? How much do we make per use?

We don't know, and we don't know.


« Reply #92 on: December 28, 2022, 22:02 »
+3
Is there any chance of we keeping getting this payment day by day, week by week or month by months??

After all, soon the AI will create images based in our work.

By the way... who is the owner of the copyright when AI creates something?? And specially when this "something" is based in previous copyrighted creations??

Is there any copyright law about AI creating things???
« Last Edit: December 28, 2022, 22:06 by Mrblues101 »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #93 on: December 29, 2022, 12:08 »
+4
Is there any chance of we keeping getting this payment day by day, week by week or month by months??

After all, soon the AI will create images based in our work.

By the way... who is the owner of the copyright when AI creates something?? And specially when this "something" is based in previous copyrighted creations??

Is there any copyright law about AI creating things???

I'm just guessing, like everyone else, that these are make up payments for past licensing in 2022. I don't think they will become daily or anything else, but maybe every six months as SS has told us. Most of that is irrelevant, isn't it? I mean if we get payments twice a year from what's accumulated or once a month, what's the difference.

More important questions are about who owns the rights.

New images are not created based on something previously copyrighted. The new images are based on Machine Learning and the images are new creations. AI doesn't use our images, it uses what the machines has learned about something.

So if the machine has been fed 2,000 images of a Banana, it learns that a banana is is basically, black, or brown, or green or yellow. Then the machine learns what a banana shape is. The machine also learns characteristics of the middle and ends and lines and other parts, maybe the insides as well as other parts or slices or variations of a banana. When someone says they want an image, created by AI that includes a banana, the computer uses everything it knows and creates a new banana. Our images are not directly used.

Who owns the results? That depends on the service someone uses. Open AI / DALL-E2 we own the rights and the images can be used commercially. But Open AI also retains the right to use the image, if they want.

Others you can only use commercially if you paid for the service. And I'm surer there are other versions of the contract.

This will have to go into the courts and be decided, and this is new territory, so there isn't much case law to use for an answer. TBD. One case the courts decided that an AI creation, can't be copyrighted.

However because we enter the words and the software is only a tool, those results are argued to be different.

If anyone wants to read the involved details:  https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4f5fb5fa-b968-4049-8297-0cff617917b5#:~:text=In%202014%20the%20US%20Copyright%20Office%20expressly%20established,IT%20system%20could%20not%20qualify%20for%20copyright%20protection.

"Therefore, it would seem that AI works autonomously produced by the IT system could not qualify for copyright protection. In other words, protection could be granted only when there is human intervention in the process carried out by the AI. After all, one has to bear in mind that the approach toward AI should be based on the key principle according to which the center and focus of the protection is and remain the human being. "

« Reply #94 on: December 29, 2022, 15:16 »
0
...
New images are not created based on something previously copyrighted. The new images are based on Machine Learning and the images are new creations. AI doesn't use our images, it uses what the machines has learned about something.

So if the machine has been fed 2,000 images of a Banana, it learns that a banana is is basically, black, or brown, or green or yellow. Then the machine learns what a banana shape is. The machine also learns characteristics of the middle and ends and lines and other parts, maybe the insides as well as other parts or slices or variations of a banana. When someone says they want an image, created by AI that includes a banana, the computer uses everything it knows and creates a new banana. Our images are not directly used.

yep but no matter how many times this is explained, some folk continue to spew stories about images being used directly by the AI.  the issue is about the one-time use to create the dataset which contains NONE of those images.

Quote
Who owns the results? That depends on the service someone uses. Open AI / DALL-E2 we own the rights and the images can be used commercially. But Open AI also retains the right to use the image, if they want.

Others you can only use commercially if you paid for the service. And I'm surer there are other versions of the contract.

This will have to go into the courts and be decided, and this is new territory, so there isn't much case law to use for an answer. TBD. One case the courts decided that an AI creation, can't be copyrighted.
...


which becomes really silly since there's no way to tell an image is AI or just 'normal' use of PS unless it's tagged  that as AS requires. even more critical for text created from chatGPT where it's even harder to detect

"Did a Fourth Grader Write This? Or the New Chatbot?
Dont be surprised if you cant always tell."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/26/upshot/chatgpt-child-essays.html

i correctly identified only about 70% of the essays

I've been using chatGPT for blogging & generic descriptions for my pixify site. I treat the results as a first draft, making small to substantial changes. but it is useful to overcome writer's block by getting something on the page
« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 15:19 by cascoly »

« Reply #95 on: December 29, 2022, 16:18 »
0
Is there any chance of we keeping getting this payment day by day, week by week or month by months??

After all, soon the AI will create images based in our work.

By the way... who is the owner of the copyright when AI creates something?? And specially when this "something" is based in previous copyrighted creations??

Is there any copyright law about AI creating things???

I'm just guessing, like everyone else, that these are make up payments for past licensing in 2022. I don't think they will become daily or anything else, but maybe every six months as SS has told us. Most of that is irrelevant, isn't it? I mean if we get payments twice a year from what's accumulated or once a month, what's the difference.

More important questions are about who owns the rights.

New images are not created based on something previously copyrighted. The new images are based on Machine Learning and the images are new creations. AI doesn't use our images, it uses what the machines has learned about something.

So if the machine has been fed 2,000 images of a Banana, it learns that a banana is is basically, black, or brown, or green or yellow. Then the machine learns what a banana shape is. The machine also learns characteristics of the middle and ends and lines and other parts, maybe the insides as well as other parts or slices or variations of a banana. When someone says they want an image, created by AI that includes a banana, the computer uses everything it knows and creates a new banana. Our images are not directly used.

Who owns the results? That depends on the service someone uses. Open AI / DALL-E2 we own the rights and the images can be used commercially. But Open AI also retains the right to use the image, if they want.

Others you can only use commercially if you paid for the service. And I'm surer there are other versions of the contract.

This will have to go into the courts and be decided, and this is new territory, so there isn't much case law to use for an answer. TBD. One case the courts decided that an AI creation, can't be copyrighted.

However because we enter the words and the software is only a tool, those results are argued to be different.

If anyone wants to read the involved details:  https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4f5fb5fa-b968-4049-8297-0cff617917b5#:~:text=In%202014%20the%20US%20Copyright%20Office%20expressly%20established,IT%20system%20could%20not%20qualify%20for%20copyright%20protection.

"Therefore, it would seem that AI works autonomously produced by the IT system could not qualify for copyright protection. In other words, protection could be granted only when there is human intervention in the process carried out by the AI. After all, one has to bear in mind that the approach toward AI should be based on the key principle according to which the center and focus of the protection is and remain the human being. "

Thank you for your very complete answer.

This is a very new topic and laws are clearly being created now.

I used OpenAI a while ago, but to see the potential of AI writing. It's very impressive as it was able to create some short stories with the information I put. However, as far as I understand this AI was trained with books and texts in the public domain.

This time they used our images that are not in public domain... perhaps this whole issue stems from the fact that SS used our work without proper authorization from us. They have the clearance due to a devious legal trick by updating the terms and conditions and put this new condition on it, but I don't think anyone would have agreed to this deal if we had been explicitly asked.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #96 on: December 30, 2022, 11:42 »
+1

Thank you for your very complete answer.

This is a very new topic and laws are clearly being created now.

I used OpenAI a while ago, but to see the potential of AI writing. It's very impressive as it was able to create some short stories with the information I put. However, as far as I understand this AI was trained with books and texts in the public domain.

This time they used our images that are not in public domain... perhaps this whole issue stems from the fact that SS used our work without proper authorization from us. They have the clearance due to a devious legal trick by updating the terms and conditions and put this new condition on it, but I don't think anyone would have agreed to this deal if we had been explicitly asked.

A bot wrote that answer? (just kidding) Thank You, I like to include details instead of drawn out a thread with Q&A as someone might want to know more.

Yes, the laws are being created as this develops. There will be interpretations, and challenges. Mostly in the area of humans and protected content. But if it's AI created and not recognizable, there shouldn't be a copyright issue. The new created images do not directly use images, it uses images for training and creates new from the learning.

I don't know about terms and devious tricks, I'm not a lawyer but someone else said, it was probably already in the terms before, as we allowed use, but we always retain the rights. Any change in the terms, which I haven't seen a new set from all these places, did I miss that? will only be to specify and make it clear that AI training is an allowed use.

Another way to say that is, the contract hasn't changed, the terms are the same, lust the language to include clear definitions has been altered. Just a guess and supposition. I haven't seen a new contract from IS, SS, Alamy, or Adobe? Did I miss those emails?

Whatever SS is paying us, and we don't know the details, is to legally cover their asses. CYA

« Reply #97 on: December 31, 2022, 06:02 »
+2
Where is this option?

It's in your earning summery, but because whoever does the contributor design sucks at his job, you can't see it unless you scroll very far to the right.
https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings
I was scratching my head to find it and just did before I read this comment. Where did these people learn web design? Awful!

It was weird when I looked at my top performers earlier the numbers seemed right but then I clicked on the "by product" column and the numbers seemed all wrong until I realized I had to click on each type of earning (subscriptions, enhanced, etc) and add them together - I really don't care, I just want the bottom line! And it's already available so why do I need another page to make it confusing?

It was like someone asked, "How many ways can we show you the same thing so that it looks different each time and confuse the #[email protected] out of contributors?"

I guess the designer charges by the column and page. Really awful.

On a positive note, this afternoon, I uploaded photos and illustrations for the first time in about 11 months, and they were all accepted and online already. Then I looked at my earnings for the first time this month and felt a little queasy that I'd wasted time uploading anything new.
They don't care about how you feel, how comfortable are you with their interface. For them is more important to redirect you to sales pages. No matter you, contributor, you have no value at all and already for a long time. They gave just a clear message for those to whom this was not clear yet.

« Reply #98 on: December 31, 2022, 07:21 »
0
I

I'm just guessing, like everyone else, that these are make up payments for past licensing in 2022. I don't think they will become daily or anything else, but maybe every six months as SS has told us. Most of that is irrelevant, isn't it? I mean if we get payments twice a year from what's accumulated or once a month, what's the difference.

More important questions are about who owns the rights. "


the only impact is where the payment fit within the level tiers of SS, and how they affect the "number of download"


Related to the rights, there might be concerns when the original content was editorial and it ends up being modified for misuse.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #99 on: December 31, 2022, 12:29 »
0
I

I'm just guessing, like everyone else, that these are make up payments for past licensing in 2022. I don't think they will become daily or anything else, but maybe every six months as SS has told us. Most of that is irrelevant, isn't it? I mean if we get payments twice a year from what's accumulated or once a month, what's the difference.

More important questions are about who owns the rights. "


the only impact is where the payment fit within the level tiers of SS, and how they affect the "number of download"


Related to the rights, there might be concerns when the original content was editorial and it ends up being modified for misuse.

You're right, we don't know if it's 0, 1 or if any or all of them are counted. Is it a download or something else? Levels are nearly irrelevant when most of the DLs are from the large contracts. Maybe if I had thousands and thousands of downloads a year it could make a difference. 2,500 downloads times .02 = $50 for the whole year.

Original content is NOT modified or used, so I'd say, that's not important or relevant. Images and descriptions are only used to train the AI.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
163 Replies
33948 Views
Last post April 08, 2013, 13:13
by alberto
301 Replies
60818 Views
Last post August 21, 2016, 07:09
by ShadySue
12 Replies
2727 Views
Last post July 09, 2022, 12:39
by YadaYadaYada
88 Replies
6464 Views
Last post January 04, 2023, 07:03
by Zero Talent
9 Replies
868 Views
Last post Yesterday at 13:45
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle