Post by: wds on December 14, 2022, 08:30
Post by: wds on December 14, 2022, 08:37
What is the "Contributor Fund" column in the Shutterstock "Earnings Summary"?
Wait....is this for when an asset is used for "generative AI"? Weren't they supposed to ask our permission for that??
Post by: derby on December 14, 2022, 09:10
Post by: Mantis on December 14, 2022, 09:36
Post by: Her Ugliness on December 14, 2022, 09:36
What is the "Contributor Fund" column in the Shutterstock "Earnings Summary"?
Wait....is this for when an asset is used for "generative AI"? Weren't they supposed to ask our permission for that??
Yes, it's for the cummissions for images used in AI generation.
Quote
I-generated Content on Shutterstock
On October 25, 2022 Shutterstock announced its action plan to launch its AI-generated content capabilities in a manner that is responsible and transparent for its customers and contributors. In expanding its partnership with OpenAI and LG, as well as launching the Contributor Fund to compensate artists for their contributions, Shutterstock is committed to unlocking this opportunity for our customers and contributors in an ethically responsible way.
I don't think the column has anything to do with whether they asked for permission or not, it's just part of the design, just like every contributor has a column for photos, videos or referals, even if he doesn't take part in the referal system or only submits videos or only photos.
Post by: rushay on December 14, 2022, 09:41
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wds on December 14, 2022, 09:54
It would be nice if they at least showed you which of your assets was used. It seems not to be the case.
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 14, 2022, 13:10
Got a 3 cents for “Contributors fund”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm hurt that SS likes you better, as my column just shows - :P
The way I read it, this was to start after they had the new program in place and were using the images with permission. I guess not. I didn't expect anything to appear at all for some time.
Sure thing, part of the re-design was adding the column for the fund credits.
Post by: Reimar on December 14, 2022, 13:27
Post by: alijaber on December 14, 2022, 17:41
Post by: Artist on December 14, 2022, 20:29
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on December 14, 2022, 22:20
What is the "Contributor Fund" column in the Shutterstock "Earnings Summary"?
Wait....is this for when an asset is used for "generative AI"? Weren't they supposed to ask our permission for that??
It's on everyone's earnings summary, whether there are earnings or not.
Post by: Her Ugliness on December 15, 2022, 02:49
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
Post by: Artist on December 15, 2022, 07:04
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
Can you share screenshot?
I cannot find it.
Post by: Her Ugliness on December 15, 2022, 07:08
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
Can you share screenshot?
I cannot find it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1m8jNJq/Untitled-j1.jpg)
Post by: Mantis on December 15, 2022, 08:09
Post by: Artist on December 15, 2022, 10:28
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
Can you share screenshot?
I cannot find it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1m8jNJq/Untitled-j1.jpg)
Got it, thanks
This so bad UI
Post by: Mantis on December 15, 2022, 16:49
"Thanks for reaching out to Shutterstock Contributor Care.
We sincerely appreciate your business trajectory since 2007 with us and with great pleasure would be attending to all of your inquiries and request.
Allow me to start by thanking you for having brought this to our attention; I realize the importance of this matter for you. I have reached out to our Higher Office in regard to your request, and they have confirmed that, in the coming weeks, our Tech Team will introduce a way for all contributors to opt out of having their content included in datasets. Until then, your patience is much appreciated.
If there's anything else you need from us or if you have any additional concerns regarding this, please let me know; It's always a pleasure to assist you.
Wishing you a lovely rest of your day and with warm regards,
Daniela
Shutterstock Contributor Care Team"
Post by: Wilm on December 15, 2022, 17:01
Well, some good news, I guess. I wrote to SS and asked about opting out of the CF. A little fluffy in her response but here it is.
"Thanks for reaching out to Shutterstock Contributor Care.
We sincerely appreciate your business trajectory since 2007 with us and with great pleasure would be attending to all of your inquiries and request.
Allow me to start by thanking you for having brought this to our attention; I realize the importance of this matter for you. I have reached out to our Higher Office in regard to your request, and they have confirmed that, in the coming weeks, our Tech Team will introduce a way for all contributors to opt out of having their content included in datasets. Until then, your patience is much appreciated.
If there's anything else you need from us or if you have any additional concerns regarding this, please let me know; It's always a pleasure to assist you.
Wishing you a lovely rest of your day and with warm regards,
Daniela
Shutterstock Contributor Care Team"
It's amazing that something is made possible for buyers without any problems, but at the same time it takes weeks for you to be able to undo it as a contributor.
I can't see any appreciation of the contributors here. On the contrary.
Post by: Wilm on December 15, 2022, 17:04
It is done. If it is not good, the contributors will get in touch...
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on December 15, 2022, 22:44
Post by: wordplanet on December 16, 2022, 02:36
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 #$@ 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.
Post by: MxR on December 16, 2022, 06:40
Post by: cascoly on December 16, 2022, 12:34
...
I guess the designer charges by the column and page. Really awful.
...
and it's been all too common on websites to skip alpha regression testing and make the users unwitting beta testers (like asking for a phone number and counting the backspace as a character when you mistype)
Post by: Schadenfreude on December 16, 2022, 15:29
Wishing you a lovely rest of your day and with warm regards,
Man, that makes all my work worth it.
Post by: Mantis on December 16, 2022, 20:01
Wishing you a lovely rest of your day and with warm regards,
Man, that makes all my work worth it.
Hahaha, indeed.
Post by: Jaggy on December 16, 2022, 22:22
$11.80 just landed in the Contributor fund column for me. 😁😳
Post by: Ravi.del on December 16, 2022, 22:24
Post by: PhotoBomb on December 16, 2022, 22:47
Post by: wds on December 16, 2022, 22:58
Post by: Pacesetter on December 16, 2022, 23:07
Post by: rushay on December 16, 2022, 23:43
Post by: PhotoBomb on December 17, 2022, 00:43
Will these royalties be ongoing for Ai images licensed where our work was used for machine learning?
That is the question
Post by: RalfLiebhold on December 17, 2022, 04:35
Post by: Her Ugliness on December 17, 2022, 04:58
Post by: Lowls on December 17, 2022, 07:17
Post by: ouatedeP on December 17, 2022, 07:37
I had two sales today do far and I couldn't see what the other photo was. It said 2 but ut inly showed one. Then in the column to the right there it was. Contributor fund 0.58 😳have an $11,05 one
it messes up the App.
On Monthly summary it adds a Download and the amount in the total, but when you click on the Day specifics the download is counted but not the Dollar amount.
ie,
Month Summary Dec 17 3 ↓ $11.27
Day Specific page Dec 17 3 ↓ $0.22 (and only 2 images showing)
Post by: Jaggy on December 17, 2022, 07:45
I had two sales today do far and I couldn't see what the other photo was. It said 2 but ut inly showed one. Then in the column to the right there it was. Contributor fund 0.58 😳have an $11,05 one
it messes up the App.
On Monthly summary it adds a Download and the amount in the total, but when you click on the Day specifics the download is counted but not the Dollar amount.
ie,
Month Summary Dec 17 3 ↓ $11.27
Day Specific page Dec 17 3 ↓ $0.22 (and only 2 images showing)
It could be that their system requires a download to be assigned to a payment in order to be posted. So the Contributor fund payment gets a fictitious download assigned to allow it to process.
Post by: fotoroad on December 17, 2022, 07:50
Post by: Artist on December 17, 2022, 08:05
Post by: mino216 on December 17, 2022, 08:38
Will these royalties be ongoing for Ai images licensed where our work was used for machine learning?
It is understandable. These are the images used to train various AI systems or for generating images using AI and that can include hundreds of your images. I cannot imagine how to present such information in any reasonable way. Probably majority (if not all) of your images were used to train some AI system. Every image can contribute, so this can represent thousands of various sales.
Post by: Reimar on December 17, 2022, 08:43
Everybody should check - $58.37 just got added to my account.
Nice!
I just got $12. If this is consistent on a biweekly basis, it will make a difference. I hope it's not a one-time thing.
Post by: kevinbrine on December 17, 2022, 08:54
Post by: ch000 on December 17, 2022, 09:06
Post by: Schadenfreude on December 17, 2022, 09:47
Post by: Doctor Trivago on December 17, 2022, 10:51
Post by: Wilm on December 17, 2022, 11:10
Does anyone know if the "Contributor Fund" money is subject to the Earning Schedule/Levels? Will this also reset in January?
This is a valid question, which also shows that the communication on the part of shutterstock is abysmal.
The downloads from the Contributor Fund are counted. Presumably, this is why these revenues are also reduced at the beginning of the year.
In the case I described, however, it is relatively unimportant. It was once said that there would be no remuneration lower than $ 0.10 - regardless of the level.
Whether you get $ 0.03 at level 1, or as in my case $ 0.07 at level 5, it doesn't matter. With the other incomes mentioned here it plays a role of course.
Post by: cascoly on December 17, 2022, 14:09
that's more than AS earns in a month - except for the annual(?) addition to free collection
these 'extras' from canva,AS & now SS really make a difference in the bottom line
Post by: ouatedeP on December 17, 2022, 15:13
Does anyone know if the "Contributor Fund" money is subject to the Earning Schedule/Levels? Will this also reset in January?
This is a valid question, which also shows that the communication on the part of shutterstock is abysmal.
The downloads from the Contributor Fund are counted. Presumably, this is why these revenues are also reduced at the beginning of the year.
In the case I described, however, it is relatively unimportant. It was once said that there would be no remuneration lower than $ 0.10 - regardless of the level.
Whether you get $ 0.03 at level 1, or as in my case $ 0.07 at level 5, it doesn't matter. With the other incomes mentioned here it plays a role of course.
what also counts is how they are treated in regards to number of download to reach levels. If my images were used to create 17 different generated AI sales i should get a count of 17.
Post by: Diana Herrmann on December 18, 2022, 03:27
Well, some good news, I guess. I wrote to SS and asked about opting out of the CF. A little fluffy in her response but here it is.
"Thanks for reaching out to Shutterstock Contributor Care.
We sincerely appreciate your business trajectory since 2007 with us and with great pleasure would be attending to all of your inquiries and request.
Allow me to start by thanking you for having brought this to our attention; I realize the importance of this matter for you. I have reached out to our Higher Office in regard to your request, and they have confirmed that, in the coming weeks, our Tech Team will introduce a way for all contributors to opt out of having their content included in datasets. Until then, your patience is much appreciated.
If there's anything else you need from us or if you have any additional concerns regarding this, please let me know; It's always a pleasure to assist you.
Wishing you a lovely rest of your day and with warm regards,
Daniela
Shutterstock Contributor Care Team"
It's amazing that something is made possible for buyers without any problems, but at the same time it takes weeks for you to be able to undo it as a contributor.
I can't see any appreciation of the contributors here. On the contrary.
I feel appreciated. I made more on Contributor Fund this month than subs.
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 18, 2022, 12:16
had to scroll way over - found $112 there today
that's more than AS earns in a month - except for the annual(?) addition to free collection
these 'extras' from canva,AS & now SS really make a difference in the bottom line
I'm enjoying the extra Christmas bonus, I wonder how these are figured or where the numbers come from. One time use, one per use amount, will there be more next month, or what?
It could be that their system requires a download to be assigned to a payment in order to be posted. So the Contributor fund payment gets a fictitious download assigned to allow it to process.
My guess too, it's just a marker saying "we added a payment". 1 = whatever. Mine is $37.50 which beats DT for the whole year. 375 images used? ::)
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on December 19, 2022, 09:47
Post by: oscarcwilliams on December 19, 2022, 10:19
Post by: mindoozas on December 19, 2022, 10:27
Last Friday
Post by: UPLOAD-UPLOAD-UPLOAD on December 19, 2022, 10:53
(https://i.ibb.co/804Wzyh/Screenshot-2022-12-19-at-17-26-47.png) (https://imgbb.com/)Beat me by $2.00
Last Friday
Nice extra income.
Post by: gnirtS on December 20, 2022, 11:08
Quote
our Tech Team will introduce a way for all contributors to opt out of having their content included in datasets
So they'll slow and delay any changes until all the data they need has already been used to train the AI and then pretend they care.
Due to the dashboard seemingly being designed by an 8 year old with no UI/web experience i wasn't aware this column even existed until i saw this thread and went on a sideways scrolling marathon.
Post by: Reimar on December 20, 2022, 11:41
If that's all we get for 6 months of usage, it is very underwhelming.
Post by: Wilm on December 20, 2022, 15:42
Post by: ouatedeP on December 20, 2022, 17:21
Got another $ 0.36. So alltogether I have made an impressing $ 0.43. Yeah!
so much for once every 6 month.
Post by: stocker2011 on December 20, 2022, 17:34
Post by: ch000 on December 20, 2022, 17:41
Post by: Jaggy on December 20, 2022, 18:54
Post by: Her Ugliness on December 21, 2022, 00:29
Post by: Just_to_inform_people2 on December 21, 2022, 00:54
Post by: Wilm on December 21, 2022, 04:25
Post by: Roscoe on December 21, 2022, 06:35
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.
Post by: lowbouncerate on December 21, 2022, 06:55
Post by: Reimar on December 21, 2022, 09:34
I'm not sure what they meant. SS talks about "data deals" and "ongoing revenue" of which earnings will be released every 6 months.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.
But over the last week, I've had 3 payments totaling $18.
Post by: Mrblues101 on December 21, 2022, 11:46
In the case of a possible apocalypse by robots and AI, we must send a congregation made up of those who receive the most money in the contributor column, to conduct peace negotiations.
Post by: cosus on December 21, 2022, 11:54
...It isn't a payment for generating an image, it's a payment for when our images are used in datasets to train artificial intelligence systems. The payments that are issued now are for the previous year. There was an email sent to contributor last year which mentioned it and also in the one about the ai image submission policy a couple of months ago although it was only mentioned briefly. . There is more information on this here.
https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Shutterstock-ai-and-Computer-Vision-Contributor-FAQ
Unfortunately there isn't a way to opt out of using images and metadata for this type of use yet, but Shutterstock will be adding this to the account settigs page in the new year.
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 21, 2022, 13:45
Also had another one yesterday. Not sure about the "every 6 month" thing.
Thanks, at least I know this wasn't a one time deal. Or maybe "The payments that are issued now are for the previous year." just a catch up bit of accounting for last year and then, we can wait six months. All guesses and SS doesn't even tell their own "experts" and surely doesn't tell us.
"Unfortunately there isn't a way to opt out of using images and metadata for this type of use yet, but Shutterstock will be adding this to the account settings page in the new year."
I don't care, the images are already out in the wild and have been used. Horse is out of the barn.
But for people who do care, the notice, after the fact, and that they can opt out next year, will probably make them happy. (that's sarcastic)
Post by: ouatedeP on December 22, 2022, 10:48
I'm not sure what they meant.
so typical SS communication
Post by: offisapup on December 22, 2022, 11:31
This is the key in my opinion. Probably means the more images you have and the more diverse they are, the more you get.
Post by: Mrblues101 on December 22, 2022, 13:09
Post by: wds on December 22, 2022, 13:16
Post by: Jaggy on December 22, 2022, 17:27
Post by: Reimar on December 22, 2022, 18:03
Post by: Mrblues101 on December 22, 2022, 19:46
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.
Post by: alvarobueno on December 23, 2022, 02:50
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on December 23, 2022, 04:33
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.
Post by: TortoiseProductions on December 23, 2022, 12:10
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.
Post by: wds on December 23, 2022, 18:54
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?
Post by: Reimar on December 23, 2022, 19:01
No images were "purchased". Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content. So yes, more than one "asset".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?
Post by: Mrblues101 on December 23, 2022, 20:37
No images were "purchased". Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content. So yes, more than one "asset".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?
Exactly, the portfolio that took us a lifetime to make was used to make our profession obsolete.
Welcome to the future.
Post by: wds on December 23, 2022, 22:56
No images were "purchased". Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content. So yes, more than one "asset".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?
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.
Post by: ouatedeP on December 24, 2022, 07:02
No images were "purchased". Parts of our collections were used in training AI in generating new content. So yes, more than one "asset".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?
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.
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 24, 2022, 11:31
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?
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on December 25, 2022, 02:50
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.
Post by: Jens G on December 27, 2022, 05:21
"Contrubutor Fund" sales are reported in the numbers, but are not shown in the details.
Post by: Lowls on December 27, 2022, 13:23
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.
Post by: sgoodwin4813 on December 27, 2022, 20:59
Post by: Year of the Dog on December 28, 2022, 08:34
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.
Post by: Mrblues101 on December 28, 2022, 22:02
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???
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 29, 2022, 12:08
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. (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. "
Post by: cascoly on December 29, 2022, 15:16
...
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?
Don’t be surprised if you can’t always tell."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/26/upshot/chatgpt-child-essays.html (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
Post by: Mrblues101 on December 29, 2022, 16:18
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. (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.
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 30, 2022, 11:42
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
Post by: changingsky on December 31, 2022, 06:02
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.I was scratching my head to find it and just did before I read this comment. Where did these people learn web design? Awful!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
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 #$@ 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.
Post by: ouatedeP on December 31, 2022, 07:21
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.
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 31, 2022, 12:29
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.
Post by: Mrblues101 on December 31, 2022, 13:59
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.
Exactly, in the same way your brain changes when you read a book and you learn about globalization (for example) being able to talk about it, or write about it, but without this meaning that you are infringing the copyright of the original book. You learn about something, and now you are able to create something new by using the new learning.
This is how machine learning works, and law now understand that new creations by AI based on machine learning, owe nothing to the elements they have used to learn.
Post by: Zero Talent on January 01, 2023, 14:15
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.
Exactly, in the same way your brain changes when you read a book and you learn about globalization (for example) being able to talk about it, or write about it, but without this meaning that you are infringing the copyright of the original book. You learn about something, and now you are able to create something new by using the new learning.
This is how machine learning works, and law now understand that new creations by AI based on machine learning, owe nothing to the elements they have used to learn.
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created.
There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content.
This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content.
This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
Post by: cascoly on January 01, 2023, 14:30
...bold added
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created.
There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content.
This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content.
This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
that's a strawman argument - no training set contains only a 'few' images, and no 'elements' of any image is copied. that's just not how ML works
Post by: Zero Talent on January 01, 2023, 19:51
...bold added
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created.
There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content.
This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content.
This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
that's a strawman argument - no training set contains only a 'few' images, and no 'elements' of any image is copied. that's just not how ML works
I know how ML works (using several variants in my daily job).
So how can you tell the number of elements used to train a specific request, without being involved in the algorithm development? What you say may be true only if there a minimum threshold for the training set, a threshold beyond which individual image characteristics are fading away.
You have to know it, before making such statements.
If such threshold doesn't exist, some requests may simply plagiarize the few images used to respond to that query.
If there is only one image describing, let's say a clown, in the training set, then it's very likely that all queries requesting clowns will plagiarize that unique clown image, because that's the only thing the algorithm has learned about clowns.
Post by: cascoly on January 01, 2023, 21:02
...bold added
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created.
There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content.
This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content.
This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
that's a strawman argument - no training set contains only a 'few' images, and no 'elements' of any image is copied. that's just not how ML works
I know how ML works (using several variants in my daily job).
So how can you tell the number of elements used to train a specific request, without being involved in the algorithm development? What you say may be true only if there a minimum threshold for the training set, a threshold beyond which individual image characteristics are fading away.
You have to know it, before making such statements.
If such threshold doesn't exist, some requests may simply plagiarize the few images used to respond to that query.
If there is only one image describing, let's say a clown, in the training set, then it's very likely that all queries requesting clowns will plagiarize that unique clown image, because that's the only thing the algorithm has learned about clowns.
still setting up strawmen for your arguments - how about a real-life example of a request that won't have hundreds if not many thousands of images it's been trained on? simple way would be to find any search on SS that has < 100 images & then ask dall-e et al for that.
SS has 200,000,000 images for their training set - web scrapers can have many more (one recent example claimed 2 billion) so the chances of your scenario are pretty small and no one has been able to demonstrate this sort of result.
Post by: Zero Talent on January 01, 2023, 23:49
...bold added
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created.
There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content.
This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content.
This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
that's a strawman argument - no training set contains only a 'few' images, and no 'elements' of any image is copied. that's just not how ML works
I know how ML works (using several variants in my daily job).
So how can you tell the number of elements used to train a specific request, without being involved in the algorithm development? What you say may be true only if there a minimum threshold for the training set, a threshold beyond which individual image characteristics are fading away.
You have to know it, before making such statements.
If such threshold doesn't exist, some requests may simply plagiarize the few images used to respond to that query.
If there is only one image describing, let's say a clown, in the training set, then it's very likely that all queries requesting clowns will plagiarize that unique clown image, because that's the only thing the algorithm has learned about clowns.
still setting up strawmen for your arguments - how about a real-life example of a request that won't have hundreds if not many thousands of images it's been trained on? simple way would be to find any search on SS that has < 100 images & then ask dall-e et al for that.
SS has 200,000,000 images for their training set - web scrapers can have many more (one recent example claimed 2 billion) so the chances of your scenario are pretty small and no one has been able to demonstrate this sort of result.
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".
I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.
The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.
When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
Post by: cascoly on January 02, 2023, 17:22
you obviously don't know what a strawman argument is...
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".
I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.
The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.
When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
you made a silly, irrelevant claim, so it IS your responsibility to at least give an example of a phrase that would only find one artist's images out of 300,000,000
i actually did do a search for 'shaman puri india' - on SS 26 of only 27 are mine; google images show mine as 22 of first 25. then i used that phrase in DALL-E and it gave 4 completely different images, none of which remotely resembled mine in sadhu or temple bkgd
and when i required Puri in the google search, it showed only 30 images total, 17 of mine. one of the images was a map of korea, one retail ad for a box of sp.ices and 2 others w no shaman at all
your turn!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Zero Talent on January 02, 2023, 22:54
you obviously don't know what a strawman argument is...
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".
I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.
The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.
When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
you made a silly, irrelevant claim, so it IS your responsibility to at least give an example of a phrase that would only find one artist's images out of 300,000,000
i actually did do a search for 'shaman puri india' - on SS 26 of only 27 are mine; google images show mine as 22 of first 25. then i used that phrase in DALL-E and it gave 4 completely different images, none of which remotely resembled mine in sadhu or temple bkgd
and when i required Puri in the google search, it showed only 30 images total, 17 of mine. one of the images was a map of korea, one retail ad for a box of sp.ices and 2 others w no shaman at all
your turn!!!!!!!!!!!
"Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps".
This is very much applicable in science when you want to validate a hypothesis.
The fact that you found 1, 2, 10, or 1,000 examples matching it, is not sufficient to make it a theory.
One single counter-example is enough to disprove it.
You have no idea if your images were even used by the algorithm when you did your isolated "experiments" (which is rather likely to be true, since its output was garbage)
My advice for those who have niche images (maybe even for you with your rather unique temple) is to opt out of the AI training deal, as soon as it will become possible, so the customers have no other option but to buy from you and delay as long as possible the competition from AI on your unique topics.
Post by: Lowls on January 03, 2023, 08:09
There is an image of a flower and it is the only image of that flower on SS. Don't know why but it is. II'll happily send a link to the image to help support an argument ... when I get $20.00.you obviously don't know what a strawman argument is...
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".
I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.
The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.
When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
you made a silly, irrelevant claim, so it IS your responsibility to at least give an example of a phrase that would only find one artist's images out of 300,000,000
i actually did do a search for 'shaman puri india' - on SS 26 of only 27 are mine; google images show mine as 22 of first 25. then i used that phrase in DALL-E and it gave 4 completely different images, none of which remotely resembled mine in sadhu or temple bkgd
and when i required Puri in the google search, it showed only 30 images total, 17 of mine. one of the images was a map of korea, one retail ad for a box of sp.ices and 2 others w no shaman at all
your turn!!!!!!!!!!!
"Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps".
This is very much applicable in science when you want to validate a hypothesis.
The fact that you found 1, 2, 10, or 1,000 examples matching it, is not sufficient to make it a theory.
One single counter-example is enough to disprove it.
You have no idea if your images were even used by the algorithm when you did your isolated "experiments" (which is rather likely to be true, since its output was garbage)
My advice for those who have niche images (maybe even for you with your rather unique temple) is to opt out of the AI training deal, as soon as it will become possible, so the customers have no other option but to buy from you and delay as long as possible the competition from AI on your unique topics.
Post by: stoker2014 on January 03, 2023, 09:15
What is the "Contributor Fund" column in the Shutterstock "Earnings Summary"?You will only be paid once every six months. :(
The more people refuse, the more money you can earn from it.
Post by: Diana Herrmann on January 03, 2023, 11:01
There is an image of a flower and it is the only image of that flower on SS. Don't know why but it is. II'll happily send a link to the image to help support an argument ... when I get $20.00.you obviously don't know what a strawman argument is...
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".
I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.
The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.
When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
you made a silly, irrelevant claim, so it IS your responsibility to at least give an example of a phrase that would only find one artist's images out of 300,000,000
i actually did do a search for 'shaman puri india' - on SS 26 of only 27 are mine; google images show mine as 22 of first 25. then i used that phrase in DALL-E and it gave 4 completely different images, none of which remotely resembled mine in sadhu or temple bkgd
and when i required Puri in the google search, it showed only 30 images total, 17 of mine. one of the images was a map of korea, one retail ad for a box of sp.ices and 2 others w no shaman at all
your turn!!!!!!!!!!!
"Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps".
This is very much applicable in science when you want to validate a hypothesis.
The fact that you found 1, 2, 10, or 1,000 examples matching it, is not sufficient to make it a theory.
One single counter-example is enough to disprove it.
You have no idea if your images were even used by the algorithm when you did your isolated "experiments" (which is rather likely to be true, since its output was garbage)
My advice for those who have niche images (maybe even for you with your rather unique temple) is to opt out of the AI training deal, as soon as it will become possible, so the customers have no other option but to buy from you and delay as long as possible the competition from AI on your unique topics.
Make an AI image of that flower and if it's the same, then you have an example. If it's different you prove that AI doesn't steal and copy.
Post by: cascoly on January 03, 2023, 14:31
you're making my case for me! i never claimed there was NO possibility, but it's extremely unlikely and you shouldn't skip those nice spring days! you're throwing out an entire new tool because of something that that's unlikely to happen in our lifetime - hence homme de pailleyou obviously don't know what a strawman argument is...
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".
I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.
The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.
When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
you made a silly, irrelevant claim, so it IS your responsibility to at least give an example of a phrase that would only find one artist's images out of 300,000,000
i actually did do a search for 'shaman puri india' - on SS 26 of only 27 are mine; google images show mine as 22 of first 25. then i used that phrase in DALL-E and it gave 4 completely different images, none of which remotely resembled mine in sadhu or temple bkgd
and when i required Puri in the google search, it showed only 30 images total, 17 of mine. one of the images was a map of korea, one retail ad for a box of sp.ices and 2 others w no shaman at all
your turn!!!!!!!!!!!
"Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps".
This is very much applicable in science when you want to validate a hypothesis.
The fact that you found 1, 2, 10, or 1,000 examples matching it, is not sufficient to make it a theory.
One single counter-example is enough to disprove it.
you're also distorting the argument - if your theory won't survive 1 odd result, then it is a poor theory - but that's never been the case here.
Quote
You have no idea if your images were even used by the algorithm when you did your isolated "experiments" (which is rather likely to be true, since its output was garbage)again, making my point - you have yet to even suggest a possible phrase that would use only 1 artist's images. even if you enter an image for the ai, the result will not match the original!
re 'garbage' - not sure what you mean since you didn't see my result - my results were pretty decent, tho i dont usually ask for a photo, just illustrations. did you h ave different results? or are you just making it up as you go along?
Quote
My advice for those who have niche images (maybe even for you with your rather unique temple) is to opt out of the AI training deal, as soon as it will become possible, so the customers have no other option but to buy from you and delay as long as possible the competition from AI on your unique topics.
actually the reason i chose that phrase was because i thought it highly unlikely anyone would ever use that phrase & it had so few results on SS. (the phrase came to mind since i had recently blogged on this experience)
instead people are more likely to find it thru more generic tags like 'hindu shaman' (most of mine still on 1st page of 6
Post by: Zero Talent on January 03, 2023, 14:56
you're making my case for me! i never claimed there was NO possibility, but it's extremely unlikely and you shouldn't skip those nice spring days! you're throwing out an entire new tool because of something that that's unlikely to happen in our lifetime - hence homme de paille
you're also distorting the argument - if your theory won't survive 1 odd result, then it is a poor theory - but that's never been the case here.
Then we are talking about the same thing and there is no strawman argument.
The only difference is that while you belive that the plagiarism exceptions (you admit possible) are harmless, I believe that they have a real chance to lead to lawsuits.
This is most likely, why SS is planning to obtain the contributors' consent, before allowing further use of their images in AI training. They want to cover their a@@ and prevent plagiarism accusations, when those exceptions (you admit possible) will happen.
PS. The output was garbage because you said that none of the results represented the unique image you tried to compare it against. So a customer attempting to create that unique image via AI will fail and will have no option but to buy it directly from you.
Post by: Anita Potter on January 04, 2023, 06:43
;D
Post by: cascoly on January 04, 2023, 13:53
This is most likely, why SS is planning to obtain the contributors' consent, before allowing further use of their images in AI training. They want to cover their a@@ and prevent plagiarism accusations, when those exceptions (you admit possible) will happen.
that's not what they said - they already trained on their existing dataset. they said they might give a way to opt out of FUTURE inclusion
Quote
PS. The output was garbage because you said that none of the results represented the unique image you tried to compare it against. So a customer attempting to create that unique image via AI will fail and will have no option but to buy it directly from you.
that's not what i said! since you refused to back up your claim, i did a quick test using a phrase that used mostly my images on SS, and highly placed images on google. according to your untested claims, that might result in i mages that clearly violated my copyright - as i reported - none of the results looked like mine, BUT they did show a shaman in India which was what was asked for - rather than garbage, the algorithm performed just as it should, not as you predicted
Post by: Zero Talent on January 04, 2023, 15:58
some final comments
This is most likely, why SS is planning to obtain the contributors' consent, before allowing further use of their images in AI training. They want to cover their a@@ and prevent plagiarism accusations, when those exceptions (you admit possible) will happen.
that's not what they said - they already trained on their existing dataset. they said they might give a way to opt out of FUTURE inclusionQuotePS. The output was garbage because you said that none of the results represented the unique image you tried to compare it against. So a customer attempting to create that unique image via AI will fail and will have no option but to buy it directly from you.
that's not what i said! since you refused to back up your claim, i did a quick test using a phrase that used mostly my images on SS, and highly placed images on google. according to your untested claims, that might result in i mages that clearly violated my copyright - as i reported - none of the results looked like mine, BUT they did show a shaman in India which was what was asked for - rather than garbage, the algorithm performed just as it should, not as you predicted
Everybody is learning, not just the AI! :)
If maybe SS was of your opinion initially (i.e. there is no legal risk in producing the plagiarism exceptions), now they realised that such possibilities do exist (as you also admited), and they want to be covered legaly.
So they switched from your opinion to mine ;D!
As I said before, you don't know how the algorithm works, you don't know if all images, or only a subset was used for AI training, you don't know if there is any sample threshold required before the algo is responding to a query, etc, etc, etc.
Your isolated experiment is proving nothing, hence "Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps". ;)
In theory, and probably also in practice, the more this algo will be used, the higher the chance for those plagiarism examples to pop-up.
That's what SS realised (most probably), and they want to be ready for it.
See? No "strawman argument", just you making unverified assumptions and jumping to conclusions! ;D
Post by: DeStock on January 17, 2023, 17:06
Does any know how the calculation is made?
Scenario 1) Is it a % of the total of deal made by Shutterstock for licensing their images for training divided by the number of images and then distributed as a pro rata of who has what amount of images?
For example, with the deal made with Meta. Meta pays SS $100,000 for the one-time right to use 406 million images for a training set. SS keeps 70% and uses $30,000 to pay contributors based on the amount of images they have in that 406 million.
Scenario 2) Or is it a fixed fee based on the amount of images . Whatever SS gets from a deal, contributor always gets paid same amount ( doesn't seem like it)
It would be interesting to know what is the value of an image when it is used for training and if it's more ( or less) than for a download.
Post by: cascoly on January 18, 2023, 13:58
...whatever the scenario it's going to be tiny - I did some quick calcs earlier ( $ rec'd/portfolio size), but no one else posted their estimates, so no way to know if my theory was correct.
For example, with the deal made with Meta. Meta pays SS $100,000 for the one-time right to use 406 million images for a training set. SS keeps 70% and uses $30,000 to pay contributors based on the amount of images they have in that 406 million.
Scenario 2) Or is it a fixed fee based on the amount of images . Whatever SS gets from a deal, contributor always gets paid same amount ( doesn't seem like it)
It would be interesting to know what is the value of an image when it is used for training and if it's more ( or less) than for a download.
using your figures, payment from a Meta deal would be .00025 cents/image - slightly less than what we get for a download!
Post by: Zero Talent on February 01, 2023, 22:09
https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
"In this work, we demonstrate that state-of-the-art diffusion models do memorize and regenerate individual training examples"
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on February 01, 2023, 23:14
Post by: cobalt on February 02, 2023, 01:16
Following up on the arguments around the risks of AI plagiarism debated above, here is an interesting paper (check the pdf in the link):
https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
"In this work, we demonstrate that state-of-the-art diffusion models do memorize and regenerate individual training examples"
Things like these and European data protection laws…fun times ahead…
I like that ss is compensating artists, but it must be clear that all training files are properly licensed
Post by: Uncle Pete on February 03, 2023, 14:46
Stable Diffusion, as the kids are fond of saying... did her dirty.
Not enough examples for proper training data. Besides they shouldn't be doing photo realistic images of specific real people!
Post by: Reimar on July 13, 2023, 10:28
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.
Well, since a payment in December 2022, now June 2023 has past and still no additional Contributor funds. Are they late? Did SS change their minds?
Post by: Roscoe on July 13, 2023, 10:44
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.
Well, since a payment in December 2022, now June 2023 has past and still no additional Contributor funds. Are they late? Did SS change their minds?
I got a payment in May 2023, and a lot of others did so too if I'm not mistaken.
Post by: Reimar on July 13, 2023, 17:34
Post by: Shuttershock on July 14, 2023, 07:44
Thanks Roscoe, I forgot about that. I got $40 in May too. So I guess the next one will in time for my birthday early November.
Tell SS its your birthday for a bonus ;)
Post by: synthetick on October 24, 2023, 17:11
Post by: JustAnImage on October 25, 2023, 05:39
New contributor fund payment is showing up today.Oh, how do you know - do you have an amount there yet? I don't have anything in the Shutterstock sales overview yet.
Post by: synthetick on October 25, 2023, 06:03
Post by: JustAnImage on October 25, 2023, 06:13
Yes I have an amount in Contributor Fund on October 24. It is about 40% down on the previous payment, which I guess is not surprising given the overall slump in SS sales as well as their mediocre implementation of AI.Interesting and thanks for letting us know!
I still do not have a contributor fund in my list - maybe this will come later today... anyone else with an amount there so far?
And yes, not really surprising the amount is going down.
Post by: synthetick on October 25, 2023, 06:29
Post by: JustAnImage on October 25, 2023, 06:35
You may have it but you need to scroll all the way to the right to see it. I think they deliberately make it hard to find.Thank you for the hint!
have checked it - nothing there :-)
Post by: synthetick on October 25, 2023, 06:36
Post by: Injustice for all on October 25, 2023, 06:59
anyway SS is waking up from hibernation,now the rain of sales is probably about to arrive,which generally for me lasts about a month or two and then goes back into hibernation for another 2-3 months.
during the seasonal rain of SS the number of sales suddenly goes up a lot and the price per image even,with good singles along the road.
Post by: synthetick on October 26, 2023, 05:03
Post by: Dimaximus on November 02, 2023, 10:31
Post by: yuriy on November 02, 2023, 11:08
I understand that they are not going to pay us in November?
and if they did, would it be $.10?
Post by: Dimaximus on November 02, 2023, 11:18
Post by: JustAnImage on November 02, 2023, 11:30
At least I hope that a payout will come, as the amount was quite good, at least for me.
Post by: Dimaximus on November 02, 2023, 12:19
Post by: Deyan Georgiev Photography on November 03, 2023, 07:27
I think that the situation there is not so good with AI
Let them just start accepting external AI generated images, they lose sales day to day. This will change hopefully soon.
Post by: Dimaximus on November 20, 2023, 01:08
Post by: sinandogan on December 04, 2023, 05:13
Post by: Dimaximus on December 06, 2023, 02:37
Post by: synthetick on December 06, 2023, 04:04
Post by: Dimaximus on December 06, 2023, 04:44
Post by: synthetick on December 06, 2023, 06:12
Post by: Dimaximus on December 06, 2023, 07:23
Post by: JustAnImage on December 11, 2023, 06:21
I wonder what they will say if you write to them for support, although I think they will say the standard phrase... we collect then we’ll payI asked the support team this question about the 6-month payout for the "Contributor Fund" and so far they haven't said anything about it.
But it's only been a good week - I think they'll just ignore the question.
Post by: ferdinand on December 11, 2023, 14:13
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 11, 2023, 14:30
how to contact SS? Contact us - on my home page dosen t work...
Go to another page? :) It works on most of them. https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/?language=en_US But I don't know if you are English, so that may not be helpful.
"Earnings from datasets and downloads of AI-generated content produced with integrated technology on our platform are pooled in a collective fund and will be distributed periodically as the fund accumulates significant revenue for distribution. If you have generated earnings from the fund, you will see those posted in your Earnings Summary, in the "Contributor Fund" column."
There's the answer? distributed periodically ;D
Post by: roidi on January 03, 2024, 06:27
Post by: Her Ugliness on January 03, 2024, 06:38
Has anyone recently been paid from the Contributor fund? The last time I did it was May 2023. It seems strange to me that since then not a single cent! :(
I am surprised people kept thinking they would get infinite and regular payments for this. Once an AI is trained, it's trained, it doesn't need your images every month or every couple of months. And the amount of new Ai image generators developers want to create is also not infinite, so your images will only be needed when someoen wants to develope a new product - and the big players in the game like DALL-E and Midjourney just scrap google foir images to train their AI anyways and don't pay for them on microstock agencies.
Post by: roidi on January 03, 2024, 07:03
Has anyone recently been paid from the Contributor fund? The last time I did it was May 2023. It seems strange to me that since then not a single cent! :(
I am surprised people kept thinking they would get infinite and regular payments for this. Once an AI is trained, it's trained, it doesn't need your images every month or every couple of months. And the amount of new Ai image generators developers want to create is also not infinite, so your images will only be needed when someoen wants to develope a new product - and the big players in the game like DALL-E and Midjourney just scrap google foir images to train their AI anyways and don't pay for them on microstock agencies.
Yes, I also think that AI once sucked Shutterstock and other agencies and why train again when it already has them all :(
Post by: mino216 on January 05, 2024, 16:49
I am surprised people kept thinking they would get infinite and regular payments for this. Once an AI is trained, it's trained, it doesn't need your images every month or every couple of months.
But it is totally obvious. Imagine yourself as Shutterstock. Would you offer these images forever? And never get any other money again? That would be financial suicide. You would offer them for some time period. The AI algorithms is developing as well, it needs more images, newer images,... you need to retrain the new AI model,...
For example, the Shutterstock's deal with OpenAI is for 6 years. After that, OpenAI has to licence the images again.
Post by: Her Ugliness on January 06, 2024, 02:17
For example, the Shutterstock's deal with OpenAI is for 6 years. After that, OpenAI has to licence the images again.
This means OpenAI will have access to new submitted photos for 6 years. After 6 years they will not get any new photos. There is no need to licence old photos that were already used to train their AI again.
Post by: Uncle Pete on January 06, 2024, 13:03
For example, the Shutterstock's deal with OpenAI is for 6 years. After that, OpenAI has to licence the images again.
This means OpenAI will have access to new submitted photos for 6 years. After 6 years they will not get any new photos. There is no need to licence old photos that were already used to train their AI again.
Herr Ugli Ness, see above. Yes, once used, we aren't needed, SS doesn't need to license again, and we get nothing. Only way I can see that any of us get more, is a second set, a specific need, new requests for only new images, and that kind of thing. The AI people may need to add to specific areas of the data set. That's about it.
Post by: mino216 on January 08, 2024, 10:54
For example, the Shutterstock's deal with OpenAI is for 6 years. After that, OpenAI has to licence the images again.
This means OpenAI will have access to new submitted photos for 6 years. After 6 years they will not get any new photos. There is no need to licence old photos that were already used to train their AI again.
They will need to licence them again, because they have licenced them for 6 years only. They have to retrain the system periodically including the old images. AI algorithms do not work so easily that you can just "add" the new stuff on something you already have. DALL-E 4 will use the same images to be trained on as DALL-E 3, it needs them again, and will have some new too. And if you do not have a licence to use the old images after X years, they will have to get the new licence even for the old ones.
Post by: Uncle Pete on January 09, 2024, 14:04
For example, the Shutterstock's deal with OpenAI is for 6 years. After that, OpenAI has to licence the images again.
This means OpenAI will have access to new submitted photos for 6 years. After 6 years they will not get any new photos. There is no need to licence old photos that were already used to train their AI again.
They will need to licence them again, because they have licenced them for 6 years only. They have to retrain the system periodically including the old images. AI algorithms do not work so easily that you can just "add" the new stuff on something you already have. DALL-E 4 will use the same images to be trained on as DALL-E 3, it needs them again, and will have some new too. And if you do not have a licence to use the old images after X years, they will have to get the new licence even for the old ones.
But they won't need the images again. The AI places don't care, because they don't need to use the images again. Just like what they scraped from the Internet. Once the image has been used for machine learning, it is not being used again.
What I'm saying is, the six year license is for training, not use. Once the training is done... we get nothing.
Post by: Roscoe on January 25, 2024, 09:44
Post by: rushay on January 25, 2024, 09:46
Almost missed it, but I saw a small fee from the contributor fund yesterday. Not even half of what we got in 2023.Same with me, it was peanuts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Jaggy on January 25, 2024, 11:59
Almost missed it, but I saw a small fee from the contributor fund yesterday. Not even half of what we got in 2023.
I got $1.40.
Off to buy the caviar and champagne in a few minutes.
Post by: trucic on January 27, 2024, 01:22
Post by: stoker2014 on January 27, 2024, 03:31
Post by: trucic on January 27, 2024, 03:34
Post by: Dimaximus on January 27, 2024, 03:53
Post by: synthetick on January 27, 2024, 05:19
Post by: Uncle Pete on January 27, 2024, 12:59
Most likely this is for 2023 everything that was included in the Datacatalog
Well I got nothing and some people got something.
Anyway, typical Shutterstock, no communication with contributors, so we are all just left scratching our heads about what period this covers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkcKQhtK/scratch.gif) 100% award for you!
Post by: [email protected] on January 30, 2024, 08:16
Post by: Dimaximus on January 30, 2024, 09:10
Post by: Her Ugliness on January 30, 2024, 12:55
Post by: mino216 on January 30, 2024, 13:30
But they won't need the images again. The AI places don't care, because they don't need to use the images again. Just like what they scraped from the Internet. Once the image has been used for machine learning, it is not being used again.
What I'm saying is, the six year license is for training, not use. Once the training is done... we get nothing.
They will. They will create new AI models and these models will need the images once again. How do you want to do that without these images? The new models will increase amount of parametres, will be trained to do more stuff that the old model was not trained to, you need these images to train it on. You cannot just use the previous model that will miraculously use the previously trained information in a completely new algorithm with new features. You do not need it for fine-tuning the algorithm, but in the six-year period, there will be at least 3, maybe even more totally new generations of models trained completely from scratch.
Post by: trucic on January 30, 2024, 14:04
Post by: sinandogan on February 01, 2024, 08:00
Post by: sinandogan on February 15, 2024, 08:36
Post by: Uncle Pete on February 15, 2024, 14:23
But they won't need the images again. The AI places don't care, because they don't need to use the images again. Just like what they scraped from the Internet. Once the image has been used for machine learning, it is not being used again.
What I'm saying is, the six year license is for training, not use. Once the training is done... we get nothing.
They will. They will create new AI models and these models will need the images once again. How do you want to do that without these images? The new models will increase amount of parametres, will be trained to do more stuff that the old model was not trained to, you need these images to train it on. You cannot just use the previous model that will miraculously use the previously trained information in a completely new algorithm with new features. You do not need it for fine-tuning the algorithm, but in the six-year period, there will be at least 3, maybe even more totally new generations of models trained completely from scratch.
That's good. I hope they do some new training and use something of mine. I haven't had a cent from the contributor fund since last year.
I have no video on SS anymore. That could explain things.
Post by: BT1976 on February 15, 2024, 15:43
I am joining from Turkey. I last received a participant fund payment in May 2023. I didn't buy it after that. Has anyone bought it recently?
I am also a Contributor from Turkey. The contributor fund was added to my account on January 29, 2024.
Post by: sinandogan on February 16, 2024, 03:26
I am joining from Turkey. I last received a participant fund payment in May 2023. I didn't buy it after that. Has anyone bought it recently?
I am also a Contributor from Turkey. The contributor fund was added to my account on January 29, 2024.
Are payments made to different people at different times? It's weird that I still haven't been paid.
Post by: synthetick on February 16, 2024, 05:05
Post by: JustAnImage on February 16, 2024, 08:55
Sora is the big news of the day, but I am interested to know if its training set comes from Shutterstock's videos as part of their partnership with OpenAI, and if there will be any adequate compensation in the Contributor fund.This question was also on my mind today... I would just guess that there will only be compensation, if at all, if someone finds out whether this was really done with Shutterstock data (and therefore with ours) and it then boils up high enough in the press.
It certainly won't come from Shutter itself and I'm also involved with about 4,000 videos there.
Let's see if something comes of it when the new system goes live.