Can't say whether the promise of ease of use for the SS customer will play out in practice, but that's what SS claims to be offering - i.e. is the reason that you'd pay them a subscription to use Creative Flow and license the results versus buying credits with one of the AI generators and keeping your fingers crossed you don't get sued in a year or two.

Businesses are often risk averse (with things like image/video licensing) - hence the legal guarantee marketing pitch from a few years back - and would prefer to have a ready answer to anyone who claims they are ripping off the creators on content in the training database if they use AI-generated images. With SS's tools the customer can then say that they did the ethical thing (even if that's just PR drivel fed to them by SS).

From Paul Hennessey in that Tech Crunch article: �Our easy-to-use generative platform will transform the way people tell their stories � you no longer have to be a design expert or have access to a creative team to create exceptional work. Our tools are built on an ethical approach and on a library of assets that represents the diverse world we live in, and we ensure that the artists whose works contributed to the development of these models are recognized and rewarded.�

The Tech Crunch article points out "Again, though, the issue will be whether these payouts be anywhere near the compensation those artists and photographers might have gotten for supplying the images themselves.". The contributor fund results people reported from December suggest that the amounts are like Getty's Connect - minuscule.

In their press release, SS is emphasizing ease of use and convenience as reasons to pick them vs. do-it-yourself

https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-introduces-generative-ai-its-all-one-creative

While I was browsing Tech Crunch, I saw this article about more funding for a Berlin-based Canva competitor, Kittl - which is also very much a SS Creative Flow competitor in that Kittl has partnered with Unsplash for images so they are "free" with both the Free and Pro levels of Kittl

https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/26/this-startup-hopes-to-take-on-canva-raising-a-11-6m-series-a-for-its-design-platform/

If "good enough" designs and no-hassle "not that bad" images/illustrations slapped together by Canva, Creative Flow or Kittl or (any of the many other similar platforms currently out there) are the future, that really sidelines lots of creative professionals.

Look at SS's short video in their press release - "No time? No budget? No designer? No problem!"

And knowing shutterstock they will try and push their AI created art and price it at pennies. Contributors fund pennies might just become the new subscription sales with us looking forward to the ocassional 10c sale

I'm guessing video will be next, so we'll all have to figure out some next steps to ensure we stay afloat

I just trying to think at what point does it no longer become financially feasible to keep creating and uploading new content, although I know for many this has already become a reality with the 'race to the bottom'.

Personally about January 2014 but for an even more universal date, January 1st 2020 with the new terms and the first level resent. AI is just another hole in the bucket that doesn't hold much water as it is.

Motley Fool wrote a short, and largely positive, piece about Shutterstock's deal with OpenAI

https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/01/28/this-market-beating-stock-is-embracing-the-ai-gene

Stock is up today - whether because of investor optimism about the Open AI deal or something else I don't know. It's at $72.08 this afternoon - about $20 more than a month ago.

There was an SEC filing two weeks ago saying that John Caine will be Global Head of E-Commerce effective January 30, 2023. He came from Nerd Wallet, but before that was with Vroom (used car marketplace) - where the current SS CEO Paul Hennessy came from. They also both worked at Priceline in the early 2000s

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulhennessy1/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johncaine/

https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-host-investor-day-february-28-2023-extended-reality

Today's press release is about an investor-focused dog and pony show talking up all their latest stuff - their "vision, strategy and financial outlook" In person attendance is by invitation only, so probably contributors in the NYC area can't just drop by

I think it's interesting that this is "Investor Day" - not something focused on building the business or adding customers. I don't remember them doing a "Customer Day" or a "Contributor Day" at any point

Just got the email so I tried AI. Seems I could do endless requests, until I get something I wanted?

Here's what the output is:
Large�1024 � 1024 pixels
3 � 3 in�300 DPI�JPG
$2.90 10 pack, discounts for bigger packs, same as downloads.

They are selling 1024 square images for $2.90? 



And that's the watermark? Right click and save, it's a 1024 JPG, I just added websize for this post.

Select, content aware fill, brush the edges with the healing tool = free image.

The only good thing about AI is that artists can use it to create new (computer-aided) art, it can save time and increase quality, and open up ways for artists to visualize their ideas.

The downsides in the future:
- Oversupply of AI generated images/video, the market will become saturated if it hasn't already. What was once considered a genuine talent or hard work (in drawing, photography, painting or animation) will at some point be replaced by AI.
- The microstock industry will be disrupted, causing those who fall behind to go out of business due to oversupply/diminishing revenue; perhaps agencies will create their own collections, or together with a handful of contributors who have embraced AI as a tool.
- It will be more and more difficult to distinguish between 'real & handcrafted' vs 'computer generated'. (Although this is already a thing with cgi in general, like deepfakes). People might question the authenticity of a photo or artwork, i.e. is it the work of manual labor and talent or was it made by a computer? Is the person in a photo a real living person or AI-generated?

I think the AI trend is unstoppable, and every attempt to postpone it is futile. It's a matter of time before it's here and microstock industry (as well as other industries related to art) will change. The sooner we embrace it, the better. We should however make sure we get compensated fairly for the use of our work in this new technology.

I think there are way more downsides:

- For once, the amount of people who will do "real" artwork and photography will drastically decrease over time. What artist will sit down 20 hours+ painting a drawing, when no one will be willing to pay him for 20 hours of work, becaus an AI can generate it within 20 seconds at much cheaper costs? What phgotographer will buy expensive new lenses, lighting equipment, buy props and pay models, when it can be done within seconds without all of this? Real drawing and painting and photograpgy will become something people will do merely as a hobby - if at all, because...

- Devalue of work and appreciation of it. The appreciation for real talent and effort will go down. No one will be impressed with a real human made masterpiece anymore,  because we will see these really amazing looking AI generated images everywhere already and at some point will not even be impressed by that. I have watched the AI development closely and even in the very short period of time the reaction has already changed drastically. There are for example some Facebook groups where people post their AI "art". Only a few months ago these images were causing lots of reactions. "Wow, this looks amazing!", "What prompts did you use?" etc. Now there are hardly any reactions at all, not even lame like votes. People have become so used to it already, that they aren't amazed by it anymore. And that's a development I can already see after only a few months. Imagine how it will be in a few years? I have already seen some comments of people who posted in these groups who said it wasn't fun anymore, because "everyone could do it".

- Stereotypical learning of AIs. This is an issue that isn't new, because it has already been a problem with chat bots: They learn by human interactions and recreate it, including all the bad things like racism and sexism. I can already see it in AI as well. Especially in the fantasy drawing sector women are always over-sexualized with huge boobs and hardly any clothes. But it goes further. I just tried a AI series with an "AI replacing humans" theme where I described AI androids doing various human things: Playing socker, music instruments, wiorking at an office, cleaning a car, doing dishes - And, ooops, why do lots of the androids look like battle androids ready to go to war and the dishes clenaing androids have tiny cute noses, huge eyes, small waists and even small boobs? Gender stereotypes the AI has learned and will keep learning. It's difficult enough to get these stereotypes out of humans, it will be more difficult to get it out of AIs.

- The end of microstock. I don't think it will just "change", I think it will be completely gone, replaced by AI image generators.
I think for the near future customers might still rely on other people to create AI images for them, but as AIs advance and gets better at creating images (which happens an at incredible speed), they will not need that "middle man" step. Instead of going to a microstock site and entering "woman playing tennis" in the image serach bar, they will go to an AI image generator and enter "woman playing tennis" there. The middle man will be cut short and we will not longer be needed. Not as illustrators, not as photographers and certainly not as "AI image generators". I don't know how much time we have left, but everyone who really relies on microstock as in income should probably start looking for completely differet business options in the near future.

Today editorial photography is less profitable than commercial photography, also because of its reduced shelf life.

True, but my editorial photos only made like 5% of my income and my commercial ones 95%, so I don't really see how that's going to bring in enough income to live from, at least for me.

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 24, 2023, 09:06

Today editorial photography is less profitable than commercial photography, also because of its reduced shelf life.

True, but my editorial photos only made like 5% of my income and my commercial ones 95%, so I don't really see how that's going to bring in enough income to live from, at least for me.

but that's been the trend for years as MS agencies reduced royalties. anyone who expected to make a living just from ms should have been aware of this for many years.

funny how those decrying AI say AI generated art (no quotes!) is poor quality are saying they can't compete with it!

funny how those decrying AI say AI generated art (no quotes!) is poor quality are saying they can't compete with it!

Is that like some people complaining that uneducated, untrained people, coming into their country, are stealing their jobs and working for less? What does that say about the level of skill vs the wages? 

Yeah I get it. If AI is so bad, but it's stealing my downloads, and income, then what is my work?

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 24, 2023, 13:22

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 24, 2023, 09:06

Today editorial photography is less profitable than commercial photography, also because of its reduced shelf life.

True, but my editorial photos only made like 5% of my income and my commercial ones 95%, so I don't really see how that's going to bring in enough income to live from, at least for me.

but that's been the trend for years as MS agencies reduced royalties. anyone who expected to make a living just from ms should have been aware of this for many years.

funny how those decrying AI say AI generated art (no quotes!) is poor quality are saying they can't compete with it!

I am not saying it is poor quality. I am just sayig I can't compete with it.

(and I am also saying it is morally wrong, because it's based on stolen images/work, it is soulless and the actual human creativity involved is below 1%)