Agency Based Discussion > Shutterstock.com

Shutterstock+AWS press release: your images as AI training data

<< < (2/2)

Roscoe:

--- Quote from: pancaketom on July 30, 2021, 13:13 ---I wonder if hidden in one of the changes to the TOS was something saying they could profit off our keywording (intellectual property) without paying us.

--- End quote ---

Aren't we already sharing our keywords, or allowing others to use our keywords, via the Shutterstock keyword suggestion tool?

Jo Ann Snover:

--- Quote from: Roscoe on July 31, 2021, 02:31 ---
Aren't we already sharing our keywords, or allowing others to use our keywords, via the Shutterstock keyword suggestion tool?

--- End quote ---

Shutterstock isn't charging buyers $10,000+ for 12 months access to the keyword tool. The issue here is them making money they don't share with the contributors who created the source material.

Roscoe:

--- Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 31, 2021, 15:06 ---Shutterstock isn't charging buyers $10,000+ for 12 months access to the keyword tool. The issue here is them making money they don't share with the contributors who created the source material.

--- End quote ---

If I'm not mistaken, there's noting mentioned how keywords are handled as intellectual property or how they can be subject to royalties. Initially, keywords are were meant to support the visibility of the content in the database, they had no other value. Developments of AI and the need to have big datasets to train algorithms changed that. Shutterstock is sitting on such a such a set of data. It would be foolish of them not trying to monetizing that opportunity. And it's a dick move to no share that revenue with the ones who built up that dataset: the contributors.

On the other hand, how much would we get? Let's say the Shutterstock database contains 400 million assets.
That means, on a 10.000$ deal, the keyword set per asset would be worth 0,000025$. If Shutterstock takes 85%, and gives 15% to the contributors... how much would be left?
It would require Shutterstock to sign a lot of those deals before contributors with big portfolio's that match the category restrictions start seeing some significant income from their...  keywording efforts.

I understand your point and agree that it's again a greedy move of a company that milks their sources dry. But I can only apathetically shrug my shoulders, and move on after yet another case of exploiting contributors.

gnirtS:
Garbage In - Garbage Out might be amusing here.

If they shovel in some of the non-reviewed, random rubbish complete with keyword spam then all bets are off what the AI will "learn" from that.

Machine learning is only as good as the quality of material its fed.

PokemonMaster:
I remember Pixta had a contract with AI training a few years ago.
1. Some contributors were offered to participate
2. For a small fee (it was not a final usage of the specific images on the client's side, that's why it was small)

As far as I remember, keyword sets and titles are intellectual property and it was treated like this before by SS. What's changed since then? They're just know we are going to swallow it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page