I am calling on all of us contributors to stop uploading new content to Adobe until they allow us to opt-out of their AI "Firefly" robbery.

If by January 1, 2025 they do not allow us to opt-out, I am calling on us to remove our entire portfolios. I will do it myself as well.

Pond5 and other agencies let us opt-out. Adobe must do the same!

Attached is what I submitted to Adobe Contributor Support. Feel free to copy what I wrote. Just swap out your account name.

https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/uk/Contact

Didn't work with Shutterstock and I don't think it will work now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJFgg31brQs

There is stocksy and other companies created to represent a group of talented artists and their interests.

Nobody is stopping you from creating your own collective group and be your own agency.

Exactly, the "stolen" sky of another artist is perfectly fine when it is useful for them. same for rainbows, a face swap, adding just a few flowers, just extending the image...

ai is just another tool like photoshop.

The only real artists are the actual painters, even film photography is already cheating...etc...pretending the world never changes doesn't keep your business going.

Opting out is an option at Shutterstock.

https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/How-do-I-make-my-content-unavailable-for-downloading?language=en_US

Didn't work with Shutterstock and I don't think it will work now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJFgg31brQs

This is not about me starting my own group. This is about RESPECT for our art. We already give these scumbags huge percentages on our blood and sweat. Fotobia or whatever . it is called now has gone too far by not allowing us to opt-out.

There is stocksy and other companies created to represent a group of talented artists and their interests.

Nobody is stopping you from creating your own collective group and be your own agency.

So then I suppose you should have no say over types of licensing? All of us should have the RIGHT to opt-out of this crap. Quit making excuses for a bloody monster corporation to take away your dignity to decide how they license your work. This ain't about your love affair with AI. It's about our rights as artists!

Exactly, the "stolen" sky of another artist is perfectly fine when it is useful for them. same for rainbows, a face swap, adding just a few flowers, just extending the image...

ai is just another tool like photoshop.

The only real artists are the actual painters, even film photography is already cheating...etc...pretending the world never changes doesn't keep your business going.

@trying

where were you when the discussions about ai started? Vou are like 18 months too late.

Just stick to shutterstock and the other agencies you prefer and avoid adobe. Very simple.

But then ALSO refuse to use modern versions of Photoshop or any other tool that uses ai, including the new cameras coming out with ai integrated, mobile phones with ai...

So don't be a hypocrite.

What you are actually looking for is an excuse for dropping sales. Many are blaming it on ai and the flood of new contributors.

The new high volume incoming does have an effect, yes.

But at the same time you keep seeing people who really focus on sales increase their income.

Some with real video only, some with normal photos, some only ai, some with a mix.

The industry just survived the bigger threat of "agencies" offering content for free.

We are still here, we still make money.

Obviously feel free to try and get a revolution going, but in general people have moved on from the ai discussion and made up their mind about it.

The industry offers plenty of choices in companies to work with.

Good luck with your journey, I am back to processing files, both real images and video as well as ai.

These corporations thrive off of apathy when they exploit us. We are already underpaid. We should fight, no matter how impossible the odds.

This whole AI art is disgusting. It makes people think they cannot create anything good. I can see it a mile away. I like the flaws in my work. I like the flaws in others' work. It makes us uniquely human. I don't need AI to make art or write. I certainly don't want my work being used to "train" a monster.

Regarding software and microstock, I use it as a tool to manifest what I sketch on paper into scalable art (and music). Not for content creation.

I completely agree with you. AI is a despicable technological turning point, just that machines ingest human creation and regurgitate it in the form of digital vomit. But alas, this forum is almost exclusively frequented by AI fans, who suddenly feel like competent artists, whereas before... The opponents have left this forum for the most part, and I understand them well.

For my part, I have blocked the profiles that only express a permanent pro-AI logorrhea, because the discussion is futile.

The only effect of expressing a divergent opinion can only make one feel alone and powerless.

Otherwise, it is true that you are arriving late, because it seems to me that the games are almost over.

Here are some quotes from myself, from useless not so useful messages

But what a shame, it is the worst humiliation that competence, art and reality are so despised. They have no qualms about despising photographers because with AI, they feel they no longer need them.
And very soon, they will no longer need the prompting sheep either.
Apart from the technological revolution (or rather extermination) aspect, it is also the advent of a new human generation without much qualms, having misled certain values.
Many good, honest, professional and competent people have deserted this forum which has given great room to this new generation of prompters (sometimes former photographers without talent) who consider that experienced photographers are has-beens. Because today, to be competent, you don't need an eye, extraordinary patience, decades of practice, exceptional equipment... you just need a sofa and a keyboard. But this couch will be very soon the most radical ejection seat for them

For my part, after 20 years, I have never produced so much quality, and I persist, without AI of course.

After the incredible raid they carried out on their contributors (mediocre photographers can rest assured, they are not affected), the only law for them: greed and cupidity.
Now, they prefer to sell this:

https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=only&k=storm+landscape+sky+lightning&order=relevance&price%5B%24%5D=1&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=filter-select&acp=&aco=storm+landscape+sky+lightning&get_facets=1

The AI generation is the dream for incompetent, lazy people who don't even have respect for the word "artist", who were previously only capable of producing photographic craps. Even ignorant kids play to destroy this previous world by using these new technological toys without even having to leave their room, under the watchful eye of their parents who see them as little geniuses.
But soon, they will wake up from this dream of easy money and realize that they have been the tool of these technologies which will shamelessly eject them from the production chain.

edit: My joke of the day: Do you want hands with 5 fingers? well, write in your AI prompt to generate 4-fingered hands ... 

You talk about faith and you assume a conspiracy theory. Of course, most here use AI generation and have lost all objectivity. Many with divergent opinions have left this forum or no longer express themselves. 
What about facts and ethics?
I(we) would NEVER have sold rights to use my(our) photograhies to feed machine learning. Adobe forced me(us) by giving money, to infringe my(our) copyrights on MY(our) own images. It seems to me that no choice was offered to refuse this money. In this way, they can suggest a mutual understanding, in possible legal procedures, and claim to act ethically.
Do you consider this ethical, really?
'Firefly Contributor Bonus'... Firefly or Fireburn?
because Adobe paid us for the match and the gasoline that will be used to make us take off high... as Fireflies...

Talent accessible to all, without learning, without effort, immediately and without singularity.
The reward right away, but without all the steps that precede it. False satisfaction, because true satisfaction comes at the end of error and effort.
Skill is no longer necessary, everyone can. We advocate diversity but in the same time kill authenticity.
The reign of the artificial, without truth, without soul.
We even reprogram the values. And most humans with software from another time are silent, the ignorants express themselves so much everywhere.
But machines amalgamate and regurgitate, they do not and will never create anything (except the abyss into which humans collapse with joy). 

We share the same goal, earn a livelihood. And I revised my expectations significantly downwards.
Realize that you kill yourself your own future (and other's) using AI. See you in a near future with more complaints, since I've got ideas about what this leads to, since AI will be soon autonomic. Of course, one could argue that if you don't do it yourself, others will do (Only sheep expect others to act like sheep too) However, I remain convinced that I made the right choice not to provide ANY AI generated fake photo IMAGE (Because yes, they are not photographs, even though the platforms sell them as such).
 
My portfolios are in no way polluted by these images and they will perhaps be spared during the big clean-up (who will come in his time, whether by deleting certain contributor accounts or by the eviction of their images by algorithms, which will lead to the same), since for me, a photograph is a subject (often living), a real place, an existing moment, even the memory of an event, the transmission for the future, the reflection of the organic, a skill resulting from long training, a subtle and sensitive testimony, unsuspected creativity, a personal visual interpretation of reality, but also imperfection, accident, unpredictable, and therefore charm.
 
Is this really the tool you want to use to secure your future?

Many contributors feel directly concerned by unfair competition.
Many contributors struggle to understand that Adobe is not developing Artificial Intelligence to manage submitted content more intelligently. They don't do it because it's simply not in their own best interest.
But the worst competition will be the generation tools directly offered to customers (without any need for skills), which will inevitably arrive and which Adobe is undoubtedly preparing, and which will absolutely no longer need the work of contributors, will no longer suppose a payment of royalties to a third party. Adobe is above all a business, a company that sees its financial interest above all else.

The enthusiastic sheeps, fans of AI image generation, making the �wow� effect accessible to everyone, are just deaf and blind, and not very capable of seeing what is coming. They are just the necessary shoehorn for autonomous AI products in the pipeline.

       Adobe's business is very lucreative: they feed us money peanuts (but about 30 or 40 millions dollars for peanuts if paid around $0.10 per image) for stealing us the "food" they gave to their filthy beast. Why didn't they pay before doing it? They had to be able to first analyze the excrement of this beast? Agree or not, everyone must feed the beast! This is how it is, and Adobe calls it �developing generative AI responsibly�, like the ironic words of a dictator.
 
       I am sorry, but I was not happy to receive that money, which I would have liked to refuse to preserve my freedom and image rights, as other more �responsible� stock sites permit us by an opt-out.
But the beast will always be hungry, and they will still use our products, perhaps for free. Products made always made more invisible because they are dissolved in the crowd more and more, and mistreated by search engines. But that will be perfectly well sucked up for use by their deep thing.
 
       They have absolute power, who would stop them in this corrupt world on all levels?
Justice? when the only certainty is lawyers win in any case... the money they get from the people who have been abused.

--> (Please readers, tick +1 if you approve this!) <--

Tip for Stock Agencies: when the "non AI images" option is chosen by customers, let propose as a result to the query only images from portfolios of contributors who do not submit AI images at all, portfolios that are AI free, with no risk... Or at least, make it possible for contributors to tick images that are real photos.

Customers will be delighted and reassured to have representations of Natural Creation and not of Artificial Creation made by IA.
They will know that if they feel pure emotion for a visual representation, if they see an exceptional performance, natural charm, a feeling expressed, a depth felt, a unique moment captured, a simple and magical performance, an exceptional true place, true outstanding event, previously unknown species, a rare representation of natural diversity, a unique moment captured and eternalized, Artist's soul that transcends, but also the simple photo of an appetizing culinary plate... it is NOT betrayal, nor manipulation.

I'm sure there will be a market for it, a way to stand out when AI is everywhere.
A kind of Organic Photo Label, or Real Photo Label. Make it!!!

--> (Please readers, tick +1 if you approve this!) <--

AI knows how to take steal photos
AI prompters know how to control obei AI
Adobe knows doing business in ethic prolific way

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 02:18

We have already reached the point where people upload AI generated images and just claim they were their real photos. So how can human created art be valued more, when everyone thinks AI generated contend IS human created?

True, and even worse: every buyer can think that the reality based uploaded content that is stunning is AI generated...
 
Truth is lost, real is discredited, the singularity of the human work is made invisible, acquired skill has become obsolete...
The people who think great photos come by simply pressing the shutter button on the camera are people who certainly don't have photos that stand out among the top ones out of hundreds of thousands on an Adobe Stock query. And these are the people who are passionate about AI, easy to guess why...  Developing skills, staging in the real world, getting or waiting for the good conditions for natural light, manage the hazards when it comes to photographing the living, waiting for the perfect moment, managing/choosing the necessary equipment, etc... takes too much work and time to be competitive with AI. And the motivation of those who got the fair compensation for a job that requires time and skill disappears. 
My argument holds particularly for the photographers in whom I recognize a real talent, I am not self-centered and I will not speak of my gains in microstock as an argument of credibility. I've seen people do it, and I found it laughable. Humility has always been my engine to evolve, not an AI engine.

�The wind is rising!�We must try to live!� Paul valery/Miyazaki Hayao 

[Edit]: And I anticipate the reactions of AI enthusiasts: This is not about creating art, but about producing stock images that stand out. Buyers have needs that go beyond images of a pasta dish!

Quote from: cobalt on July 11, 2023, 06:43

I agree, just "pushing a button" is not what makes our images sell. Just "writing a prompt" is not what I do when I create content with the assistance of ai. The whole research, mood board, concept, design choices for color, lighting, angles....it does not happen by itself.

Realize that you only enjoy being a tool for AI, that is what you are. And in a near future, this tool will become obsolete. After all, you already decided to become obsolete for taking photos.

Just look at the production of some AI advocates.
Look at the images they made before AI, and the images produced with AI that they proudly show off as their integral creation. Easy to check, since they expose a link to their portfolio or their website. Or go on Adobe stock and click on those latest AI stuff, and see the portfolio and what kind of production did the person before.
This simple fact is enough to understand what is going on. We can understand the temptation and the intoxicating feeling of having suddenly become great artists.
And some have (or will have) no qualms (and no state of mind) about flooding microstock sites with "their" art (of clicking a "generate" button).

...and they even complain that "Midjourney can legally sublicense any assets produced using it"... it's a competition of the unscrupulous!!!
What they don't realize is that they are only useful for this transition period, to select and check the images, they will be useless and discarded afterwards. The image generations will be autonomous, or directly driven by the final client. And this in a very short time, see you tomorrow!!! End of story.

Re: Announcing Adobe Firefly � A new family of creative generative AI models

"We are developing a compensation model for Stock contributors"

definition of compensation noun (MONEY): money that is paid to someone in exchange for something that has been lost or damaged or for some problem

Seems to be there is  (for Stock contributors), a prejudice confessed here... 

Basically photography is a memory, a testimony, a proof of the existing, a reflection of reality, an emotion, a singular creative exercise... What will be the interest of these soulless productions, apart from a cleanliness ascepted and suspicious?

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 14, 2023, 07:36

If this wasn�t the case it would be a huge failure of Midjourney. The whole point of it is to allow people get results with basic prompts. And lets not forget you can now feed it images and get a descriptive prompt, reverse engineering a prompt to get similar results.

Yes, it's like eating vomit, then vomiting again. Reverse vomiting produces a new vomit  oh sorry for my particular humour which may offend these self-proclaimed artist teleprompters, which before the use of AI only produced visual crap. They now think they are Picasso. It also reminds me of modern music, where the sound produced by the remixed singer voice evokes in me the idea of ​​digital vomit.

I think this metaphor is the correct one. It can occur following a massive ingestion, and it arises expeditiously. It is not very appetizing and is particularly repellent. But when the sheeps have nothing but vomit to eat, they won't find it too bad.
Imagine the dunce of the class who discovers chatGPT, uses it, proudly declares: "I wrote it myself", and who ends up being convinced of it himself.

It's very hard to get rid of vomAIt...

My point is if you want to sell by yourself, you don't use AI to produce received images. Steal one picture, it's bad. Steal thousands like does Deep learning methods : oh, it's good... Mediocre photographers can now feel like artists thanks to AI, while destroying the income of traditional artists.

I hear footsteps coming, it's the army of mediocre photographers and graphic designers who were unsuccessful, and who will exploit AI to finally sell images that they will have the conviction/impudence to have fully produced, only way for them to get success and reward for low and lazy talent.

AI is very smart, it understands that recycling is good for the planet where unscrupulous people live!!!

Adobe already has all your existing assets so what's the point of a strike? You can't stop the AI train we're on. It's either adapt or quit microstock altogether.

Although I don't like the direction we're going in with AI taking over, I won't pull my portfolio from Adobe. Right now Adobe makes up 70% of my revenue because other agencies failed to keep up with the competition. Shutterstock and iStock screwed us over with royalty cuts, so what do we have left once we pull away from Adobe? Nothing. It's the sad reality. Take what you can while you can.

Noedelhap is a pro-AI who also wrote:

Using AI you're not stealing from anyone in particular or infringing copyright. The results AI systems produce are unique, but based on what it learned from other sources. Similar to what someone could create from memory whilst being inspired by something they've seen.

Look! sure this guy takes what he can while he can.
Noedelhap is such an honest guy, we must hear and follow his lessons!!!
This forum is the place for good and honest people. 

His work is left (and he did many illustrations of it), on the right, is the famous La Linea by Osvaldo Cavandoli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Linea_(TV_series)
AI creates steals the way he does, so... where is the problem for him this Garbagetist?...


No comment. 

I thought I'd share five tips from AI on how to compete with AI.

1. Tell stories with emotion to make clips more engaging.
2. Capture authentic, candid moments AI can�t easily replicate.
3. Master lighting and composition for unique, pro-level effects.
4. Use creative techniques like time-lapse or slow-motion shots.
5. Focus on niche subjects and rare environments to stand out.

My priority has always been to focus on niche subjects, rare environments, and authentic, candid moments.

I remain hopeful about the future.

If the day comes when I find it difficult to compete, I will adapt and explore new strategies for growth.

In the face of change, we should always maintain a positive outlook, as negativity is unhelpful.

For my part, I have blocked the profiles that only express a permanent pro-AI logorrhea, because the discussion is futile.

The only effect of expressing a divergent opinion can only make one feel alone and powerless.

Or you can stick your head in the sand or someplace else, and ignore anyone who has a different opinion, even those who might be right, where you could learn something?

Go fuck yourself. You should be banned for your continuous harassment. This is the third time you accuse me of copyright infringement and I explained twice that wasn't the case.
You continue to harass me with this bs allegation so I've reported you.

Should we understand that by insulting like you do here, there is no risk of being banned?