Author Topic: Announcing Adobe Firefly – A new family of creative generative AI models (Read 35938 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #50 on:** March 24, 2023, 13:07 »

Firefly has been fun to play with, and it's amazing that conceptually it gets the prompt to image pretty correct, but the actual results are atrocious in most cases. Just on basic stock things. Distorted balls, the extra or missing fingers we all love, garbled looking money, odd geometric snowflakes, etc.

cascoly · « **Reply #51 on:** March 24, 2023, 13:41 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on March 23, 2023, 18:14

I don't understand why contributors have not been ...,compensated already for use of their assets in Firefly's training.

Why is Adobe only at the 'exploring' stage of an opt-out possibility and still busy 'developing' a compensation model? Shouldn't that be the first thing on the priority list?
Once again it looks like contributors and compensation of them are treated as an afterthought, a nuisance, an annoying expense.

both AS & SS have the right to use those images under the TOS artists agreed to when contributing (everyone read those in detail, right?)

what they're doing NOW is allowing people to opt-out - they could have continued the existing policy that says contributors agree to those TOS

and still waiting for anyone to describe what they think would be fair compensation when their contribution swamp by hundreds of millions of images used for training

and also interesting that none of the loudest whingers (who claim their hard work creating art will be swamped by mediocre user generated AI art) will actually present their portfolios!

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #52 on:** March 24, 2023, 15:04 »

Quote from: cascoly on March 24, 2023, 13:41

and also interesting that none of the loudest whingers (who claim their hard work creating art will be swamped by mediocre user generated AI art) will actually present their portfolios!

Maybe they don't, out of respect to yours

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** March 24, 2023, 16:16 »

Quote from: cascoly on March 24, 2023, 13:41

Quote from: Noedelhap on March 23, 2023, 18:14
I don't understand why contributors have not been ...,compensated already for use of their assets in Firefly's training.

Why is Adobe only at the 'exploring' stage of an opt-out possibility and still busy 'developing' a compensation model? Shouldn't that be the first thing on the priority list?
Once again it looks like contributors and compensation of them are treated as an afterthought, a nuisance, an annoying expense.

both AS & SS have the right to use those images under the TOS artists agreed to when contributing (everyone read those in detail, right?)...

Both AS & SS claim they have the right to train their generative AI model with their stock library content. Their self interest clearly indicates why they'd say that. Claiming it to be so doesn't make it so - but there'd need to be legal action to get a court to agree that the agreement doesn't mean what the agencies claim.

I think the notion of using contributor content to assist in creating new Adobe Stock features (such as a keyword suggestion tool) is fine and reasonable - I did read the agreement and given my assumption that the agency and contributor both have aligned interests in increasing the licensing of agency content, had no concerns about it. Contractual deals that don't result in contributor royalties have been an issue for years - SS's deal with facebook and the more recent 5 year contracts to allow use of their library for AI training. The deals would not have happened without the content in their libraries but all the up front revenue goes straight to the agency.

I can't imagine contributors having the money to take a case to court, but I think it would be possible to argue that what Adobe has done does not fall within the scope of (from Adobe Stock's Contributor Agreement section 1) "...developing new features and services".

The tack I would take is that the context implied in the agreement is that the features and services would be part of the paid licensing of contributor works that is the scope of that agreement. What has been built with Firefly is (if it succeeds) potentially a replacement for the licensing of all of the works currently in the library.

I'd argue that no reasonable person (the legal concept of the reasonable man) reading the current agreement would think they were consenting to allow their works to be used to eliminate all future commercial value for those works. Imagine investor excitement at a revenue stream in the future that doesn't carry any royalty obligations - it would make SS's "margin optimization" efforts since June 2020 look like amateur hour.

As an aside, I don't see the questionable quality of AI generated content to be any barrier to market success - good enough wins out lots of times as long as the price is right and it's easy to access. When SS was promoting their AI-enhanced Canva-clone, the video tag line was "No time? No budget? No designer? No problem!". In other words, it may not matter that contributor work is "better" than what Firefly generates, hence the worries about competition.

I watched two interviews - one with Adobe's CEO Shantanu Narayen and the other with their President of Digital Media, David Wadhwani. Other than the expected buzzy optimism about their new offerings, there were a couple of interesting (from the Adobe Stock contributor perspective) comments. Adobe plans to offer an API to allow other companies to use their generative AI model - nothing was said about whether and how Adobe Stock contributors whose work was the training basis for the model would be compensated in that cases.

The CEO mentioned t hat it would be possible to have stock contributors supply their styles to Firefly customers (no timeline or compensation model mentioned). He also mentioned offering Adobe's model to large customers who wanted to add their own repository of data to have a customized generative AI - no notion of whether there would be royalties to Adobe Stock contributors there either. I didn't care for the way the CEO referred to "our" model trained by "our" content in talking about this future product offering. Content on Adobe Stock is not Adobe's content. The CEO said they refer to the content supply chain and how important it is to get that worked out.

The interviewer asked David Wadhwani what the incentive was for Adobe Stock contributors to let Adobe train the AI on our images. The reply was a set of reassuring words about how this would be commercially good for Adobe Stock contributors. He didn't mention the less appealing reality that they didn't ask, so contributors had no say in this - not even to delete their portfolios if they really didn't like it - because the first we heard about this was after the training was complete.

There was a follow up question about compensation, citing Spotify as an example of how artists got tiny amounts per stream, and there was another fuzzy answer about this being worked out in concert and in conversation with contributors. I don't know anything about contributors being asked about how they'd like to be paid, but Spotify's model wouldn't be it (where they pay the big name artists a larger share of the revenue to keep them happy and the smaller artists get very little).

There was talk about growing the number of Creative Cloud subscribers - bringing in new users (I hadn't heard the term solopreneurs before) increasing Adobe's Total Addressable Market (that's aimed at keeping investors happy). No date given when asked how long the beta would be. Beta is just images and text effects. They will be doing video, layout, design, 3D, brushes & styles.

Here are the videos

Firefly AI: I speak with Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen from Adobe Summit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04X6h2K2WDw

Generative AI Comes to Adobe Creative Cloud: Adobe's David Wadhwani on Firefly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4dgIUdiZfQ

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #54 on:** March 25, 2023, 02:29 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 24, 2023, 16:16

I watched two interviews - one with Adobe's CEO Shantanu Narayen and the other with their President of Digital Media, David Wadhwani.

Thank you for the very detailed summery, you always do such a god job of these!

I laughed at the part where Wadhwan claimes there was anything being worked out in conversation with contributors, because we all very well know that this is not happening.

Notice how even here, whenever Mat announces something new, he will always just reply to questions and comments stricly related to the technical aspect of a feature and ignore every single question and comment about user actual concerns or morality aspects of what Adobe was doing.

I can't recall that Adobe has ever seeked out conversation with contributors about anything, before we were getting presented the end result - Free galleries, currency changes, our images being used to train AI that will make our images worthless - there has never been any kind of "conversation" prior to annoucing the final decision and the "conversation" that took place after that were alwas one-sided with Adobe pretty much ignoring our concerns.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #55 on:** March 25, 2023, 10:17 »

Quote from: cascoly on March 24, 2023, 13:41

Quote from: Noedelhap on March 23, 2023, 18:14
I don't understand why contributors have not been ...,compensated already for use of their assets in Firefly's training.

Why is Adobe only at the 'exploring' stage of an opt-out possibility and still busy 'developing' a compensation model? Shouldn't that be the first thing on the priority list?
Once again it looks like contributors and compensation of them are treated as an afterthought, a nuisance, an annoying expense.

both AS & SS have the right to use those images under the TOS artists agreed to when contributing (everyone read those in detail, right?)

what they're doing NOW is allowing people to opt-out - they could have continued the existing policy that says contributors agree to those TOS

and still waiting for anyone to describe what they think would be fair compensation when their contribution swamp by hundreds of millions of images used for training

and also interesting that none of the loudest whingers (who claim their hard work creating art will be swamped by mediocre user generated AI art) will actually present their portfolios!

Exactly what Jo Ann says above: I agreed to let them use my images for things like a keyword suggestion tool, or for promotion of their library and assets, anything to increase revenue for the good of contributors.
Firefly however is created with the intention to replace our work and efforts in the long run, which I never signed up for (back in 2010 when I signed up at Fotolia high quality AI image creation wasn't even a feasible thing yet).

I'd argue this AI thing falls outside of the scope of that agreement and needs proper attention and royalty compensation.

cascoly · « **Reply #56 on:** March 25, 2023, 12:50 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 24, 2023, 16:16

Quote from: cascoly on March 24, 2023, 13:41
hought, a ...

both AS & SS have the right to use those images under the TOS artists agreed to when contributing (everyone read those in detail, right?)...

Both AS & SS claim they have the right to train their generative AI model with their stock library content. Their self interest clearly indicates why they'd say that. Claiming it to be so doesn't make it so - but there'd need to be legal action to get a court to agree that the agreement doesn't mean what the agencies claim.

I think the notion of using contributor content to assist in creating new Adobe Stock features (such as a keyword suggestion tool) is fine and reasonable - I did read the agreement and given my assumption that the agency and contributor both have aligned interests in increasing the licensing of agency content, had no concerns about it. Contractual deals that don't result in contributor royalties have been an issue for years - SS's deal with facebook and the more recent 5 year contracts to allow use of their library for AI training. The deals would not have happened without the content in their libraries but all the up front revenue goes straight to the agency.

I can't imagine contributors having the money to take a case to court, but I think it would be possible to argue that what Adobe has done does not fall within the scope of (from Adobe Stock's Contributor Agreement section 1) "...developing new features and services".

The tack I would take is that the context implied in the agreement is that the features and services would be part of the paid licensing of contributor works that is the scope of that agreement. What has been built with Firefly is (if it succeeds) potentially a replacement for the licensing of all of the works currently in the library. ...

thanks yet again for another detailed examination of the issues (and of course i'd include you among those who did read the TOS

while i do agree with your analysis of the fuzziness of their claims and the possibility of a successful lawsuit, i focus on the actual expected returns to individual artists. what would actual payments to authors be? (and given how ML works any payment for use would only be microscopic as each sale would also be spread over the entire training set, and the legal grounds for that are even murkier)

my basic stance is since the chances of a successful legal action are remote (mostly due to the costs), i don't spend a lot of time worrying about things i can't change & concentrate on those over which i can change (bloggig, SEO, social media,etc)

wds · « **Reply #57 on:** March 25, 2023, 21:47 »

How long does it take to get the approval to participate in the beta after submitting the request?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #58 on:** March 26, 2023, 02:24 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 24, 2023, 16:16

...
The tack I would take is that the context implied in the agreement is that the features and services would be part of the paid licensing of contributor works that is the scope of that agreement. What has been built with Firefly is (if it succeeds) potentially a replacement for the licensing of all of the works currently in the library. ...

100% agree. It's compounded when you read comments, under their YouTube video for example, where the major selling point for buyers is that this is a morally acceptable AI tool.

People are saying they were conflicted about using AI as it takes artists’ work without permission but they can at last use this because Adobe is training it on sets where this isn’t an issue. They belong to Adobe.

IMHO what Adobe has done by helping themselves to our work without compensation and far outside the scope of our contract and claiming it is “their” library as a major selling point is morally reprehensible. It’s the worst behaviour out of the three big libraries (Getty and SS being the other two).

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #59 on:** March 26, 2023, 02:27 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 24, 2023, 13:07

Firefly has been fun to play with, and it's amazing that conceptually it gets the prompt to image pretty correct, but the actual results are atrocious in most cases. Just on basic stock things. Distorted balls, the extra or missing fingers we all love, garbled looking money, odd geometric snowflakes, etc.

Interesting. We tend to talk about AI as if its a monolith. In my experience the different engines have vastly different quality. Midjourney, for example, is light-years ahead of Dall E at the moment.

Just_to_inform_people2 · « **Reply #60 on:** March 26, 2023, 11:39 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 25, 2023, 02:29

Notice how even here, whenever Mat announces something new, he will always just reply to questions and comments stricly related to the technical aspect of a feature and ignore every single question and comment about user actual concerns or morality aspects of what Adobe was doing.

I can't recall that Adobe has ever seeked out conversation with contributors about anything, before we were getting presented the end result - Free galleries, currency changes, our images being used to train AI that will make our images worthless - there has never been any kind of "conversation" prior to annoucing the final decision and the "conversation" that took place after that were alwas one-sided with Adobe pretty much ignoring our concerns.

Very true. And if you accuse Mat of corporate speak then he is offended

I do think they listen in via Mat. I actually think that Adobe didn't want to prolong the bonus program but because here, and probably at other places as well, we made a fuzz about it and so they caved in, in the end. Not to lose face and they sure will have weighted the costs versus the potential reputation damage.

But it annoys me too that when you ask something else then a technical question you never hear an answer. Concerns are maybe listened to but certainly not replied to.

And since they are a company (maximum profit seeking) it annoys me that they pretend to be an NGO sometimes only to support artists at all times while in reality they are not. But I guess lot of people fall for that kind of talk. At least here, I see many of them. But you can also see them when you join some of their live Behance meetings. Some actually seem groupies and completely believe in Adobes fantasy tale

And remember there is no them without us but not exactly as how they mean it. It's more that if we don't buy their products or deliver content to them then there is no them. That part is definitely true.

Lina · « **Reply #61 on:** March 26, 2023, 12:57 »

Quote from: SVH on March 26, 2023, 11:39

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 25, 2023, 02:29
Notice how even here, whenever Mat announces something new, he will always just reply to questions and comments stricly related to the technical aspect of a feature and ignore every single question and comment about user actual concerns or morality aspects of what Adobe was doing.

I can't recall that Adobe has ever seeked out conversation with contributors about anything, before we were getting presented the end result - Free galleries, currency changes, our images being used to train AI that will make our images worthless - there has never been any kind of "conversation" prior to annoucing the final decision and the "conversation" that took place after that were alwas one-sided with Adobe pretty much ignoring our concerns.

Very true. And if you accuse Mat of corporate speak then he is offended

I do think they listen in via Mat. I actually think that Adobe didn't want to prolong the bonus program but because here, and probably at other places as well, we made a fuzz about it and so they caved in, in the end. Not to lose face and they sure will have weighted the costs versus the potential reputation damage.

But it annoys me too that when you ask something else then a technical question you never hear an answer. Concerns are maybe listened to but certainly not replied to.

And since they are a company (maximum profit seeking) it annoys me that they pretend to be an NGO sometimes only to support artists at all times while in reality they are not. But I guess lot of people fall for that kind of talk. At least here, I see many of them. But you can also see them when you join some of their live Behance meetings. Some actually seem groupies and completely believe in Adobes fantasy tale

And remember there is no them without us but not exactly as how they mean it. It's more that if we don't buy their products or deliver content to them then there is no them. That part is definitely true.

Yup, I'm so glad somebody said that. I see it too and often feel like traitor if I dare to say something against Adobe. Because looks that many people think they really care for us.

wds · « **Reply #62 on:** March 28, 2023, 16:42 »

Still waiting for my invite

Noedelhap · « **Reply #63 on:** March 29, 2023, 05:49 »

Quote from: SVH on March 26, 2023, 11:39

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 25, 2023, 02:29
Notice how even here, whenever Mat announces something new, he will always just reply to questions and comments stricly related to the technical aspect of a feature and ignore every single question and comment about user actual concerns or morality aspects of what Adobe was doing.

I can't recall that Adobe has ever seeked out conversation with contributors about anything, before we were getting presented the end result - Free galleries, currency changes, our images being used to train AI that will make our images worthless - there has never been any kind of "conversation" prior to annoucing the final decision and the "conversation" that took place after that were alwas one-sided with Adobe pretty much ignoring our concerns.

Very true. And if you accuse Mat of corporate speak then he is offended

I do think they listen in via Mat. I actually think that Adobe didn't want to prolong the bonus program but because here, and probably at other places as well, we made a fuzz about it and so they caved in, in the end. Not to lose face and they sure will have weighted the costs versus the potential reputation damage.

But it annoys me too that when you ask something else then a technical question you never hear an answer. Concerns are maybe listened to but certainly not replied to.

And since they are a company (maximum profit seeking) it annoys me that they pretend to be an NGO sometimes only to support artists at all times while in reality they are not. But I guess lot of people fall for that kind of talk. At least here, I see many of them. But you can also see them when you join some of their live Behance meetings. Some actually seem groupies and completely believe in Adobes fantasy tale

And remember there is no them without us but not exactly as how they mean it. It's more that if we don't buy their products or deliver content to them then there is no them. That part is definitely true.

Well, I'm not a fan of any corporation pretending to be a "community of artists", but I have nothing against Mat personally. He is just an Adobe employee, plain and simple: a PR job and a messenger of good and bad news; if it's good news, he can speak freely with enthusiasm and happily answer questions, if it's "bad" news he will (have to) stick to the "press release" and whatever Adobe tells him to say. Which I understand, he cannot make any promises without permission from upper management or speak against his employer.

But it's better than complete radio silence.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #64 on:** March 29, 2023, 06:35 »

"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...

Just_to_inform_people2 · « **Reply #65 on:** March 29, 2023, 15:18 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on March 29, 2023, 05:49

Quote from: SVH on March 26, 2023, 11:39
Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 25, 2023, 02:29
Notice how even here, whenever Mat announces something new, he will always just reply to questions and comments stricly related to the technical aspect of a feature and ignore every single question and comment about user actual concerns or morality aspects of what Adobe was doing.

I can't recall that Adobe has ever seeked out conversation with contributors about anything, before we were getting presented the end result - Free galleries, currency changes, our images being used to train AI that will make our images worthless - there has never been any kind of "conversation" prior to annoucing the final decision and the "conversation" that took place after that were alwas one-sided with Adobe pretty much ignoring our concerns.

Very true. And if you accuse Mat of corporate speak then he is offended

I do think they listen in via Mat. I actually think that Adobe didn't want to prolong the bonus program but because here, and probably at other places as well, we made a fuzz about it and so they caved in, in the end. Not to lose face and they sure will have weighted the costs versus the potential reputation damage.

But it annoys me too that when you ask something else then a technical question you never hear an answer. Concerns are maybe listened to but certainly not replied to.

And since they are a company (maximum profit seeking) it annoys me that they pretend to be an NGO sometimes only to support artists at all times while in reality they are not. But I guess lot of people fall for that kind of talk. At least here, I see many of them. But you can also see them when you join some of their live Behance meetings. Some actually seem groupies and completely believe in Adobes fantasy tale

And remember there is no them without us but not exactly as how they mean it. It's more that if we don't buy their products or deliver content to them then there is no them. That part is definitely true.

Well, I'm not a fan of any corporation pretending to be a "community of artists", but I have nothing against Mat personally. He is just an Adobe employee, plain and simple: a PR job and a messenger of good and bad news; if it's good news, he can speak freely with enthusiasm and happily answer questions, if it's "bad" news he will (have to) stick to the "press release" and whatever Adobe tells him to say. Which I understand, he cannot make any promises without permission from upper management or speak against his employer.

But it's better than complete radio silence.

I never said there is something wrong with Mat personally. I actually think he is very likeable guy. It's only that he presents himself as a person that is here to speak on behalve of Adobe and you can discuss anything with him. But it ends up with only answering easy technical questions or singing hallelujah with us when there is good news to share. I do understand perfectly that he cannot answer the more difficult answers thrown at him but it does always stays quiet afterwards even when he would have had the chance to discuss it above. If he is the bringer of good news and/or bad news, again on behalve of Adobe, he should be able to respond (as an employee of Adobe) to all questions. Not only the easy ones or just the technical ones. Otherwise he is just being used as a PR machine and not as an actual liason of Adobe that can also help with our concerns about certain aspects.
It's about the presentation and the abuse of misconception of easy to fool persons here.
But I would drink a beer anytime with Mat. I can actually endorse all of his Behance meetings although you have to withstand the, over the top, American, hallelujah Adobe family b*s*t.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #66 on:** March 30, 2023, 10:57 »

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on March 29, 2023, 06:35

"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...

Don't be so deep?

NORTH AMERICAN ENGLISH:
the money received by an employee from an employer as a salary or wages.

or

Typically, compensation refers to monetary payment given to an individual in exchange for their services. In the workplace, compensation is what is earned by employees. It includes salary or wages in addition to commission and any incentives or perks that come with the given employee’s position.

Now what about the incentives and perks part? For example, maybe a free subscription for a year to Creative Cloud software is the future compensation?

Lowls · « **Reply #67 on:** March 31, 2023, 06:05 »

Derivative Work Under Copyright Law

§ 106(2)). It is considered copyright infringement to make or sell derivative works without permission from the original owner, which is where licenses typically come into play.2 Jun 2017

Derivative work is clearly what an AI is producing. in which case compensation isn't a nice thing to do it is a legal requirement. Adobe have not paid for any such license to use the work. They don't own the copywrite we do.

Derivative work has its own copywrite. However who wons that. The A.I. or the A.I.s owner. And is it actually protected under copywrite because it is a Derivative work from copywritten material which wasn't paid for ...

cascoly · « **Reply #68 on:** March 31, 2023, 13:31 »

Quote from: Lowls on March 31, 2023, 06:05

Derivative work is clearly what an AI is producing. in which case compensation isn't a nice thing to do it is a legal requirement. Adobe have not paid for any such license to use the work. They don't own the copywrite we do.
..

not so clear - it's been shown many times that the actual generative AI does not use any images directly but creates an entirely new image from the training set.

whether anyone has the right to use images scraped from the web is a separate issue, more theoretical, since any payment to authors for the training would be minuscule a tiny fraction of 100s of m
at the same time writers & journalists arent complaining about scraping for trillions image examined

dont know why some artists continue to propagate misleading info especially since there's really no upside.
webscraping creates the dataset but the results of those GPT bots do not violate anyone's copyright, again because the AI generates completely new text w/o using the training data

Anny1234 · « **Reply #69 on:** March 31, 2023, 16:23 »

Quote from: Lowls on March 31, 2023, 06:05

Derivative work is clearly what an AI is producing. in which case compensation isn't a nice thing to do it is a legal requirement. Adobe have not paid for any such license to use the work. They don't own the copywrite we do.

It is clearly not what it is producing. And this is obvious to anyone who has tried an AI tool.

AI learns the same way as a human scrolling through google or pinterest and "getting inspired" with ideas of others, not paying a dime for "seeing, "memorising" and "collecting visual data" from copyrighted works.

Why haven't you paid for every image you have looked at today? It is clearly stored in your memory now and can (will! even if for 0.0001%) influence your creations. So, please pay for every piece of art, photo, design, furniture piece that surrounds you. What a mad world that would be?

AI does the same. It doesn't copy-paste anything at all, so nothing "derivative" there.

That is why copyright nonsense by stock sites doesn't make any sense, other than them trying to save their own existence. By being able to sue everything under the sun as Getty does.

Because following this logic all works created by people are also "derivative" then because artist creates them after he got inspired by a mix of many kinds of "copyrighted" things he has seen before! Nothing ever is born in the vacuum.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #70 on:** March 31, 2023, 17:03 »

Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 16:23

Because following this logic all works created by people are also "derivative" then because artist creates them after he got inspired by a mix of many kinds of "copyrighted" things he has seen before! Nothing ever is born in the vacuum.

Wrong.

It's a long-standing law principle that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something, while it differentiates all this from derivative work.

Obviously you are not a lawyer and you didn't do your homework.

Anny1234 · « **Reply #71 on:** March 31, 2023, 17:27 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 31, 2023, 17:03

Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 16:23

Because following this logic all works created by people are also "derivative" then because artist creates them after he got inspired by a mix of many kinds of "copyrighted" things he has seen before! Nothing ever is born in the vacuum.

Wrong.

It's a long-standing law principle that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something, while it differentiates all this from derivative work.

Obviously you are not a lawyer and you didn't do your homework.

This is hilarious how you seem to be stalking my every message to say it is wrong without reading it

Where did I say that copyright protects ideas?

Even that quoted by you sentence starts with words: following this logic (which is flawed as I described above)... etc. meaning that if it would be true it would be absurd, which is exactly what you have repeated after me but said that it is wrong

Sorry, I cannot even follow your reply, because you reply on something I wasn't even talking about

If I need to repeat especially for you in a simple sentence: AI doesn't create derivative work, same as artist doesn't create derivative work, because memorising, learning and being inspired by something to create something new is not same as copy-pasting.

What are you talking about I don't know

Zero Talent · « **Reply #72 on:** March 31, 2023, 17:42 »

Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 17:27

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 31, 2023, 17:03
Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 16:23

Because following this logic all works created by people are also "derivative" then because artist creates them after he got inspired by a mix of many kinds of "copyrighted" things he has seen before! Nothing ever is born in the vacuum.

Wrong.

It's a long-standing law principle that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something, while it differentiates all this from derivative work.

Obviously you are not a lawyer and you didn't do your homework.

This is hilarious how you seem to be stalking my every message to say it wrong without reading it

Where did I say that copyright protects ideas?

Even that quoted by you sentence starts with words: following this logic (which is flawed as I described above)... etc.

Sorry, I cannot even follow your reply, because you reply on something I wasn't even talking about

If I need to repeat especially for you in a simple sentence: AI doesn't create derivative work, same as artist doesn't create derivative work, because memorising, learning and being inspired by something is not same as copy-pasting.

What are you talking about I don't know

Nah, check your statements. You were ranting about Getty, calling their copyright lawsuits nonsense, without understanding the difference between ideas, concepts, and derivative work, assuming that these are equivalent.

Here is a clear example of an AI generated image that is not just an idea, but clearly derivative work:

... and the paper behind the study the example is coming from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.13188.pdf

PS. rest assured that you are not the belly button of the world.

My reply was not about you, but about the error, you made in your post.

Anny1234 · « **Reply #73 on:** March 31, 2023, 17:55 »

Repeating my sentence: "That is why copyright nonsense by stock sites doesn't make any sense, other than them trying to save their own existence. By being able to sue everything under the sun as Getty does."

COPYRIGHT NONSENSE REGARDING AI CONTENT, WE ARE IN THE THREAD ABOUT AI.

Sorry, it is very hard to convey ideas to someone who takes things out of contex and drives them into his own conversations with himself.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #74 on:** March 31, 2023, 18:03 »

Quote from: Anny1234 on March 31, 2023, 17:55

Repeating my sentence: "That is why copyright nonsense by stock sites doesn't make any sense, other than them trying to save their own existence. By being able to sue everything under the sun as Getty does."

COPYRIGHT NONSENSE REGARDING AI CONTENT, WE ARE IN THE THREAD ABOUT AI.

Sorry, it is very hard to convey ideas to someone who takes things out of contex and drives them into his own conversations with himself.

Yep, "everything under the sun".

Obviously, you don't understand why Getty is suing (hence protecting their business and OUR work) assuming that their lawsuits are frivolous!

Getty has a problem with AI companies using their database and OUR work without permission.

Besides, the example and the white paper I showed you is another proof that you are wrong: when the training set is limited, AI may very well end up plagiarizing copyrighted work. So it doesn't generate only ideas and concepts, but also derivative work.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Announcing Adobe Firefly – A new family of creative generative AI models (Read 35938 times)

Sean Locke Photography

cascoly

DiscreetDuck

Jo Ann Snover

Her Ugliness

Noedelhap

cascoly

wds

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Just_to_inform_people2

Lina

wds

Noedelhap

DiscreetDuck

Just_to_inform_people2

Uncle Pete

Lowls

cascoly

Anny1234

Zero Talent

Anny1234

Zero Talent

Anny1234

Zero Talent

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors