Quote from: davedigitalfx on January 11, 2025, 18:03

Quote from: Pacesetter on January 11, 2025, 17:48

Quote from: HalfFull on January 11, 2025, 15:15

Doesn�t surprise me. I was reading an article in a broadsheet the other day about complaints that the internet was being buried by poor quality AI imagery. I could also imagine a lot of buyers will become fed up because, let�s face it, while there are some good AI images there is also a lot of rubbish and it must be a PITA wading through all that just to find something good countless times a day (image buyers for advertising agencies etc).

I was watching a Youtube video the other day (and of course I forgot who I watched now) and they claimed that Youtube is not promoting videos with AI content but rather original human-sourced content. Now that is a simplistic recollection of what was said but I see that if this is indeed the situation and online creators have identified experiencing this, whether that is on Youtube or any other platform, then the demand for AI will naturally fall.

i dont know if it's a new feature but yesterday i logged in my yt account to upload a video and there was a notice on top page saying that from now you can decide if your yt videos will be "given away" for ai training ... it's an option in the account settings ...

Yes I saw that too and your post just reminded to go check in studio settings it is not an opt out arrangement. Turns out it is set to opt in so left the check box blank. Seriously though, no earnings for creators to opt into this?     

here in advanced settings ...

Third-party training
Allow third-party companies to train AI models using my channel content
If you select this option, YouTube may share your videos with a third-party company provided that you and all other applicable rights holders have chosen to allow that company. The training permission status of all videos will be available through a publicly accessible interface. Learn more

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15509945?hl=en-GB

yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free 
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.

the only one I keep reading with an opposite trend is you Which I find interesting and encouraging for my real video/photo project for 2025.

Yes Jasmin, I hate being trendy and mainstream 

Thank you for your answer, which of course explains your point of view.

Quote from: davedigitalfx on January 11, 2025, 18:27

yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free 
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.

Yeh just went and read the information from your link above. I'm all for charity but for those who need it, not multi-million/multi-billion dollar third-party companies. What a joke.

yes it's a joke ... more they have ... more they want ...

yeaaahhhhh .. you tube wont pay a dime ... we should give them our videos for free 
they say: YouTube isn't facilitating payments between third-party companies and creators or other rights holders at this time.

YouTube is owned by Google.  Maybe they are training Gemini for free?

Quote from: cobalt on January 11, 2025, 19:03

the only one I keep reading with an opposite trend is you Which I find interesting and encouraging for my real video/photo project for 2025.

Yes Jasmin, I hate being trendy and mainstream 

Thank you for your answer, which of course explains your point of view.

You are not alone. While in 2023 Adobe was the clear winner for me (downloads and revenue), in 2024 it was surpassed by SS and IS regarding downloads. On revenue level Adobe was also surpassed by IS.
So I don't see this relative Adobe growth as well. Just the other way around actually.

This year (but is still early) this trend seems to continue. SS and IS are doing a lot better then AS.

It seems more and more buyers are fed up seeing AI images. Shutterstock says the same and Istock /Getty only shows real images.......it seems that leaving AI by default out will become the norm.

so was I right?it's not a glitch but a choice,the search still excludes AI content by default.

It's not necessarily a definitive choice,perhaps only temporary,on the other hand I think it also depends on the customers,many believe they prefer to see real content immediately,but others perhaps might prefer to see all types of content.

it is certainly difficult to please such a large audience.

I think that SS and Getty don't accept AI content because they simply want to create and sell it for 100% profit,they still need contributors for real content,but they are not interested in receiving AI content from contributors.

I don't think SS and Getty are worried about the legal implications of accepting AI,but they use this as an excuse to feed to contributors.

Adobe is the only agency that is truly interested in us being successful in our business/hobby/work,since Adobe is also the world leader in creating software tools for creativity and productivity.

but Adobe (in Arab culture) is also the mixture of clay,sand and straw dried in the shade,used by many populations in every era to build bricks! 

The reason istock is not yet taking ai created content by producers is because the legal situation with content created by midjourney and stable is murky.

There's actually nothing really "murky" about it - its actually quite black & white. Midjourney engaged in, and regularly engages in, massive, massive theft.
A lot of other so-called "ai" companies (i.e., even chatGPT) are basically thieves. They are thieves on a MASSIVE scale. They just want to hire expensive lawyers, & lobby to get the "laws" (which by no means are necessarily "moral") - but they want the "laws" to basically endorse their actions.

They COULD pay the authors they stole the works from in perpetuity going forward, as WELL as retroactively. They are hoping people don't realize that. SUPER easy to do.

The bigger picture most likely of what they are TRYING to do - is get "support" for it - by getting a lot of other people to benefit from their theft.

Kind of like a robber (aka midjourney/chatgpt) that robs 100 million from a bank - but as they leave the bank - every person they see on the street they give $1,000. When the cops come to investigate and say they need to recover ALL the money - the people that received $1,000 are much less likely to "give up" the robbers - simply because they benefited indirectly from the heist, may have already spent that $1k - and are reluctant to pay out of pocket the $1k they got.

THAT, I would say what midjourney/chatGPT + various other "ai" companies are REALLY doing. The "AI" is not a thinking machine, "TRAINING" is not "learning" - "TRAINING" is THEFT.

There is absolutely nothing "murky" about what they did, nor what they are doing. They are thieves on a very grand scale. They are simply trying to get support from other people - so it is less likely they get caught and/or in trouble.

It's pretty much EXACTLY the same playbook they used during convid (& yes, its the same group of people). They gave convid cheques to people around the world - so as they were printing literally BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to give to friends - they gave $2k convid cheques to people (which, lol they are trying to "recover" from people, so they are even trying to steal back the money they "gave" people). But because they printed all this money money money - a lot of people aren't looking at what REALLY happened - but focused on themselves.

It's the same thing here.

Incidentially - its the same reason most likely the shutterstock execs don't care about east indian theft. Because (a) they benefit directly from the theft of sales. and (b) if enough people complain about an account, they "seize" the funds and keep it for themselves, getting more MONEY. They don't give it back - they don't contact the people who purchased the assets and say 'Oooh, sorry, we found out you were sold stolen assets, so we are refunding your money'. No - they KEEP it. So the shutterstock execs LIKE east indian theft. Because it BENEFITS them. It is SUPER easy to stop the theft - one would be simply to reject east indian accounts. Second would be to simply compare new images to existing images in their database, and flag new accounts that upload similar/identical content for further investigation. Super easy. But they don't, because they don't want to.

"AI" - as it exists in its current form - is simply theft. Nothing "murky" - it's quite black and white.

Amazon is another company benefiting on a MASSIVE scale. They don't care if people use AI - in fact they LOVE it - because "millions" of people are trying to "get rich quick" selling "ai" books. What they care about is MONEY MONEY MONEY. As long as it doesn't affect their bottom line - they are all for it.

What is going on right now - is the people with the "AI" tools are trying to justify their theft, and trying to get away with it.

What the PROPER solution would be is:
a) Retroactively pay back ALL contributors who had 'ai generations' based on their works they stole. Programatically EASY to do.
b) Going forward, allow artists to opt in/opt out at the % revenue share THEY (the artist) specifies, for image generations, and be paid in perpetuity (i.e., regular daily cheques).
c) Have opt/opt-out models rebuilt DAILY, so if an artist every wants to opt out - quite simple to do - and the new 'trained' models do not include their data in generations. If the artist 'opt-in' again - then it is included in generations, and they are compensated in micro payments for any use.

That would be "ethical" AI.

The psychos running the "ai machines" don't want to do that because they greedy pyschotic sociopaths - but THAT would be an "ethical" solution. VERY feasible. And it will happen once enough artists start DEMANDING that they be compensated FAIRLY on terms THEY set for use of the stolen assets.

Quote from: Injustice for all on January 12, 2025, 05:40

so was I right?it's not a glitch but a choice,the search still excludes AI content by default.

It's not necessarily a definitive choice,perhaps only temporary,on the other hand I think it also depends on the customers,many believe they prefer to see real content immediately,but others perhaps might prefer to see all types of content.

it is certainly difficult to please such a large audience.

I think that SS and Getty don't accept AI content because they simply want to create and sell it for 100% profit,they still need contributors for real content,but they are not interested in receiving AI content from contributors.

I don't think SS and Getty are worried about the legal implications of accepting AI,but they use this as an excuse to feed to contributors.

Adobe is the only agency that is truly interested in us being successful in our business/hobby/work,since Adobe is also the world leader in creating software tools for creativity and productivity.

but Adobe (in Arab culture) is also the mixture of clay,sand and straw dried in the shade,used by many populations in every era to build bricks! 

Since you are expert in Arab culture, is AI images generation halal or haram?

and who told you that I am an expert in Arab culture?

Did an elf pass by and whisper in your ear? 

or much more simply does it seem nice to you to to annoy me?

actually if I have to tell you I'm not very interested in the answer,but if you want go ahead,I'm for freedom,after all this is freedom too!

although there is a saying that your freedom ends where mine begins! 

Shutterstock is filled with ai content generated by them or customers and is very low quality.

And both companies have loads of undeclared ai, especially Shutterstock has many portfolios that consist only of ai images and don�t seem keen on cleaning it up.

Premade ai content will be part of all agencies, but it is possible that SS/Getty will generate that content with a team by themselves so they never have to pay royalty fees.

On the other hand, they could have also mass produced camera images with teams and kicked out amateur photographers.

But they never did.

Ai will soon be integrated into camera software.

How will agencies avoid ai then?

eta

ai still cannot generate reliable hands or feet and nature and animals are usually weird fantasy hybrids that do not exist in the real world.

ai is not self learning, changes in the last 4 years are very slow and incremental.

So it is very unlikely that ai can replace image inspectors if they cannot get the most basic things right.

Adobe Stock should put a "Turn on AI generated contents" button above the search results.  Most buyers may not use the filter panel.

Quote from: blvdone on January 12, 2025, 19:38

Adobe Stock should put a "Turn on AI generated contents" button above the search results.  Most buyers may not use the filter panel.

No. Make it a "turn OFF" and leave it ON by default. Those that WANT it off will find it easily. Others will get the benefit of both.

Yeah, of course that's better.  I'm just surprised if so many buyers missed the "Generated with AI" description on every AI generated works on Adobe Stock.  How can they miss that?