Author Topic: Sudden downfall in downloads (Read 2126 times)

angelacat · « **Reply #25 on:** April 22, 2025, 02:00 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 21, 2025, 08:42

people were saying the same when the free agencies came out...and here we are still making money.

we sell time more than actual files. that includes saving time on prompting.
spend an afternoon prompting or 20 min browsing thousands of files, then tweaking the ones you find in photoshop to perfection

I've never knowingly used AI, maybe I should to get an idea of what it's like in reality.

HalfFull · « **Reply #26 on:** April 22, 2025, 02:18 »

No drop in sales here. It's actually been a strong month so far, best April ever & over a week left. The sales pattern is following its usual seasonal flow with fluctuations due to the dates of events. I don't submit any AI.

That said, there are too few contributors here to form any pattern at all. You'd need 1000's of views / input to be able to determine any sort of pattern after discounting outliers.

gnirtS · « **Reply #27 on:** April 22, 2025, 22:16 »

Quote from: angelacat on April 21, 2025, 05:52

Question is if AI takes over and artists, creatives, bloggers etc are no longer seeing financial reward, or very little reward why would anyone upload anything of value to the internet. AI companies must have thought this one through, do they really think people are just going to work for free or something.

Sorry to be harsh but they sound like a self entitled bunch, lobbying governments, at least here in Britain, to weaken copyright laws. Our silly governments are swallowing the line.

"AI" is nothing more than the most open and large scale copyright breach in human history and shoved into a database.
Every single generated AI image is effectively copyright theft as the models were all trained to various extents on media without permission.

Ultimately Adobes gamble seems dull. NOW people are buying AI from stock. It wont be long until they just make their own from a prompt in whatever editor they're using and have no further need to buy anything so that market vanishes.

zeljkok · « **Reply #28 on:** April 22, 2025, 22:28 »

Quote from: gnirtS on April 22, 2025, 22:16

Quote from: angelacat on April 21, 2025, 05:52
Question is if AI takes over and artists, creatives, bloggers etc are no longer seeing financial reward, or very little reward why would anyone upload anything of value to the internet. AI companies must have thought this one through, do they really think people are just going to work for free or something.

Sorry to be harsh but they sound like a self entitled bunch, lobbying governments, at least here in Britain, to weaken copyright laws. Our silly governments are swallowing the line.

"AI" is nothing more than the most open and large scale copyright breach in human history and shoved into a database.
Every single generated AI image is effectively copyright theft as the models were all trained to various extents on media without permission.

Ultimately Adobes gamble seems dull. NOW people are buying AI from stock. It wont be long until they just make their own from a prompt in whatever editor they're using and have no further need to buy anything so that market vanishes.

This is bit harsh, but I won't disagree as I also believe AI is wrong.
But AI is just a tool, no more no less. It's people that are abusing the tool that make it bad.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #29 on:** April 23, 2025, 12:04 »

Quote from: angelacat on April 21, 2025, 05:52

Question is if AI takes over and artists, creatives, bloggers etc are no longer seeing financial reward, or very little reward why would anyone upload anything of value to the internet. AI companies must have thought this one through, do they really think people are just going to work for free or something.

Sorry to be harsh but they sound like a self entitled bunch, lobbying governments, at least here in Britain, to weaken copyright laws. Our silly governments are swallowing the line.

IF? That has already happened and we are already to the point of no longer seeing financial reward for our work. People are still uploading to SS for dimes and the reset. People are still trying to sell on Getty for 15%. How could the financial reward be less? (I hate to ask that, maybe it could get worse?)

Quote from: gnirtS on April 22, 2025, 22:16

"AI" is nothing more than the most open and large scale copyright breach in human history and shoved into a database.
Every single generated AI image is effectively copyright theft as the models were all trained to various extents on media without permission.

Ultimately Adobes gamble seems dull. NOW people are buying AI from stock. It wont be long until they just make their own from a prompt in whatever editor they're using and have no further need to buy anything so that market vanishes.

Diminishes not vanishes.

The judges and juries and courts of the world, will decide if it's a breach of copyright, not artists who have a personal interest in the use and decision. Using public domain images, without permission isn't copyright breach. Training a machine with images, and then the machine creates new images, without using any part of the training image, is not a breach of copyright.

If you use a thesaurus, or dictionary, to learn what a word means or how to use it, is that a breach of copyright? Having a machine look at an image and learn is the same thing.

No I don't use AI, no I don't like it or what's happened to the photo market, but that won't make me ignore the facts or the laws behind how the images are used, just because I don't like machine learning.

Adobe is jumping in, just like all the rest. It's "The next big thing" and here we are. Let me mention Kodak, and how digital is just a novelty, film is always going to be better. Remember Blockbuster, who could have bought Netflix, but they didn't think digital or streaming was a threat. So why would Adobe, just sit and watch as the AI market booms, without taking a part and making a profit?

gnirtS · « **Reply #30 on:** April 23, 2025, 21:51 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 23, 2025, 12:04

Quote from: angelacat on April 21, 2025, 05:52
Training a machine with images, and then the machine creates new images, without using any part of the training image, is not a breach of copyright.

That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #31 on:** April 24, 2025, 12:18 »

Quote from: gnirtS on April 23, 2025, 21:51

Quote from: angelacat on April 21, 2025, 05:52
Training a machine with images, and then the machine creates new images, without using any part of the training image, is not a breach of copyright.

That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative.

They are not derivatives, they are whole new creations. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) or diffusion models are used to learn patterns and concepts. Then the machine makes a new image, that does not use any portion or detail of any training image. Information or knowledge is not a derivative any more than knowing that water freezes at 32F or 0C is. A fact is a fact. Machine learning, is taught, not copying.

If the dumber "AI" systems, use bits and pieces of actual images, to make a new product, that's would be a derivative and can't be defended in any way.

ps the above message from Richard shows a quote tagged as me, and I didn't write "That's under the derivative works clauses in many countries. They don't have to use actual content. Information or knowledge obtained is derivative."

gnirtS · « **Reply #32 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:46 »

Pattern and concept in many places is still derivative. It doesnt need to use any part of it.

Thats why "in the style of" is causing so many issues currently.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #33 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:14 »

Quote from: gnirtS on Yesterday at 05:46

Pattern and concept in many places is still derivative. It doesnt need to use any part of it.

Thats why "in the style of" is causing so many issues currently.

Pattern and concept can't be copy protected.

You're right, in the style of should have been banned and prevented, from the start, that's infringing on a name and artists personal identity. Style might be questionable as you can't protect Art Deco or Abstract, or Modernist. Lets say primitive for an example, anyone can do that. But you can't have AI making Grandma Moses Primitive.

Back to the bottom line, the machine learning doesn't use any portion of any specific image, it learns what a banana looks like and the possible colors, and creates a new image. The computer is trained on 10,000 bananas (as an example) is trained on the possible variations, and when someone types in the prompt using the word banana, the machine has a pattern that has been learned.

You can't copyright knowledge or facts.

gnirtS · « **Reply #34 on:** **Yesterday** at 22:01 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on Yesterday at 11:14

Quote from: gnirtS on Yesterday at 05:46
Pattern and concept in many places is still derivative. It doesnt need to use any part of it.

Thats why "in the style of" is causing so many issues currently.

Pattern and concept can't be copy protected.

You're right, in the style of should have been banned and prevented, from the start, that's infringing on a name and artists personal identity. Style might be questionable as you can't protect Art Deco or Abstract, or Modernist. Lets say primitive for an example, anyone can do that. But you can't have AI making Grandma Moses Primitive.

Back to the bottom line, the machine learning doesn't use any portion of any specific image, it learns what a banana looks like and the possible colors, and creates a new image. The computer is trained on 10,000 bananas (as an example) is trained on the possible variations, and when someone types in the prompt using the word banana, the machine has a pattern that has been learned.

You can't copyright knowledge or facts.

No, but you can methods and mechanisms behind the final output. Which as that the AI does. It's learnt and implemented from prior works. The output literally wouldn't be possible without it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sudden downfall in downloads (Read 2126 times)

angelacat

HalfFull

gnirtS

zeljkok

Uncle Pete

gnirtS

Uncle Pete

gnirtS

Uncle Pete

gnirtS

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors