Dear Adobe Stock Team and Fellow Contributors,   As an active contributor to Adobe Stock, I feel compelled to raise a significant concern regarding the newly announced generative AI features and their potential impact on us as artists. While I understand the intention behind introducing these tools—to increase licensing opportunities—I fear the broader implications may inadvertently harm contributors and devalue original works.   Dilution of Artistic Integrity: By allowing customers to modify and refine stock images through AI, there’s a very real possibility that the original essence of our work could be diminished or outright overshadowed. These derivative works may be marketed or preferred over the original images, leaving contributors like myself in a position where we are essentially competing against altered versions of our own art. This feels like a contradiction to the spirit of stock art licensing, where we should be credited and compensated fairly for our creative vision, not undermined by AI-driven modifications.  No Clear Revenue Sharing on Derivative Works: The message implies that any derivative work created from our original image will result in a single license fee for the base image. However, it remains unclear whether contributors will share in any revenue generated by the modified versions of their art. It’s concerning that once a customer alters the work, they may benefit from the new creation while the original artist receives no additional compensation or recognition.  Devaluation of Original Art: The introduction of these AI tools seems to open the door for customers to heavily modify stock images to the point where the derivative versions could easily outshine or devalue the original. If a modified version better fits a customer’s needs, it’s likely that our original work will be overlooked, rendering it “stale” or obsolete in the marketplace. This is especially troubling for artists who take great pride in their creative vision and spend considerable time ensuring their work is unique and compelling.  Artistic Ownership and Rights: The question remains—what safeguards are in place to protect contributors' rights when their work is significantly altered through AI? Are we simply handing over the rights for our work to be reshaped and resold as something else? There’s a lack of clarity about whether derivative works will still be tied to the original artist or if they’ll eventually be considered entirely new creations belonging to the customer.  I urge Adobe to provide more transparency and address these concerns openly. As contributors, we deserve to know how these changes will affect our ability to license our work fairly, without the risk of being undercut by AI-generated derivatives that could ultimately leave our original creations sidelined. This isn’t just about increasing licenses; it’s about protecting the value, integrity, and rights of the artists who make Adobe Stock what it is. I hope this issue is taken seriously, and steps are taken to ensure that contributors are not put at a disadvantage by these new tools.   ... View more

Am I hearing this right??? That a new feature allows stock users to create derivative works from contributor content to create their own licensed works.  It seems like an awful development if I am reading this right. If it's true, it begs the question: How much further will Adobe go to further dillute the earning potential of contributor assets.?  How much does Adobe need to devalue art before it's no longer worth the trouble or costs for its creation by its stock contributors??   Some clarity on this would be helpful as I'm about to find another vocation - cause I just want create and sell great imagery..  ... View more