Wasn't Firefly supposed to be "ethically trained?"

[heybrad007]

Why has Adobe created a bunch of artwork in the style of Abigail Larson without compensating the artist? Why can Ian McQue, @Loishh, and several other artists all find their names in the Adobe Library when they never put any of their artwork up into Adobe stock for sale? I thought Adobe was supposed to be "ethically training" just on the images that Adobe owned in its own stock library. It appears now Adobe is being trained just as unethically as all the other unscrupulous Ai text-to-image generators. Very disappointing. Adobe you are now directly stealing and laundering the art of your own users. Please fix this.

[Dave Gustafson]

Hey Brad!

Those images are probably from Image farmers from MidJourney trying to make a buck in Adobe stock. The submission editors probably have no clue as to who these originated from. If I ran the zoo I would permaban those stock accounts for theft.

It's Probably best to post this in the Stock Contributors forum so Adobe can take action. I'm not an Adobe employee or compensated in any way so I can't contribute anymore to this discussion.

[droopydog500]

Hello @heybrad007 ,

These images are in Adobe Stock. As Dave mentioned, it is extremely unlikely that Firefly was used to produce them. I agree with Dave that this is likely an issue with the person who submitted them to Adobe Stock and the approval process. I also recommend you discuss this in the Adobe Stock forum: Adobe Stock Community .

My best,

     droopy