Is the Remove Tool trained on other images like generative fill?

[Ryan26687105orh5]

The generative fill tool takes images from the internet to work, which is why you have to be online for it to be used. Is this the same case with the remove tool (brush)? Because I want to claim full ownership of my work and I want to knwo if the remove tool learns from images scraped off the internet or if it just analyses or uses pixels from the surroundings of an image like content aware or the spot healing brush.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

The generative fill tool takes images from the internet to work, which is why you have to be online for it to be used.

The first part of the sentence seems kind of misinterpretative and the second one kind of wrong. 

1) Firefly has not been trained on images on the web willy-nilly (as other generative AI might have), instead Adobe took a fairly cautious approach to copyright. 

2) The actual generation happens on Adobe servers, so the issue is not that Firefly is looking up images ad hoc, but that Adobe does not disperse the whole model to every user – I assume for size reasons and to protect their IP. 

Edit: 

I cannot provide a link about that currently, but if I remember correctly the Remove Tool uses a smaller (probably also older) model locally, but also utilizes generative AI. 

[Ryan26687105orh5]

Thank you for explaining!

[c.pfaffenbichler]

You may want to read these  

https://www.adobe.com/products/firefly.html

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/03/21/responsible-innovation-age-of-generative-ai

A quote from the first link:

»What is Adobe doing to ensure that Firefly is commercially safe?

As part of Adobe’s effort to design Firefly to be commercially safe, we are training our initial commercial Firefly model on licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public domain content where copyright has expired.«

[Ryan26687105orh5]

Thanks for the info!

[Ryan26687105orh5]

I forgot to mention, Adobe can apparently use anyone's work stored in the Creative Cloud to train their AI, and people have been getting mad as they recently clarified it in their terms of service. If this was for Firefly, the message you gave me would be a lie. Does this updated policy apply to Firefly?

[c.pfaffenbichler]

---

@Ryan26687105orh5 wrote:

I forgot to mention, Adobe can apparently use anyone's work stored in the Creative Cloud to train their AI, 

---

You may want to draw your own conclusions about the motivation of the people who have been spreading those false claims. 

Quote from the link below: 
»Section 2.2 means:
…
Here’s what we don't do: We don’t scan or review content that is stored locally on your device. We also don’t train generative AI models on your or your customers’ content unless you’ve submitted the content to the Adobe Stock marketplace.«
https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html

[Ryan26687105orh5]

I don't think you completely understood my message. I know the policy doesn't affect local files, but it does affect files stored in the creative cloud. If it didn't, all of the complaints wouldn't have been in the news and Adobe wouldn't have been interviewed about it.

[Conrad C · Accepted solution]

I don't think you completely understood my message. I know the policy doesn't affect local files, but it does affect files stored in the creative cloud. If it didn't, all of the complaints wouldn't have been in the news and Adobe wouldn't have been interviewed about it.

By @Ryan26687105orh5

“Creative Cloud” includes a wide range of cloud services, such as Creative Cloud Libraries, Lightroom Photos, Adobe Document Cloud (Acrobat), etc.). They don’t all work the same.

c.pfaffenbichler’s post contains an Adobe quote saying AI training is on a much more constrained set, not the entire Creative Cloud:

Here’s what we don't do: We don’t scan or review content that is stored locally on your device. We also don’t train generative AI models on your or your customers’ content unless you’ve submitted the content to the Adobe Stock marketplace.«
https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html

What Adobe is saying is: If you did not upload anything to Adobe Stock for sale, and therefore you never agreed to Adobe Stock terms and compensation, they’re not training on it.

If you think about it, Adobe could not be successful if they were doing things as some YouTubers claim they are. Adobe depends on subscription revenue from many very large companies and organizations who aggressively defend their intellectual property with armies of lawyers. They would simply never allow that kind of re-use of proprietary company data. But if Adobe is apparently not being challenged by the legal armies of big business, it might be safe to assume that those lawyers have not found anything to be sufficiently concerned about. YouTubers are not lawyers. (I’m not a lawyer either, though.)

[Ryan26687105orh5]

I wasn't talking about YouTubers, I was talking about well known tech news websites such as PetaPixel. But now I understand what you're saying, thank you for explaining!

[kevin stohlmeyer]

@Ryan26687105orh5 PetaPixel has come out with updated articles explaining the TOS.

https://petapixel.com/2024/06/18/adobes-terms-of-use-controversy-provided-an-opportunity-to-improve/

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I don't think you completely understood my message. I know the policy doesn't affect local files, but it does affect files stored in the creative cloud.

That is not correct. 

If it didn't, all of the complaints wouldn't have been in the news and Adobe wouldn't have been interviewed about it.

Counterfactual information often plays great on the web … sometimes it can even be monetized. 

What title would in your opinion attract more attention »Adobe legal department releases confusingly worded terms of use« or »ADOBE IS STEALING YOUR IMAGES!«? 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I don't think you completely understood my message. I know the policy doesn't affect local files, but it does affect files stored in the creative cloud. If it didn't, all of the complaints wouldn't have been in the news and Adobe wouldn't have been interviewed about it.

By @Ryan26687105orh5

The reasoning seems to be specious. 

Many people making incorrect claims may be a newsworthy phenomenon in itself. 

Necessitating companies/people to give interviews to contradict incorrect claims does not make those claims true. 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/76-a-lie-can-travel-half-way-around-the-world-while