Concerns Regarding Generative AI Tools and the Impact on Contributors’ Original Work

[mars lewis]

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.

1. 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. 
   
2. 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. 
   
   
3. 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. 
   
   
4. 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.

[RALPH_L]

Nothing has changed except that our assets can be used as a startin point for AI alterations. Misuse has always been a problem. Alterration (within guidelines) of my assets has always been allowed. So I do not believe that anything has really changed. I am here to earn profits and not display my art work.

[daniellei4510]

Couldn't have said it better. Enough with the "high art" stuff. If one wants to sell art, there are other sites available to do so.

[mars lewis]

You miss my point! People can do with my images as the wish. But they can't make me compete against myself with derivative works on Adobe Stock. 

[mars lewis]

It's not always easy to determine if a work is a derivative work or if it falls under fair use.

This is the problem. Adobe has given standards for what applies as a fair use derivative.

There is a lot of crazy stuff going down with AI that's gonna be a big mess when US Copyright offices finally decide to incorporate some real logic here.

Copyrighf Office declares that AI cannot be copyrighted because copyrightable work is not author by a human.

Under that logic then a photograph is less copyrightable tha. A prompted AI image.

[daniellei4510]

"Under that logic, then a photograph is less copyrightable than a prompted AI image."

Good point. One is just clicking a button. The other is just writing a prompt. What's the difference? (Playing devil's advocate.)

[mars lewis]

Thanks for that. The logic for not granting copyright status to AI is totally bogus. If fact they don't have a single argument that holds up. They're are just uninformed Bureaucratic gatekeepers - and they creating a big mess filled with coming lawsuits and court challenges. 

[mars lewis]

I don’t mind modification to my images, but allowing a user to modify my image, then contribute it to Adobe Stock as a derivative work then be able to sell that derivative work for a royalty license?? 

The effect here is that this policy will have me competing with my own works without the possibility of compensation or economic recognition my work being the basis of the derivative. 

I don’t know of a universe where any artist wouldn’t find this almost intolerable. 

[daniellei4510]

"I don’t mind modification to my images, but allowing a user to modify my image, then contribute it to Adobe Stock as a derivative work then be able to sell that derivative work for a royalty license??"

Does it clearly say Adobe will do this in the recent announcement?

[mars lewis]

Yes. It can be clearly interpret to mean that someone can take your image, apply some generative AI or modification to it, contribute as a original work without compensation to the basis image creator. 

I ran their wording of this coming policy through three language models and each indicated in no ambiguous terms this is what they are saying. As we've seen in the past, whether by lack of mindfulness or in order to deceive, their legal policy wording is often ambiguous enough to allow abuse. 

if I am in error they need to clarify their wording here. 

[mars lewis]

Read it for yourself.  

[daniellei4510]

I have read it. It's vague. We won't really know how it works until it's implemented and we know for sure what to complain about.

[mars lewis]

Uh no. It should not be implemented without clarification another minute. And it is not unusually vague. It's wording is as problematic as the last privacy policy fiasco. 

[mars lewis]

We could really use some company moderators input at this point. I do not wish push this issue any further if I am in error. 

[mars lewis]

I don’t mind modification to my images, but allowing a user to modify my image, then contribute it to Adobe Stock as a derivative work then be able to sell that derivative work a license??

The effect here is that this policy will have me competing with my own works with the possibility of compensation or economic recognition my work being the basis of the derivative.

I don’t know of a universe where a wouldn’t find this almost intolerable.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @mars lewis ,

None of us on this forum can say for sure what will happen or not happen and how Adobe will deal with it. If you have an issue with any of the Adobe AI policies or application, or if you have a suggestion, it's best to take it up with Adobe. That is the only way you can get a clear understanding of how you as an artist will be affected and what Adobe has in place to protect all contributor's rights, assets and their sale potential. The information you are looking for will not be provided in this forum since it's monitored mainly by contributors and other end users that are not staff members.  

Best wishes

Jacquelin