Data Licensing

[EzyRider_II]

Hi All, 
I hope I am doing this right. Have not started a thread before. And if Adobe feels my subject here is inappropriate, please feel free to remove it. so here it goes: I am wondering if Adobe is considering the so called Data Licensing. One other big competitor site has started doing it a week ago. Is it good? Is it beneficial to the contributor? I am not too sure or clear on the details. Sounds O.K. on the surface, but...! Any thought on this? Anyone? In general I don't like AI and I would be the last person to help it getting smarter by using my data : ). Tx for any comments and input.

[RALPH_L]

Are you implying the cursor text commands to produce an AI image?

Why would I want that?

[EzyRider_II]

No, no. It's like Shutterstock hooked up with some AI people/companies and sell them data about (real) photos (clips). Supposedly "to help" them enhance or teach machines about trends, etc. Obviously they won't do it for free! And you as a contributor have a choice to opt in (let AI use your data) or not. I am on the hedge about it. So i was wondering if Adobe is considering any similar partnerships. I am not too crazy about the concept. I may opt out. Tx. 

[RALPH_L]

Thanks. I found this info:

Shutterstock Data Licensing and the Contributor Fund - Shutterstock Contributor Support and FAQs

It seems as though Shutterstock is not commited to how much the contributor will receive.

I hope they pay more than they do for my sold photos.

As of now, I have not heard of any plans by Adobe. We will have to wait and see. 

[EzyRider_II]

Thanks Ralph! Yes, you are right. They keep their cards close to their
chest. So it makes me wonder! For them to keep 90% of the proceeds and
throw me 10%, it's not exactly appealing to me. So I will opt out after 3
months. See first what money we are talking about. If it's like $3, I
rather not let them make even more on me. They already pocket $1.40 while
they give you 10 cents on a sale! It's disgusting really.
Good luck with your uploads and sales! Cheers.

[Abambo]

The contributor gets cents from the use of data. That may be profitable, because it's a steady stream of income. An image licenced brings typically 10 cents. Adobe stock is more profitable: more sales, better royalties.

[Nancy OShea]

Adobe has their own AI called Firefly.   Firefly is trained from vetted, royalty-free assets from Adobe's inventory only.  That's for legal reasons. I don't foresee that changing.  Currently, Firefly generated artwork cannot be submitted to Stock.

Getty Images has filed lawsuit against Stable AI for copyright violation.  Anyway, it's a big legal mess that must be settled through U.S. Courts. 

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit

[EzyRider_II]

Thank you Nancy. Yes, this data harvesting sounds like a bit of a mess at
the moment. A bit like the self driving cars. Nobody is responsible when
accidents happen!?

[Abambo]

Adobe has it's Firefly project and surely, they won't take their data out of hot air. An AI engine needs to get fed. But I think the Adobe approach is more integrated. They have their products, and I think they want to include AI in these products, not to make stock obsolete, but to complement stock. 

BTW: for stock contributors, the most interesting addition of Adobe in recent years was Adobe Express, giving a "free" subscription to Adobe stock with the premium subscription. You get your minimum payout, regardless of Express, Creative Cloud Pro for Enterprises or any other subscription. Those products and the integration into Adobe Cretive Cloud makes Adobe stock a must for stock contributors.

[EzyRider_II]

thank for your kind response!
here is a thought on the new, seemingly much more stringent reviews. perhaps it's something that has some merits. since we clearly see that most longtime contributors are perplexed and struggling with the new (more stringent) reviews, and if we presume for a second that it's at least partly being done because any subject (!) is way over-saturated with photos on line (!?),  why not "offer" contributors to "clean" their portfolios? by cleaning I mean asking them (us) to get rid of old, tired, never used photos. maybe 5% (10, 15?). giving them 2 months to comply. if they don't, then Adobe could graft their pertfolios. again, only by removing files that have never been sold or downloaded (looked at). I could surely remove even 20 or 25% of my files with no effect on my sales! and suddenly Adobe would free up a fair chunk of storage space and buying customers would also benefit by having to scroll through a lighter yet more relevant load when searching. just a quick thought. an as a result the freed up space could be filled with new, fresh data and perhaps with a tiny bit of less scrutinizing (hair splitting) reviews.

[Abambo]

I have a picture, I uploaded in 2018, that never sold until last year, which is my current bestseller (not absolute, but current). Why should I delete old files?

Assets can sleep in the database for years and then get detected. 

As for the more stringent reviews, I'm not sure about that. Pictures that I have seen until now all had some errors. Refusals that I got recently were, because my image editing introduced artefacts, that I did not see before submitting. May be because of customer complaints, moderators got asked to be more careful with their review. 

[Jill_C]

I think Adobe could do some housekeeping and remove some poor quality images that have never sold; but it seems unlikely that they'd do that given the expense of moderation. Data storage is cheap compared to the cost of hiring the number of moderators they'd need to do a manual cleanup. As @Abambo said, old previously unsold images rise to the top pretty regularly for me too, so I'd hate for them to be systematically removed by Adobe just because they're several years old.

[Nancy OShea]

If you keep your old jackets & sweaters long enough, they evntually come back into fashion.  It's funny how that works. 🙂

[EzyRider_II]

: ). May be true for a jacket. I may have 2 or 3 dead photos a year that
surface suddenly and get bought, but only a single time. Doesn't become a
good seller. Regarding clothing, I am more of the opinion that if you
haven't worn it for two years, give it away because chances are you will
never wear it. I am 99% sure that I can isolate 25% my port that has never
been used and never will be used! But that's me. In fact only about 18% of
my total portfolio has ever sold. the rest I consider just dead load. At
the same time it does happen that a photo has sold 100+ times on one site,
yet not once here. And vica versa. Go figure!

[Abambo]

 the rest I consider just dead load. Atthe same time it does happen that a photo has sold 100+ times on one site,yet not once here. And vica versa. Go figure!
By @EzyRider_II

You are welcome to delete, whatever you want to delete. However, if an old picture shows up for only one sale, it has that sale, and the 30+ cents it generates is great. Every single bit contributes to the overall picture.