Do thousands of images break the rules?

[oleschwander]

If the rules are bent what are they for?

100 pages of fake AI-images of Colosseum in Rome - most - but not all - only captured as Colosseum, but still against the rule in my view.

100 pages of fake images of the Eiffel Tower

100 pages of fake images of Big Ben clock tower

... and so on, and so on (by the way why exactly 100 pages ...?)

And a totally fake image of Sydney:

688973034

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

I believe this issue has been brought up before. Only real life news events can not be portrayed by AI. Landmarks apparently aren't a problem. Dumb, I know. It's very misleading for buyers and should be against the rules. Unless I'm missing something.

[Jill_C]

Unfortunately, there's no way of preventing or reporting this fakery to Adobe. It's truly an era of "Buyer Beware".

[oleschwander]

In the name of truth, Adobe should add a disclaimer to all AI images that depict certain locations: This image does not accurately depict the location - or something similar.

[Jill_C]

I agree. I uploaded some images from a trip to Bergen, Norway last year and searched for other images from the same location to see what the competition was. I was shocked to see many AI images claiming to be from the same area which bore no resemblance at all!!!

[oleschwander]

I am shocked...! I didn't realize the extent of the problem.

[daniellei4510]

I would think they would need to be classifed as "recognizable property" during submission and therefore require a release. Which of course would be impossible to get. This is a loophole that needs to be closed.

[Jill_C]

We don't need property releases to submit panoramic city scenes, so the same applies to AI; however, I think AI images in general should not be allowed to claim to be of a particular location. They should be limited to saying for instance "Norwegian fjord", but not "Bryggen Wharf, Bergen, Norway."

[daniellei4510]

That's true. But @oleschwander's file number he posted as an example doesn't strike me as a panorama. The main subject is the Colosseum. Or more accurately, A colosseum posing as the former. In fact, my word checker is insisting that colosseum be capitalized, so it's apparently the only one in existence. 🙂

[Abambo]

A colosseum posing as the former. In fact, my word checker is insisting that colosseum be capitalized, so it's apparently the only one in existence. 🙂

By @daniellei4510

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum

There can be only one and only!

[oleschwander]

On all images it says: 'Generated with AI - Editorial use must not be misleading or false.'

It certainly can't be difficult to comply with the reviewers. This is a scandal..!

[Abambo]

On all images it says: 'Generated with AI - Editorial use must not be misleading or false.'

It certainly can't be difficult to comply with the reviewers. This is a scandal..!

By @oleschwander

You're right. But that rule is not applicable for buildings and landmarks, as we learned from the stock forum. And that's a mess.

[oleschwander]

It should read: This image is a fictional representation of a Norwegian fjord.

[DaveFX]

i agree 100% .. .and very weird that the "AI people" isnt crying and isnt upset by this ... they were upset only for the sticky filter ... to me it tells me a lot about adobe and these "AI people" ...

[daniellei4510]

I'm an "AI people" and I'm upset about it.

[DaveFX]

you are the only one ... you won the 1st prize  😂

[daniellei4510]

Here's what I don't understand: If I were to submit an AI asset of someone like Scarlett Johansson (the beginner's go-to when they first delve into AI), the process would ask if there are any "recognizable people or property." I would be required to say yes, and I would therefore need to provide a model release. Likewise, if I submit an AI asset of the Eiffel Tower or Coliseum, I'm asked again if there are any "recognizable people or PROPERTY. Both are clearly recognizable, but contributors must be answering "No," or they would be required to submit a property release. These contributors are simply gaming the system.

[Jill_C]

Correct. They're cheating and getting away with it because Moderators accept those assets anyway...