Generative AI Submission

[Being Imaginative]

I recently joined the Adobe Contributor Community and am mainly using AI Generative Content. So, if I edit an AI Generative image using Illustrator or Photoshop (e.g. writing something on the Image or removing the background etc.), which category will that image fall?

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

What do you mean?

You still always have generative AI. You can't submit vector assets as generative AI, so that rule will make it impossible to submit Illustrator assets in that category. As for the rest, the photos and illustration rules are to be applied to see if your asset belongs to one or the other category.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[Being Imaginative]

Thanks for insight

[Abambo]

You're welcome.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

As a fact: Adobe did open vector graphics for generative AI submissions, so yo are now allowed to submit those as vector files too. You should, however, not submit now assets as vector that are accepted assets of the database in a different category. You will need to delete that asset first.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

If you created the asset using a Generative AI tool, it will always be an AI image, regardless of what additional editing is applied.

[Janos Thanatos]

I know where you're coming from. But as AI tools increasingly enter our lives, everything we do will involve some AI tool. By this standard, every image will be an AI image, the word will become an AI world. (We will learn with AI, so our I will be AI? Don't forget, AI was first created wih I.) Let's not give the model more credit than it deserves. What's wrong with saying 'If you created the asset using a Generative AI tool, it will always be an image created with tools that include AI.' Human creativity still has a contribution to make (for now, at least).

[Jill_C]

I think we're agreeing with each other. If an image has AI components, the creator should not try to obscure that fact. And I suppose that as society continues to grapple with the AI question, it will eventually become the law that AI images, or AI anything have full disclosure. 

[Janos Thanatos]

Yes, Jill, I think we are generally on the same page. Credit should be given where credit is due, and artistic integrity means something. 

[Abambo]

What's wrong with saying 'If you created the asset using a Generative AI tool, it will always be an image created with tools that include AI.' Human creativity still has a contribution to make (for now, at least).

By @Janos Thanatos

The thing here is to let people know that the asset has been created by AI. As in some circumstances, advertisers are required to tell the public that an asset has been digitally modified.

[Janos Thanatos]

Yes, you are right and, "in full disclosure", only after I posted the comment did I realise I was not in the correct forum to point out the troubing broader implications of "If you created the asset using a Generative AI tool, it will always be an AI image". For the purposes of the original question, my semantic objection lacked relevance, and I'd take it down if I could because, as a "community beginner," I should not have reacted so vehemently to "correct answer" stamped on a case of careless language that nonetheless got the job done.

[Abambo]

There is no harm done. all discussion in this regard is useful. 

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

Once AI gernerated always AI generated.