New Licensing feature for stock content.

[mars lewis]

Am I hearing this right??? That a new feature allows stock users to create derivative works from contributor content to create their own licensed works.  It seems like an awful development if I am reading this right. If it's true, it begs the question: How much further will Adobe go to further dillute the earning potential of contributor assets.? 

How much does Adobe need to devalue art before it's no longer worth the trouble or costs for its creation by its stock contributors??

Some clarity on this would be helpful as I'm about to find another vocation - cause I just want create and sell great imagery.. 

[daniellei4510]

Well here's how I interpret it:

First, remember that buyers may very well more often than not alter the assets they purchase to one degree or another. But what about individuals who don't have the software or know-how to make difficult alterations? If AI can do that for them before purchasing an asset, then that would be a plus for the seller. That's my interpretation. But you're right, some additional clarification would be nice, but I doubt that we'll see it before the tech in question is actually available. 

[Jill_C]

Today's announcement on this topic does not say that Buyers can license, alter and then claim copyright to our images which would allow them to resell them commercially; however, it would be nice to have clarification on that topic. Additionally, they should alter the T&C's to state explicitly what IP rights the Buyers have to such creations.

[mars lewis]

It does indeed state the objective here is to create more licenses. 

 

[mars lewis]

You know my last grievance was being tax reported twice for the same earnings through ADOBE and PayPal. Never could get any elucidation on that. 

I can see all my efforts slowly being cannabalized with all these bizarre policy changes. No way to get out of the red. Creative Cloud subscription along with diluted royalties has really become problematic the way Generative AI has basically devalued art. Adobe seems to be intent on the destruction of the loyal supporters that were instrumental in building their empire. I've already written my Senators tonight. 

They're devouring everything and yet as a stockholder I see them down 7% this month and losing money. WTF??!! 

[Abambo]

You know my last grievance was being tax reported twice for the same earnings through ADOBE and PayPal. Never could get any elucidation on that. 

By @mars lewis

I suppose that both companies have a legal obligation to report your revenue. I suppose that is something that you need to get fixed by your taxing authority. But you seem to be the only one with that problem. Are you located in the USA? There must be a possibility to neutralize PayPal's declaration with Adobe's.

[Abambo]

They're devouring everything and yet as a stockholder I see them down 7% this month and losing money. WTF??!! 

By @mars lewis

Stocks in general are down (this month!) after being up for some time. Never forget to take your profits when they are. You won't get that rich, but you do not lose money.

(BTW: you're mixing up different topics that are unrelated to each other.)

This topic should have been posted in the contributor forum.

[Jill_C]

I interpret that statement to mean that the ability to use AI to edit an image found on Adobe Stock will incentivize Buyers to license a stock image for their use (and modification) rather than trying to create one from scratch. Buyers are already licensing our images and editing them to fit into their designs, so this just gives them another tool to use within the Adobe Stock user interface.

[mars lewis]

Buyer = Customer

[Jill_C]

Yes of course I understand that. Buyers are Customers and Contributors are Suppliers. What was your point?

[Eva36887359nzz2]

I agree with original poster here though. It´s vague and a bit unsettling.