AI Generated Images Not Marked as Such?

[iedreams]

In an online discussion about AI generated images and how Adobe Stock is now accepting them someone linked to a portfolio of a person who has publicllly stated that they are submitting AI images to Adobe Stock. 

There was also a link to Adobe Stocks info on submitting AI images, which states,

" Label, title, and tag content as Generative AI illustrations.
To properly review your content and surface it to customers, clearly label content that has been made using generative AI tools. Only content that has been properly labeled can be selected for inclusion in content highlight galleries, customer research requests, and other promotional materials. Identify any generative AI art as illustration, even if it looks like a photograph - only content primarily created using a camera can be submitted as photos."

But this person does not have anything labeled as AI in their portfolio. At a glance one might think many of them are photographs. With some though, close inspection mistakes can be seen that show it is AI generated. Like this Santa. Look closer at the skiis--they're not right. But there are also a couple other issues with it.

https://stock.adobe.com/images/santa-claus-skiing-winter-fun-christmas/549864842

This is not only an issue with it not being labeled as AI work, it's also a quality issue. Adobe Stock is supposed to have quality images, and this Santa is mostly good--but the skiis are a big flaw in my opinion. So I think Adobe employees need to take extra care when examining images to be accepted for such flaws. 

I don't have a problem with AI images--as long as they are clearly labelled, so I hope Adobe can contact this contributer and get them to label their AI images correctly. 

[Jill_C]

I searched the portfolio of the artist you mentioned and did find AI and generative keywords on images. Perhaps they are in the process of updating their Portfolio to comply with the latest guidelines. 

[iedreams]

That's great. Thank you. I think all of the ones that I looked at were not labeled. But now I see that if I search that portfolio for "ai" that I can find many. So I think you are right that they are updating things (which I would imagine would take some time). 

[mattb256]

Can we get an additional subcategory for AI generative images?

[Abambo]

@Contributor1,

When I look at what scrutiny some other contributions are vetted, then I think that most of these Santa pictures should be checked again, and deleted from the database.

[Contributor1 · Accepted solution]

Thank you all, I'll report this to the content team for a second review. I agree @Abambo, all assets deserve equal scrutiny.

[David27495045b7xq]

Hi - I would also REALLY like to see better labeling of AI-generated art, so I can avoid it. My very first search of the day turned up an obvious (and terrible) example: Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except Postal Service Fictional Work Enviroment Scene. Stock...

As far as I can tell, it is not labelled as such - and the "artist", Replicant.Army, has an entire collection of (bad) AI art. If I wanted that, I'd generate it myself! It's below the quality standards of Adobe, and we really need better curation.

[Jill_C]

Ugh ! That really is ghastly. I wonder why it got accepted into the database...

[David27495045b7xq]

I believe the artist's entire catalog is similar, although some are better than others. This sloth with no feet is typical. Unau (Linnaeus’s Two-Toed Sloth) Animal. Illustration Artist Rendering Stock Illustration | Adobe St...

[Abambo]

You could argue that this is modern art, as they do not claim to be photographic representations of the scene. I, however, agree, I would generate my sets if I would need something like that. I would have removed them on the commercial value.

[celester95267202]

A well known insect photographer pointed out some AI generated fantasy ants not labeled as AI, so I started poking around that accounts image and found all sorts of bad animal images including this 6-legged "salamader." I also don't think this "photographer" has been to Antarctica to take just one photo of Emperor penguins. This garbage devalues every actual travel photographer's work.

https://stock.adobe.com/images/poisonous-wild-salamander-crawls-up-tree-clinging-to-its-paws/5469531...

[David27495045b7xq]

I agree completely! I am on Adobe Stock specifically to find quality photography, not (checks site) penguins with three legs and no faces.

[Abambo]

Please find here a note for contributors concerning the submission of AI-generated images: announcing-the-adobe-stock-policy-on-generative-ai-content. Hopefully, this trend will slow down a bit. I also suppose that moderators get training to detect such assets with erroneous features. Some are easy to detect.

The 6 legged Salamander is gone. If you see such assets, denounce them here. If someone spams Adobe stock with badly generated AI art, I expect that account to be terminated.

[EkorrenHJ]

When searching things like gothic, sci-fi, or fantasy illustrations, the majority of art assets are unlabeled AI art. It's too much to even link individual contributors. 

[Abambo]

The rules for marking AI have been laid out only recently, on December, 5th. Not all AI art can be marked for now. If you find AI art that is not matching the standard, you should denounce it here. If you do not do that, it can't be cured.

[EkorrenHJ]

Okay. On a five second search for "gothic," I found five contributors who hadn't marked their art as AI generated:

https://stock.adobe.com/se/contributor/211079269/raven?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/se/contributor/211108779/henry-letham?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/se/contributor/211105496/tj-barnwell?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/se/contributor/208278073/crocothery?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/se/contributor/211150806/jovan?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

[Abambo]

Thanks. Some of that, at least, is of doubtful quality. @Contributor1 ?

[Contributor1 · Accepted solution]

Hello, yes these accounts may need futher scrutiny. I've passed on the report to the content team for review. Thank you for the report and sorry for the problem with the assets.

[Vivoderm]

TOTALLY AGREE. I'm very excited to play with Generative AI, and see where it can expand my art and what ideas it can help me generate, to tweak my drawings and illustrations, and maybe even build, etc. But THESE GUYS!?

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208557026/kris-kashtanova?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset...

That's one CREEPY TURKEY! It has multiple weird legs and the skin seems to be "growing" into the cup - gross!

They are not even correcting these images or proofing them in any way. They just seem to be generating them - en mass and slapping them up online to sell as fast as possible. Page after page after page of BAD art.

https://stock.adobe.com/images/blanket-in-a-winter-cabin-generative-ai/548887156?prev_url=detail

The coffee cup is ALL jacked up and the blanket appeared to be shredded...

My only fear as an artist now, is if I DO have a drawing that takes me hours, or days or even weeks of work...HOW can it compete with someone who just SPOKE 3,000 images into existence?

[vanessaw35923482]

This seems to be a very common thing where ai prompters submit works without labeling them as ai. This is especially annoying when looking for vector images as they tag the images as being vector but when you download the images its just converted jpgs. Also im convinced they all watch the same tutorials as their work is almost identical - one does waterpaint effect they ALL do water paint effect. Starting to think it might be a better idea to just invest in an ai software program for images rather than stock sites. Here are some more that dont label their work as Generative AI illustrations but which clearly are:
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/211040254/fortis-design?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/211030798/zaleman?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/208278073/crocothery?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/211164139/zedtox?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/211177605/mashita?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/211105496/tj-barnwell?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/205781478/travel-drawn?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/209695830/la-cassette-bleue?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/211081979/badger?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

bloody hell they are everywhere, pretty much every second image you click on is likely to just be a prompt image...sigh

[Abambo]

I looked in your first link and random asset: marked as graphic resource and not as vector. It was a JPEG image. Graphic resources are not necessarily vector images.

[Vivoderm]

Hello Abambo, 

I am just curious...would you know if these MidJourney and Dall-E images are selling well? Or do so many people have access to the tools, that they are generating their own images now? I have been messing around with MidJourney and other Ai programs, and it is very difficult to get the same result with the prompts, or to make edits. The BOT can only generate images it had been fed or seen before. Hence, the similar syles keep popping up. Is it WORTH the effort these guys are putting in to stockpile thousands of "instant Ai" images?  Where do you guys see this taking the future of Stock Imagery?

[Abambo]

My feeling is: there is so much crap generated by AI, that many buyers simply want to skip AI-generated assets. To sort out and get to the two or three quality assets is simply not worth the time. The Adobe stock database got flooded with AI, before even the instructions came out, to mark them accordingly, and before the moderators got trained to refuse three-handed Santa Clauses. Now, Adobe has a big problem with database clean-up. I fear that AI-generated assets will have a bad reputation for some time here.

And the quality issue will hurt overall sales. But AI-generated assets may make their cash with the sheer number of assets that can be created in a short time by trained and experienced users. I'm not interested in that because it misses my input. But I could use AI for non-stock projects of mine. 

[David27495045b7xq]

Agree. I turn to Adobe because I expect a level of curation that I'm not getting from all the AI stuff.

[Abambo]

It looks like Adobe is reacting and blocking some accounts, that publish AI generated stuff, but who is not marking the stuff accordingly. I do not know, however, if that is a general approach, or concerns only accounts with reported assets.