In recent weeks, the galleries have been swarmed with artists selling AI art, many of which are basically just variations of the same images. I licensed a few of these before I knew what they were. Because of the controversy surrounding AI art (using stolen art/replicating art styles/etc), is there a way to get Adobe Stock to enforce a disclaimer for AI generated art so that it's easier to spot and avoid?
There isn't any system in place to mark them as AI art. There is even an ongoing controversy concerning the copyright of such art. Contributors have expressed an interest and buyers have asked questions in this sense. And I do not know if any of the Adobe employees is authorized to make any statement on this. If there is a statement, I would expect this to be a declaration in an official Adobe blog post with a wording that has been cleared by the Adobe legal team. Currently, however, there is no search filter in place, filtering those assets out.
(as you may have guessed: I'm not working for Adobe).
We are evaluating this issue and appreciate your feedback. I've shared this with our content review team.
Speaking as a digital artist, I see a lot of uses for AI-generated assets in my own projects, although I view it more as enhancement rather than art. AI-generated images are bringing to art what CGI brought to motion pictures. Neither one are going away anytime soon. AI is a sophisticated tool that rightfully belongs in the artist's arsenal alongside paints, pastels, brushes, cameras and software. Photoshop contains AI-assisted technologies. So I see this as the next logical extension to the tools we currently use.
I fear not every artist will use AI correctly or is taking necessary steps to ensure they have sufficient copyright to sell their AI-generated assets commercially. Midjourney's free service does not include copyright, one must purchase at least a 2nd tiered subscription for that. And Midjorney maintains shared copyright to use the assets on their platform. Artists wishing to remove assets from public use must pay additional fees to Midjourney.
The AI prompt creation process is itself tedious trial & error. Many new artists opt to use prompts and assets created by other artists as a starting point. This introduces other legitimacy concerns. What exactly do artists have copyright to? It's unclear.
Getty Images has banned the sale of AI-generated artwork through its service. Similar image synthesis bans are occurring on smaller art community sites which found their sites flooded with AI-generated work that threatened to overwhelm artwork created without the use of those tools.
"Shutterstock allows AI-generated artwork on its site (and although Vice recently reported the site was removing AI artwork, we still see the same amount as before—and Shutterstock's content submission terms have not changed)."
Humans still remain the best judge of what works and what doesn't work artistically. But AI-generated images deserve classification. I hope Adobe Stock will eventually embrace AI for what it is and not what it isn't. I would hate to see a wholesale ban on AI-generated assets.
If AI art is going to stay on Adobe Stock's platform, I 100% agree it should be clearly labeled, or even sorted into its own category (alongside photos, illustrations, and vectors). I certainly think at least some of these images probably do not follow copyright laws correctly, which is also a major concern. Adobe Stock should be a leader in resolving these ethical issues, or else it will quickly fall behind other stock image sites which are less overwhelmed by artificial intelligence synthesis-imagery
Read this article. It sheds more light on the legal controversies.