how to avoid ai art?

[EkorrenHJ]

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?

[heinerd87664483]

Sorry to say, but that copyright was withdrawn again. Also, it's not about protecting assets. It's about the fact Adobe is selling things that don't have any copyright, AND are based on stolen artwork.

I'll definitely cancel my subscription as long as Adobe sticks to AI images. I think it's despicable on many levels.

[Abambo]

As always, it's complicated. It's neither black nor white. It's called progress…

When digital photography emerged, people said that this would be the end of photography. When photography emerged, people said that this would be the end of painting. It is what it is… and you can't stop it.

[Michael2631962819zv]

None of us are trying to stop it from being made. AI art-makers will continue doing their thing. We are asking that Adobe Stock remove it, or at least label it in a very obvious way

[Nancy OShea]

We are asking that Adobe Stock remove it, or at least label it in a very obvious way

By @Michael2631962819zv

==========

Adobe Stock is labeling it. 😕

If you see AI generated art on Stock that's not labeled as AI (title & keyword), please report it to Stock so they can take appropriate action with the contributor.

[Abambo]

None of us are trying to stop it from being made. AI art-makers will continue doing their thing. We are asking that Adobe Stock remove it, or at least label it in a very obvious way

By @Michael2631962819zv

See here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

There is currently a number of artwork not conforming to the recommendations, because they came after the images have been uploaded, but it's only a matter of time to cure all this.

And some assets did get accepted, even that they do not meet current quality standards. Those need to be sorted out too. 

If you are an early bird and produce high quality AI art, you can make an impact. 

And copyright or not copyright will be in the courts very soon. 

[Michael2631962819zv]

Abambo you keep moving the goalposts to try to ignore our request by trying to make it sound unreasonable.

"If users do not report bad assets, they will never get reviewed" becomes "it's only a matter of time to cure all this"; "Well done AI art is very difficult to detect" becomes "As moderators are more aware of the issues with AI art, they are getting better at rejecting it" becomes "It is what it is".

I do not care if AI art grows in popularity and usage! But this is a reasonable request: Adobe needs to make it easy to filter AI-generated artwork out, because I (and a number of others, and we probably represent an even larger group) do not want to use it. Right now a simple "AI" tag is the only thing differentiating (some of) the AI art from the non-AI art in Adobe Stock's database. This only makes it easy to find AI art, not to filter it out.

Meanwhile, "copyright or not copyright will be in the courts very soon" - what a blase way of saying "who cares if Adobe is setting an unethical example by selling you artwork under a license it does not hold, as long as they haven't been sued yet".

[heinerd87664483]

It's NOT the technology I have a problem with. It's the unethical learning sets. Aside from stolen (!) art, there's non-consensual p*rn, ISIS executions and other stuff that the AIs are trained on. This is NOT a war on technology and progress. It's a battle against AI tech bros who consider nothing but their own profit, no matter how unethical their actions are. I don't want any of these conscience-free people to earn a single cent of my money, and I prefer to avoid working with anyone who welcomes them with open arms.

Plus, the licensing thing - it just doesn't make sense to pay for something that's not protected by any rights. From a licensing perspective, it's exactly the same as if Adobe sold public domain images. It's effectively a scam.

[Abambo]

Aside from stolen (!) art, there's non-consensual p*rn, ISIS executions and other stuff that the AIs are trained on. (...) It's effectively a scam.

By @heinerd87664483

Strong words. Does that keep the progress from happening?

[heinerd87664483]

Did I ever say that?

[Nancy OShea]

It's effectively a scam.

By @heinerd87664483

==========

Sorry but I don't agree with your vague assumptions that all AI artwork is based on stolen artwork. 

1. What proof do you have that my AI generated illustration is based on stolen artwork?  NONE.  

2. What's to prevent me, or any artist, from using an original photograph that I took with my own camera to generate my artwork?  NOTHING.

What's to prevent me from using an original painting or drawing that I created myself and then synthesized with AI?  NOTHING.

3. Because I have a paid account with Midjourney, I retain copyright to the images I generate.  And because I pay extra to keep my images out of public view, nobody sees them until I say so.

4. The prompts I use to generate AI illustrations are entirely my own, based on tedious trial & error, sometimes over the course of several days.  It's not cheap to generate high quality upscales either.  There are extra fees for higher bandwidth and server time that add up very fast. 

You're not convincing anyone that all AI artwork is unfit for licensing.  If done properly & responsibly, AI is a great tool for digital artists to use.  Adobe Stock customers should have access to the fruits of our labor the same as any other digital asset that we create.

End of rant. 🙂

[Michael2631962819zv]

"1. What proof do you have that my AI generated illustration is based on stolen artwork?"

Reporter: "Did you seek consent from living artists or work still under copyright" Midjourney CEO: "... 

"2. What's to prevent me, or any artist, from using an original photograph that I took with my own camera to generate my artwork? What's to prevent me from using an original painting or drawing that I created myself and then synthesized with AI?"

You can do whatever you want with these tools. But if the process to "synthesize" such images includes using an AI tool which relies on millions of images for which it has no copyright, I do not want to use such images, plain and simple. 

"3. Because I have a paid account with Midjourney, I retain copyright to the images I generate.  And because I pay extra to keep my images out of public view, nobody sees them until I say so."

Midjourney terms of service: "Midjourney... allows others to use and remix your images and prompts w... 

"4. The prompts I use to generate AI illustrations are entirely my own, based on tedious trial & error, sometimes over the course of several days.  It's not cheap to generate high quality upscales either.  There are extra fees for higher bandwidth and server time that add up very fast."

I've used these tools as well. I think the process of trial and error is fun, and it's true that upscaling can be expensive. None of this removes the potential legal and ethical issues. I'm not asking you to agree with my ethics, either. I'm just asking Adobe to consider this topic and, at minimum, accommodate those of us who want to use Adobe Stock primarily or exclusively to purchase art which AI had no part in making.

"Adobe Stock customers should have access to the fruits of our labor the same as any other digital asset that we create." Maybe, but if so, such images should not cost anything through Adobe Stock. Because according to e.g. Midjourney's licensing terms, I have free use of such images whenever I see them in a public setting. And other AI artwork tools have similar open-license terms. Adobe is trying to let its contributors sell bottled air, and I for one refuse to pay.

[Michael2631962819zv]

I didn't expect the links to cut off. Here's the missing content:

• The CEO's response is "no"
• "Midjourney... allows others to use and remix your images and prompts whenever they are posted in a public setting. ... you grant Midjourney a license to allow this."

[Abambo]

I didn't expect the links to cut off. Here's the missing content:

By @Michael2631962819zv

What links?

[Michael2631962819zv]

Huh. I posted a previous comment before that one, but it isn't showing. Maybe it's being screened by moderators or something, because it includes links? Sorry for any confusion

[Abambo]

Huh. I posted a previous comment before that one, but it isn't showing. Maybe it's being screened by moderators or something, because it includes links? Sorry for any confusion

By @Michael2631962819zv

This one: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/how-to-avoid-ai-art/m-p/13454707#M67692

It may have got flagged for spam by the automatic spam guard…

[heinerd87664483]

Yeah, I would give proper arguments, but I've had this discussion with AI image defenders that, every single time, ended up in "but I WANT reality to be the way I want it!". So, have your rants or your tantrums, I don't care. The legal side is clear, the history of Midjourney and their use of stolen artwork is well known and easy to research, and if you keep making money off of other people's stolen work, you are not a human being I want to talk with, and you're just a despicable thief to me.

[Abambo]

The legal side is clear,

By @heinerd87664483

The legal side is clear if there are enforceable curt order and if there is precedence.

[Fred248957972al7]

He didn't mean that he cares about them copying the image, he means the licensing.  One of the main benefits of using stock photography is that the images come with licensing. The artist and photographers grant legal permission to use the images.  With A.I. images there is no need for legal protection, therefore they have a deminished value to thier human created counterpart. 

[Abambo]

He didn't mean that he cares about them copying the image, he means the licensing.  One of the main benefits of using stock photography is that the images come with licensing. The artist and photographers grant legal permission to use the images.  With A.I. images there is no need for legal protection, therefore they have a deminished value to thier human created counterpart. 

By @Fred248957972al7

Let's see…

[Michael2631962819zv]

Nancy, from what I can tell, you're misunderstanding multiple things here.

1. Obviously anyone can copy/paste any image on the internet. heinerd87664483's point is that if you use/reproduce AI-generated artwork, it's perfectly legal. This has 2 big implications for stock image sites:

• If I spend money to download something from e.g. Adobe Stock, and later find out it was AI-generated, then I've potentially wasted my money. In many cases I could have downloaded it for free by other means.
• AI art cannot be limited by Adobe Stock's license terms. For example, when I download an image under an Adobe Stock "enhanced license", the terms state that I "may not create merchandise, templates, or other products for resale or distribution where the primary value of the product is associated with the asset itself." But Adobe Stock can't restrict me in that way; effectively, these terms are a lie.

In that Ars Technica article, the copyright (which was later withdrawn) was only granted because the AI art was combined with human-provided creative content, including text and layouts. This is not comparable to selling AI-generated art in its original form.

Adobe Stock is great, and has been great for a long time. But for your own sake, Adobe needs to remove AI art or filter it into a separate page. It's becoming increasingly easy and inexpensive to make AI art. If I want AI art, I'll go make some. But I return to Adobe Stock precisely because I think it offers something valuable: human-made art. Protect that value or, like others have said, it will be time for many of us to unsubscribe.

[knittingabacus]

It would be great to have a way to filter all of this out. Adobe used to be a reliable resource for quality stock images. The AI images are far, far from quality!

Adobe's reputation is going to get ruined by this. Please restrict or at least have an option for us to filter out the AI art.

[Abambo]

I think that moderator needed to be trained first to count fingers and legs. Most of the AI art that is currently in the database had been submitted before December 6 and may not yet follow the guidelines. Furthermore, I have seen on the contributor side more and more contributors getting their AI art refused, because of mediocre quality. So, moderators seem to be alerted to this “new” phenomena.