CAN ADOBE STOP SHOWING AI IMAGES IN MY SEARCHES?

[Philip22712894tooo]

Modifying the search string is a great idea. I predict that eventually the Supreme Court and copyright law will severely reduce AI imagery licensing, at least here in the US. Models never approved their usage in composites, and Adobe and Getty (who is even more aggregious) are scrubbing the internet for images without express permission. As a professional photographer its extremely disturbing. 

[Philip22712894tooo]

PPS: Photographers and designers who use Adobe software should be rising up in protest: why is Adobe automating design and photography through AI, eventually reducing the viability of creatives to pursue viable careers using their skills (and Adobe software) as AI replaces them? As a design professor, many of my students are fearful and increasingly furstrated with Adobe and the future of AI. But, that can be another topic thread.

[daniellei4510]

Adobe is only allowing public domain and images submitted to Adobe Stock available in their database as models for AI generated images created directly in Firefly or within Photoshop for their Generative Fill/Expand toolset.  

[daniellei4510]

Every model release that I've ever had a model sign was pretty all-inclusive with respect how the image can or will be used. I'm now retired, and this was before anyone even knew there would be such a thing as the internet. So I did in fact have a model once contact me after she saw a semi-nude photo of herself on the internet some 10 to 15 years later. She admitted the photo was in good taste but was still embarrased to have come across it. I explained to her about the model release and I would have been within my rights to keep the image up, but in fairness to her and her feelings, I was more than willing to remove it. Point being, every model release I've ever used (and they could well be different now) would have allowed for unlimited use short of anything pornographic in nature.

[Philip22712894tooo]

Models who signed releases 5 or 10 years ago had no contemplation their face or body would be repurposed (and generate profit for Adobe) in these ways. There is also something called "artistic integrity" and it doesn't stop with stock photography: if I photograph an image, how is it ok for computers to mash it up with other photographers work, provide no credit, and resell?

[Abambo]

Models who signed releases 5 or 10 years ago had no contemplation their face or body would be repurposed (and generate profit for Adobe) in these ways.
By @Philip22712894tooo

Models sign an unconditional release:

“For Consideration received and by signing this release, I irrevocably grant to the Artist the
right to license and use the Content in any manner, form or medium, for any and all use
whatsoever”

(bold is mine)

[Abambo]

if I photograph an image, how is it ok for computers to mash it up with other photographers work, provide no credit, and resell

By @Philip22712894tooo

You agreed upon that in your contributor agreement with Adobe. They use your pictures for training Adobe Firefly. It's in with your contributor agreement, and Adobe indemnifies you for that.

Whatever this discussion is about, it is off-topic from the sticky search filters. We should concentrate on that. There are no lawyers in this discussion, we are not part of any court that has a say in this, so I suggest we terminate this discussion here and now.

I'm confident that Adobe looked into the legality of this and concluded, that it is lawful to offer generative AI assets. If it is not, they will change whatever needs to be changed.