Participant

Answered

Some AI images that should be labeled or removed

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
March 2, 2023
2 replies
2328 views

Hi,

Just wanted to note some images I found while looking for paleoart that are clearly generative AI but not labeled as such. The quality with this creator ("LucaszDesigns") is also an issue on all of their paleoart.

For example:

https://stock.adobe.com/images/compsognathus-longipes-group-of-dinosaurs-from-the-late-jurassic-period-3d-paleoart/540095638?prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/images/compsognathus-longipes-in-the-forest-group-of-dinosaurs-from-the-late-jurassic-period-3d-paleoart-banner/542499773?prev_url=detail

https://stock.adobe.com/images/pachycephalosaurus-dinosaur-from-the-late-cretaceous-epoch-3d-paleoart-background/540095006?prev_url=detail

And in general I just want to reiterate the importance of Adobe being able to identify and clearly label AI art, even those submitted before the December 2022 naming/labeling policy. It is really dragging down the value of my subscription when I have to slog through all of these trash images that look OK at very first glance but don't hold up to more than a moment's scrutiny.

Asset Quality

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Contributor1

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've reported this specific contributor to the content team for review along with the 3 specific assets listed as examples. Adobe Stock asks contributors to tag their content as generative AI with designated keyword tags. We’re exploring additional labeling and filtering improvements for Stock buyers.

A

Anthony280912442jrz

Participating Frequently

I don't think there's anyway for adobe to identify AI art that was submitted and published before the naming change policy unless they get moderators to comb the entire database looking for such images ..which will be extremely time consuming. Also sometimes it isn't "obvious" an image is an AI image.

I do think though adobe are getting stricter over images they accept for AI art as I seem to be getting some rejections now for images which are better quality to the ones you linked to, ..here's one of mine which got rejected.

Jill_C

Community Expert

The buttons on her shirt, her hair texture, the sclera in her right eye are all clues that this isn't a photograph.

I think Adobe will get so much negative feedback from their Buyers that they will have to undertake some sort of audit of images submitted over the last few months to weed out improperly identified AI and "bad" AI assets.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

A

Anthony280912442jrz

Participating Frequently

If I zoom in a lot and look very closely at the things you say is wrong with the image I can see that they are not perfect.., however lets be honest, your typical buyer browsing through images is unlikely to pick up on all of that stuff. I mean it's not obvious like missing/extra fingers or heads. You really have to zoom in and scrutinize to find it. That stuff about the eye, it took me a while to find it even when you pointed it out!The picture is definately higher quality than the ones in the OP that passed moderation imo.

Really I think the adobe reviewer who rejects images should really TELL you WHY.. and not just leave the uploader to speculate. It's actually quite frustrating when you get an image rejected but can see nothing wrong with it.., and although coming to the forums to ask might provide insights ..there is no guarntee that the issues pointed out was what the reviewer saw and was the reason for the rejection. Why can't they leave a little note for us? it would literally take them 20 seconds.

There was a dude on here the other day who got his property release for AI humans rejected and was asking what was wrong with it.. and then a "community expert" came in and said the description wasn't accurate and to describe the image. Yet i've never had a property release for an AI human rejected and I always leave that section blank, so clearly that section wasn't the issue.

Here's another one of mine that got rejected. I was really disapointed this one got rejected as I was quite fond of it. I can literally see nothing wrong with it. I'm sure someone will point out "something" ..however I would again argue it's likely so minor that the typical layperson wouldn't notice.

are there any "buyers" reading this?

without reading answers from community experts or moderators I challenge you to find something wrong with this image which would render it unusable, and also be honest and say how long it took you to find it.

Jill_C

Community Expert

I agree these are awful and never should have been approved. Hopefully someone at Adobe can initiate a review of the assets on this account. Perhaps @Contributor1 can help?

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

C

Contributor1

Correct answer

Community Manager

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've reported this specific contributor to the content team for review along with the 3 specific assets listed as examples. Adobe Stock asks contributors to tag their content as generative AI with designated keyword tags. We’re exploring additional labeling and filtering improvements for Stock buyers.

D

DrColossus1Author

Participant

Thank you! Much appreciated.

And I should note that labeling is going to be increasingly important - even with high-quality images - because many of the publishers where I'm submitting my written work (with illustrations) now have bans on AI art. So I don't want to incur liability by accidentally using an AI stock image.

Again, I appreciate your response here and your efforts to support the creators who use these images.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded