Some AI images that should be labeled or removed

[DrColossus1]

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-peri...

https://stock.adobe.com/images/compsognathus-longipes-in-the-forest-group-of-dinosaurs-from-the-late...

https://stock.adobe.com/images/pachycephalosaurus-dinosaur-from-the-late-cretaceous-epoch-3d-paleoar...

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.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

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?

[Contributor1 · Accepted solution]

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.

[DrColossus1]

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.

[Anthony280912442jrz]

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]

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.

[Anthony280912442jrz]

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]

Your assumption that Buyers are "the typical layperson" and wouldn't notice image defects is a misconception. (Go back and read the OP from a Buyer.) We frequently see here posts from Buyers who licensed an image and then when they download and see it in full size are irritated to discover that it has flaws. Buyers who are designing an ad, laying out a magazine page, editing a book page, creating web site content, etc. are looking for the highest quality and we're not going to sneak something past them. Zooming in and scrolling around to look for flaws is exactly what the Moderators do because that is exactly what the Buyers do. 

As to the Ukrainian woman / soldier AI image, the skin texture is inconsistent, and the patch of black gunk on her face is weird and unrealistic.

[Anthony280912442jrz]

I'm still not convinced many buyers would have an issue with my image. I notice that the OP (a buyer) has been online and posted since I posted my comment challenging buyers to have a look at my image, yet he has not commented on the image.

and It's not a patch of "gunk" on her face. It doesn't look "weird and unrealistic".

Army personnel frequently put that on their face to help camouflage into the soroundings.

As for the skin being inconsistant ..yes it's not perfect in that area near the "gunk" if you zoom in, however there are certain dermatitus conditions which can produce skin similar to that. People are not "perfect" with zero flaws.. so I think expecting AI images to always be perfect is kinda harsh. You have no idea how many military pictures I had to basically "throw away" volunatarily and not even sumbit due to more obvious flaws. There were slightly curved gun barrels, flag polls ending in the wrong area, extra fingers, faces that looked too much like skulls, worse and more obvious skin inconsistancies. bent radio antennas

There are times when I suffer from dermatitus on my face. Would adobe refuse a picture of myself due to minor skin imperfections? Would adobe refuse a picture of a teenager with a few spots? Would adobe refuse a picture of a woman with an amputated leg? 

It seems like there's now one rule for AI, and one for everything else.

I appreciate your help.

I just feel that since the flood of AI images has started to create backlogs that there's too much perfection expectations in regards to AI images.

btw, go and type "man" into the adobe stock image search and note how many AI images on the very first page have flaws greater than mine. I started at the top, only looked at rows 1 to 4 and spotted about 6 images i could definately tell were created with AI and literally 5 of them have issues worse than mine. I did not have to zoom in to find them. there's one picture even with old people with two sets of teeth in their gums! ...not to mention the lady there also has fudged fingers and an extra hand! 😭😂🤣

adobe has gone from too soft, to too harsh when it comes to "quality"

[Jill_C]

You can dispute my opinions all you want, but Adobe is the one that has the final say as to what images are accepted into their database, and they have rejected yours. If you feel it is a saleable image, you are free to upload it on other stock sites.