Unfortunately, more and more images generated with AI are appearing in the ADOBE image search!

[jürgenk50715479]

Unfortunately, more and more images generated with AI are appearing in the ADOBE image search! The image search for authentic nature photos is becoming more and more difficult!
If the people responsible for ADOBE do not intervene, the image search for "real" nature photos will become more and more difficult!

An example: when searching for "small firefly", almost only artificial photoshop-generated images appear, I can't select any real photos!

[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

You can enter -AI in the search box to filter out Generative AI assets, but that will work only if the contributor has correctly selected the AI category and added AI tags to their images. I suppose Adobe is working on a non-AI checkbox in the selection, but it seems to be taking a long time !

[jürgenk50715479]

In the meantime, other photo agencies have introduced the button: generated with AI and thus separate real photos from artificially generated images.
Unfortunately, here at ADOBE the problem has not yet been recognized!
Real photos are uncontrollably flooded by AI generated images!

At some point, image search editors will turn away from ADOBE Stock because a reasonable image search will be impossible, even if images are almost given away!!!!

I have more and more the impression, I am here with ADOBE on a gigantic ship on whose bridge is neither a captain, an officer or other crew member!

Where this ship (the photo agency ADOBE stock) goes is not recognizable since nobody steers the ship and operates the rudder!

How can this be? Who controls and leads this huge company? Why no one cares about the problems?

[Jill_C]

Adobe does make constant improvements to the product, so it's not really accurate to say that the company is rudderless. They adjusted the requirements for identifying Generative AI assets, and also recently addressed the huge influx of such assets by gating / throttling the quantity that can be submitted. https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/limits-on-number-of-assets-in-review-n...

I'm sure they'll heed the input from Buyers such as yourself and provide a way of segregating "real" photos from Generative AI stuff.

[jürgenk50715479]

Ich bin Bildanbieter und kein Käufer von Bildern.

Wenn ich bei ADOBE Stock meine Bilder, echte Fotos, suche (so wie ein Bildkäufer) finde ich sie häufig nicht mehr. Eine der Ursachen sind die künstlichen Bilder die ADOBE Stock überfluten, ein weiterer Grund ist dass extrem viele Bilder/Fotos falsch und schlecht verschlagwortet werden!

Nocheinmal: Ich bin Foto-Anbieter und wünsche mir eine gute Bildagentur die meine Fotos gut vermarktet!!!

[jime90533359]

You refer to the unacceptable images as AI images - how do you know they aren't just Photoshopped? If you can determine whether an image was generated with AI, composited in PhotoShop, or simply modified, I'd like to know how. Seriously.

[db777]

Try searching for rooms with furniture too. The details are just a jumbled mess, chairs and couches often have legs that dont match or might even be missing and you only notice after downloading it. At least it says AI genrerated but I would love a filter to remove them. 

This is missing the left side of the couch, who would ever use this photo? The idea of stock is to save time, not use time up to repair it. Really hope Adobe can be a bit more selective on what gets allowed here. 

https://stock.adobe.com/images/cozy-modern-living-room-interior-with-yellow-sofa-and-decoration-room... 

[jürgenk50715479]

Ganz einfach hinschauen!

[Averee C]

There are a lot of ways to tell if something is ai-generated.

• The oversaturated colors combined with the high dynamic range is a common giveaway. It have a very specific look to it that is very recognizable (example)
• Incorrect anatomy on organic subjects (hands/feet/mouths mostly) (example )
• Illogical/surreal placement of objects in what should be a real 3D space. It has a very specfic identifiable "wrongness" to it that can be easily seen when you look at the image as a whole instead of just individual sections of the image. (example - there's not much wrong with any individual section but if you think about this location as one 3D space none of the physicality makes any sense. It doesn't make sense for a human to create this, because a real-life photoshoot would have propery 3D physicality, and a 3D model/render would also have proper physicality. It would take too much time and effort to make this by hand and there wouldn't be any reason to because it's just wrong)
• Images that are technically rendered well, but lack design awareness. Colliding tangents, forms morphing into one another that don't make sense, etc. (example - this looks like something between an illustration and a photograph, but  the physicality doesn't make sense for it to be a photograph. If someone with this technical capabilities actually created this, they are ignoring very basic aesthetic principals such as the fence form and the cowboy hat's brim colliding with the top of the fence post.)
• "vector" illustrations that are only available as JPEGs (example, with bonus incorrect anatomy)
• Incorrect symbols. If you search up assets that would reasonably include things like wifi symbols, lock icons, shield icons, keyboards, etc, the symbols are usually *mostly* correct, but not really correct. And they are usually incorrect in a way that doesn't make sense if a human created them. The human would have had to purposefully made the symbol weird/odd in specific areas that don't make sense for the seemingly high-technical knowledge it would take to create those symbols. (example )
• Variations are a huge giveaway. It's pretty easy to tell when someone found one prompt they liked and then just output like 10 variations based on that prompt. The variations all have the same look/feel to them but aren't significantly different from one another. It's also very easy to tell the difference between ai variations and variations from a photoshoot that would have used the same subject, outfits, shooting locations, props, etc. (example - there are several variations of this witch but they aren't distinctly different from one another in any meaningful way with their pose/coloration/design. A human who was making illustrations as a contributor wouldn't spend the time it would take to make something this technical without significantly altering the aesthetic in meaningful ways. These are just pumped out using the same prompt so there's no extra work for the "prompt engineer")

There's tons of other giveaways that something is ai-generated, but you get the idea.

[Jill_C]

Wow, not a single one of those examples was propertly identified as "Generative AI", yet they're all very obviously AI.

[Abambo]

@Contributor1,

Sorry, but this looks like work for you.

[db777]

Great examples! That keyboard on that cloud tech one is a dead give-away! Adobe stock is flooded with these. Really hope they do something about it fast. Its annoying to have to sift through all of them and determine if its a real photo or everything is proper proportion. 

[Contributor1 · Accepted solution]

Hello, I've reported each of these specific contributors listed in your examples to the content team for review for lacking generative AI labels. I've sent along this forum thread to make sure they understand the full scope of the issue. Thank you for the report and sorry for the problem with the assets.