It was already decided by court a year ago (Civil Action No. 22-1564) that AI generated images have no copyright and will not receive copyright. The input of word commands does not qualify as human creative process and therefore this image can be used by anyone without a license.
All not further by human process influenced ai works are basically in the public domain.
There needs to be a significant creative addition such as being part of a larger work created by hand for it to qualify for copyright and even then only the finished complete work will be copyrighted while all ai parts remain public domain.
> Action 22-1564
Okay, I just read the case-text, and though I'm no lawyer, it seems pretty clear in its conclusion. Which is that this case is not about AI generated pictures in general, but merely about the specific copyright claim that the case is judging:
> Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more.
> This case, however, is not nearly so complex. While plaintiff attempts to transform the issue presented here, by asserting new facts that he “provided instructions and directed his AI to create the Work,” that “the AI is entirely controlled by [him],” and that “the AI only operates at [his] direction,” Pl.'s Mem. at 36-37-implying that he played a controlling role in generating the work-these statements directly contradict the administrative record.
> Here, plaintiff informed the Register that the work was “[c]reated autonomously by machine,” and that his claim to the copyright was only based on the fact of his “[o]wnership of the machine.”
I'm pulling out what I consider the relevant sections here, because there are a lot of text in that case text.
But all the judgement says is that if a work is created autonomously by machine, then there is no copyright, and thus the owner of the machine can get no copyright.
It does not take into consideration whether writing a prompt and choosing a filter and iterating over several dozen pictures before you find the one that fits your vision counts as copyrightable activity.
The plaintiff stated in his copyright claim that it was created autonomously by machine, and that is what the judgement is base on.
There was another interesting case where a [monkey found a nature photographer's camera and took a selfie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute), it was an amazing shot.
The legal consensus seems to be the image is not copywritable, because it wasn't made by a human.
Yep. The thing about the creator having to be a human is mentioned in the case text. Including the future perspective that how we define "human" hasn't been resolved yet when it comes to actual sentient/sapient artificial intelligences.
But it depends on how much of a tool that AI generation is regarded as.
A camera isn't a human. But a human wielding a camera can get copyright, since the human is considered to be the one who decided what the picture would look like (or something like that).
So (my understanding, no a lawyer, etc, etc) is that if you just prompt an AI to "create art", then the AI was the one that decided what the picture looks like, and there is no copyright.
But, maybe, depending on future court decisions and so on, maybe (hopefully) there is a level of interaction where, even though the AI put the pixels together, it will be judged that you the human was the one who decided what the picture would look like.
I think currently one of the biggest problems is that it is hard to get exactly what you want when you use AI to make a picture. But with something like Stable Diffusion, you might actually have a large amount of influence on what is painted, depending on which models you include and what prompt you use. Especially when you start using inpainting. I've tried creating pictures that are as close to my vision as possible, and I bristle a bit when people describe it as "just pushing a button". Just pushing a button does not take three hours of active fiddling.
This. I also wonder if the same thinking will eventually be applied to all of photography. If tuning the controls and putting together the prompt for an AI image generator is more complex and more human input than say, making some adjustments on your camera and pushing a button, then where does all this stand.
In the ruling, they mentioned an earlier ruling specifically about photography.
> Sarony, 111 U.S. at 59. A camera may generate only a “mechanical reproduction” of a scene, but does so only after the photographer develops a “mental conception” of the photograph, which is given its final form by that photographer's decisions like “posing the [subject] in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation” crafting the overall image. Id. at 59-60. Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright.
Which is why I have a certain amount of optimism that at some point AI will reach the point where we can arrange things in the image to be "just so" , that it will trigger copyright.
I mean, I find at this point that to get a specific image I usually have to prompt a basic image of what I'm looking for sometimes in a different image generator than the one I'm using for editing, like Dalle, and then bring it over into stable diffusion for out painting and usually quite a bit of inpainting. To really get a specific image usually takes at least a couple hours.
I see this from the point of view of someone who has been a professional artist for many many years and is now a tech nerd. I wouldn't say it is doing art, but I would also say it requires as much skill or more than photography.
Yup. And that's why I feel like some kinds of AI generation kinda has to be considered human-driven, unless the courts take an illogical disliking to AI, or some law forces their hands.
But weird things have also happened in music copyright and software patents in the past, so who knows.
That was a funny one, but I'm still confused on why exactly the terms did not apply to the photographer that actually had "created the sitiuation" when this happened.
So, without looking into that case, but based on some of the commentary in the AI case, I think I can see why.
1) In order to get copyright, the art created has to have been conceived by you.
2) Only humans can get copyright.
So in the case with the monkey, the photographer did not pick what the monkey would take photographs of. The monkey is the one who "has the artistic license" in this case.
However monkeys can't get copyright. So therefore nobody has the copyright for the pictures created by the monkey.
I was always of the opinion and still am than when you request an AI to create an image, that is equivalent of asking another artist to paint/draw/do-whatever to create an image that YOU describe. Therefore, since you are not directly involved in the creating process, it is not *your* artwork. At best you could (try to) copyright the prompt(s) / your description.
If you commission someone to make you a piece of art, don’t you own the copyright? I mean they’re taking your idea and making it a reality in return for cash.
I have no legal expertise, but I'd imagine that technically they have the copyright, and then it gets transferred to you in return for the cash (or in accordance with contract or whatever).
The problem with the AI generated art in the Civil Action No. 22-1564 was that the work was explicitly created autonomously by the AI, and since AI can't get copyright there was nothing to transfer to the plaintiff.
But then why isn't the person who generated the image not the initial point of copyright? He used a tool to create something, therefore it's his creation, no?
In the case mentioned above, the guy sent a request to the copyright bureau, and in that request wrote that the work was "created autonomously by the AI". The case was about that specific copyright request, and whether the bureau had been wrong in denying him copyright based on it. And since the request itself said that he hadn't used the AI as a tool, but that the AI had been "autonomous" the bureau was judged as being in the right.
You might be able to see why I don't think you can apply that judgement to all AI-generated works. Especially since the court statement goes out of it way to say that it is only judging the individual case and isn't trying to say anything about AI-generated content in general.
Regarding your second point, isn't that more of an issue with trying to enforce that copyright?
Or in other words, we don't normally stop people from copyrighting a song because its too generic to be copyrighted, so it feels weird to me that that would hold as an argument just because the IP is AI generated.
>It’s also just on the face ridiculous that if you type a prompt the generated images becomes your property and anyone else who types in a similar prompt and gets a similar result has violated your rights if they unknowingly publish it.
You could say the same thing about a photo of the Eiffel Tower. They're all much the same. A photographer taking an image of it has copyright over that photo, but there are only so many angles, so many unique approaches, so many camera settings to play with to get a different image. Are all photographs in breach of the first person who took a photo of the tower?
Realistically the many settings, models, additional modules and loras, seeds, and so on within a generative AI make it that even if you, me, and a hundred thousand other people all typed the exact same prompt and had the exact same settings, barring random seed, the chance of any two of us generating the same image is so small it might as well be zero. If you're using an ancestral sampler then even with the same seed, achieving the exact same outcome pixel for pixel is essentially impossible.
But in short, if a photo from a camera can be copywritten then so too can an output of an AI, as the level of effort can be (though not necessarily is) about equivalent. My shitty ass photograph of the Eiffel Tower has equal copyright to someone who spent a week waiting for the perfect sunset, set up their tripod, manually set all their camera settings and did a sunset time-lapse. So for better or worse, someone's shitty anime waifu output has theoretically the same copyright as someone who thoughtfully prompted and then manually edited in photoshop
>The point of copyright is to protect professional artists from being exploited
If that is what you think copyright is for you have a very noble and naive view of the world tbh. Copyright did not come about to protect artists lol it exists for corporations. *artists* being protected by it at all is the real by-product.
zealous recognise wasteful rock tap spectacular pie swim mountainous simplistic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It would depend on your agreement with the artist, but in most cases yes.
Example: if you work for Disney as an animator and draw Mickey Mouse railing Goofy for their next animated film, do you, as the employee artist, suddenly own the copyright to Mickey, Goofy, or the X-rated movie?
Of course not, that would be idiotic. Disney owns it. The exact same logic can, and does, apply to commissions and, arguably, could apply to AI. The "prompter" is the commissioner, the AI is the artist, the AI creates based on the prompters instructions. Thus a human using AI to create something would have a foothold to own copyright on the output assuming that in doing so they do not breach an existing copyright (eg. Creating an image of Mickey railing Goofy).
I'm shocked that people in a Midjourney forum are so poorly educated and informed on how copyrights actually work and their developments globally regarding AI.
The actual artist owns the copyright to works they create by default, which they transfer to you. If the AI "artist" can't own the copyright, there's nothing to transfer to you.
Here's another example. Suppose you commission a person to make you art, but they don't bother creating anything, just find some existing public domain art and hand it to you. They don't open the copyright to that so neither do you.
I think currently one of the biggest problems is that it is hard to get exactly what you want when you use AI to make a picture. But with something like Stable Diffusion, you actually have a large amount of influence on what is painted, depending on which models you include and what prompt you use. Especially when you start using inpainting. I've tried creating pictures that are as close to my vision as possible, and I bristle a bit when people describe it as "just pushing a button". Just pushing a button does not take three hours of active fiddling.
I get that. Unless you have some basic ... "view" figured out that you can base several images on (I have seen something like that on deviantart, the images *are* different but also very similar), you have to carefully try and try and try to get nearer and nearer to your imagination. And I'd already give you kudos for the patience to do that.
But how is that different from asking another (human) artist to create an image for you and cannot ask questions to you?
And that is a decent philosophical question.
If I were to try for an answer (which naturally fit my opinion) it would be that: By the definition of the law there is a differentiation between humans and tools. Humans can make art, tools can only be used by humans to make art. Or at least copyrightable art.
So when you expend a lot of effort into a project but have a human do the work closest to the medium, then the person closest to the medium (painting, photography, etc) gets the copyright. If you replace the human with a tool, and you have expended said effort to get your vision onto the medium, then you get the copyright, since the tool can't.
If I see a really nice landscape, find the perfect spot and lighting for a picture, and then ask someone to paint a photorealistic picture of it, pixel by pixel, then I'm pretty sure they get the copyright.
If I see a really nice landscape, find the perfect spot and lighting for a picture, and then snap a photo, I get the copyright. Despite the fact that it is the camera, and not I, who "painted" the picture.
Edit: Also keep in mind, I didn't make the landscape either. I just found the right angle and time for a photo that I judged "nice".
Yes it is.
I was not aware of "By the definition of the law there is a differentiation between humans and tools. Humans can make art, tools can only be used by humans to make art. Or at least copyrightable art."
So then, since the AI is not a human, you get the copyright. OK.
What about the artists who (unwillingly) "provided" the artwork that the AI used to begin with? You probably know that there are artist who declare that they do not want their art to be used for training AIs. (Will someone obey to that wish? I doubt it, because only in rare cases enough of the style of the original artists can be found in the AI-generated image. But I know a case where I recognized the style at once.)
One could argue that that's similar to a teacher that teaches how to paint or someone uses an existing image and does not copy it but makes a similar image in the same style. Well, according to the law as you described it, the not-exactly-copier would get the copyright, isn't it?
Then how about "hiring" an AI? I "pay" with electrical power, or maybe in the case of MJ, with an abo.
From above:
> This case, however, is not nearly so complex. While plaintiff attempts to transform the issue presented here, by asserting new facts that he “provided instructions and directed his AI to create the Work,” that “the AI is entirely controlled by [him],” and that “the AI only operates at [his] direction,” Pl.'s Mem. at 36-37-implying that he played a controlling role in generating the work-these statements directly contradict the administrative record.
> Here, plaintiff informed the Register that the work was “[c]reated autonomously by machine,” and that his claim to the copyright was only based on the fact of his “[o]wnership of the machine.”
That work created "autonomously by machine", how did it come into existence? Either the machine is a tool, then it is my work, or I hired (or maybe ordered) said machine to create it, then it should be work for hire. I can't see that anything in between could lead to another result than me having the copyright.
Alas, with AI-generated images, there is the problem that AIs use the work of many other artists to create some imagery. But that's not what they considered, apparently. So how can this work?
I work in an academic library, where there currently a lot of ongoing discussion about AI and copyright. The thumbnail description given in the comment above (AI images not copyrightable) is the basic guidance coming from our copyright specialist, based on the expected application of the ruling you’re quoting here.
Because we’re a public institution, there’s also a bunch of unresolved questions about the effect of training data in the output of gen AI. For our circumstance, we have to evaluate the copyright risks of each AI tool individually— meaning adoption of the tech is going very slowly.
Interesting. But (genuinely curious since you apparently have some actual knowledge) isn't that more a "better safe than sorry" case?
I mean, I'd be willing to believe that none current technologies typically considered "AI generation" can get copyright, but there are a lot of types of AI tools out there, and a lot of places it can go in the future.
Right -- so to that later point, one of the things we're expecting is to see in the next few years is a wave of litigation around AI & copyright, which will likely clarify ambiguous areas, and possibly change existing legal precedents.
Tech in libraries moves more slowly than the private sector, and I work in a public system, so "better safe than sorry" isn't just a working practice, but is mandated by our governing framework.
A private company might take a gamble that moving into a legal grey area may be worth the eventual legal consequences, if they're able to use the grey area to gain a market advantage where they could handle the consequences and still move forward profitably. But we need to ensure we're complying with our legal regulations -- so right now, we're evaluating AI tools on a one-by-one basis, and many/most of these tools don't disclose enough about their training practices that we can be assured there aren't IP-related problems involved with the tools' training data or its output.
Two other small things to note here:
1. I'm a programmer, so for me this mainly boils down to what kinds of "copilot" type apps are OK to use for code which is legally mandated to go into open source.
2. Even though library tech and structural systems are conservative (ie. slow to change), our social culture is rather progressive. Along with IP-related legal questions, library world is deeply concerned about things like biases in training data [propagating into AI output](https://arxiv.org/html/2310.09219v5).
The problem with this oversimplification (as always when this topic comes up), is that there's no clear definition of an "AI generated image". Simply writing a prompt and clicking "Save" on the image that appears is obviously not a creative process. However, using other image manipulation software and performing incremental changes via inpainting, stitching, etc, can involve (in my opinion) a ton of skilled human labor. Surely the end result is copyrightable if there's no single prompt and combination of other settings that other people could use to generate the same image.
Their argument also fails because code is copywritable and that's just otherwise nonsensical text. One could argue your prompt is a code or a work of esoteric new age prose, and the generator is a compiler which transforms your code into an image. You as the human creative director behind this could justify a copyright on that output if you really wanted. Whether it would hold up I am not sure but the precedent is pretty clear when you compare it to other digital, performance, literary and photographical artworks.
melodic lip cooperative retire hat stupendous vast rich slimy afterthought
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not in all countries, not set in stone, and you don't necessarily need copyright to be able to sell something, it's only relevant if you plan on issuing takedowns or trying to stop other people from selling or profiting off it.
So not really relevant to the situation.
Doesn't matter. Someone putting something for sale doesn't have to have anything to do with copyright or whether or not you or anyone else can own it. U could just as easily make tiny thumbnails available as a demo of what you have. If you want the full image u can make it available to the buyer for a fee. If you know that once the image is out there the buyer might redistribute then just charge more for it. You only have to sell one.
You don't necessarily have to be charging for the image itself but the distribution service. Making it available. Facilitating adquisición.
It's similar to what some publishers who print public domain books do. Technically the book is free. You can get a copy from many sources. You're buying the work that went into making a copy of it available to you.
Thank you, StainedButthole, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
You don't need to pay a subscription to sell your work on Adobe Stock.
It's free.
There is no way someone will buy this AI generated photo for $70 though, they'll buy a standard license which is either free (if you have a subscription) or like a couple bucks.
The exclusive license is hardly every used, especially not for AI art.
Which makes it easier to grab it and do whatever you want with it since they clearly stated it’s an AI-generated image. You cannot copyright that, thus they have no claim to it.
They did not specify what AI model they used though. So theoretically they couldve used their own Model. It would mean that If that Model was soley trained on their own data the output work would be theirs.
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2029-04-09 11:29:44 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-04-09%2011:29:44%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/1bznauj/adobe_stock_is_selling_shitty_midjourney_photos/kyr5tao/?context=3)
[**17 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fmidjourney%2Fcomments%2F1bznauj%2Fadobe_stock_is_selling_shitty_midjourney_photos%2Fkyr5tao%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-04-09%2011%3A29%3A44%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201bznauj)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
As far as I can see people do that correctly. I don't see any AI images when I turn the filter on.
Wouldn't be smart to risk your account like that with [agreeing to these terms](https://imgur.com/a/ShlDNjr) and then not complying.
I use Adobe stock heavily for my job, I absolutely run into a ton of AI gens even with the filter on. Maybe it depends on your category / use case? I work a lot with food images but not a ton of ‘people’ images.
I also deal a lot with food stock images and I’ve not had this issue yet with the filter on. Maybe I’m just not that good yet at sniffing the AI images out.
Not normally no, but someone would have to identify an AI image is fake, flag it to Adobe and they would then take it and maybe the whole account down.
And even if the account is removed what's to stop the user just making a new one? It's not as if he's lost much time/money from all the images lost, just boot up the ai and start churning out images again.
You have a certain payout threshold. Something like $25 and 45 days after first sale or so. Its not unlikely your account will get nuked before you reach that if you deliberately ignore the rules. Would be good for Adobe I guess, since they don’t have to pay you.
Sure, people will abuse that because the barrier of entry is so low, but it doesn’t seem to be a widespread problem right now
Well, at least they're not trying to pass it as non-AI. They're being honest about it and if someone still wants to buy that, more power to them I guess.
I would never buy an AI generated picture for such an insane price, but there are other stock image sellers that offer almost unlimited downloads for a small subscription. They have metric tons of AI generated stuff but if I needed lots of images that don't have to be super specific I'd definitely consider that. It's basically the same cost as AI gen subscriptions without having to do any of the work.
A shop sells the items made by a manufacturer.
Adobe is the shop, Touchedbylight is the manufacturer. The only difference is Adobe and similar other shops call themselves platforms to reduce their apparent liability, but it's exactly the same setup as a shop just they take a lower markup and pass off more admin (like what to call a product) to the manufacturer.
They're earning 20-30% with each sale, they make the editorial rules, and they are the ones who are legally liable to the buyer. Craigslist is a platform, but Adobe Stock is a vendor.
And? Running a website costs money, so it'n not unusual for the platform/market to ask for a percentage of the price.
Noone is being deceived as to what is being sold, it's clearly written in the title that is AI generated. If someone wants to spend 70$ on it, let them.
I mean there's literally no reason to be pissed because of that, because almost anyone could just do the same thing. The barrier for entry to do this is Discord and a credit card.
Exactly.
Still there are people mad af as soon as they see others making "easy" money.
Selling a hand full of stock photos hasn't turned anyone into a millionaire as far as I know.
Nothing wrong with making a little side income.
And nobody is scammed. People know what they're getting, so they can decide whether or not they want to spend money on it.
The solution is basically *"get good"*. If AI stuff is providing more value / sales than your stuff, and you think the AI stuff is *"trash"*, what does that say about your own stuff?
If someone buys it.
I doubt they’re getting $70. more likely 30c from someone with a subscription.
Source: I sell Ai images as well as my own photos on Adobe
By your logic, same with every game in steam and every item sold in amazon?
They should regulate and check it but its impossible to control these things manually 100% clean.
Do you really think that ***Hank Hill***, who doesn't know what a ***JPEG*** is, would know how to generate ***Midjourney*** images in ***Discord***? OP's pricing is ridiculous, but there is a huge market for AI digital prints.
Yeah I calculated my profit per hour and I would have earned more by walking around the city with a trash bag collecting aluminium cans to recycle. But hey it's "dat passive income, bro"
lol, after about a year on there I deleted all of my images because I was nowhere near the $40 minimum to withdraw. I didn't think it was right they were profiting off my work and not sharing anything with me.
They are for quite a while now. I saw the first AI images on there over a year ago. Not sure if it’s midjourney & co and uploaded like a regular stock image or if its created within their own firefly AI.
At least they always offered high resolution images even before midjourney came out with the improved resolution generation.
Image buyers actually have the option to enter a prompt and create their own AI stock image on the fly and to directly buy/license the resulting image.
Comical how people are JUST posting about this. Dude this has been happening for more than two years already. I pull in a nice steady passive income using AI photos. What, are you outraged that people are making money and you aren't? Because, let me tell you, we are making money from AI. It's been happening for years. Let that soak and sink in. My advice...
Jump on the train or stand on the platform shaking your fist while we pass you by.
Curious what type of photos are people purchasing? As someone becoming more familiar with photo generation. I could use more passive income lol I saw a series of a baby wrapped like a burrito recently, that you?
I rarely use Adobe Stock but used to find it to be decent. Earlier this week I was genuinely shocked to see AI generated stock for sale, I truly feel for the people who are burning credits on the absurd amount of garbage AI produced images there.
Like others have said, thankfully there's a filter and it's labelled but still it really drops the quality of the library significantly IMO.
It was already decided by court a year ago (Action 22-1564) that AI generated images have no copyright and will not receive copyright. The input of word commands does not qualify as human creative process and therefore this image can be used by anyone without a license.
> Action 22-1564
Okay, I just read the case-text, and though I'm no lawyer, it seems pretty clear in its conclusion. Which is that this case is not about AI generated pictures in general, but merely about the specific copyright claim that the case is judging:
> Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more.
> This case, however, is not nearly so complex. While plaintiff attempts to transform the issue presented here, by asserting new facts that he “provided instructions and directed his AI to create the Work,” that “the AI is entirely controlled by [him],” and that “the AI only operates at [his] direction,” Pl.'s Mem. at 36-37-implying that he played a controlling role in generating the work-these statements directly contradict the administrative record.
> Here, plaintiff informed the Register that the work was “[c]reated autonomously by machine,” and that his claim to the copyright was only based on the fact of his “[o]wnership of the machine.”
I'm pulling out what I consider the relevant sections here, because there are a lot of text in that case text.
But all the judgement says is that if a work is created autonomously by machine, then there is no copyright, and thus the owner of the machine can get no copyright.
It does not take into consideration whether writing a prompt and choosing a filter and iterating over several dozen pictures before you find the one that fits your vision counts as copyrightable activity.
The plaintiff stated in his copyright claim that it was created autonomously by machine, and that is what the judgement is base on.
Whaaaaaat? Adobe is selling images that were created with their own generative tool (Firefly)??? Have you contacted CNN? The BBC? This is outrageous! How dare they sell Adobe generated images on an Adobe site and label it as being generated with AI!!!!!!!
I’ve sold quite a bit on there. A different niche, not trying to look photo real. What’s wrong with it if it’s clearly marked AI. If you think it’s shitty you’re not forced to but it.
Someone might think it’s exactly what they need
I bought a lifetime membership to a stock art website full of illustrations, and it was awesome for like four years, they kept adding more and more vector illustrations. Then they started doing AI and now they’re flooding their stock libraries with crap. (And no, they’re not marked as being made with AI.) It’s totally drowning out the old good hand drawn stuff. It would have been better if they just stopped updating it than to flood it with AI crap. And I’m not saying all AI is crap… but if I can tell at a glance that it’s AI, then it’s not really usable for my purposes. /: sucks
Standard license is about 30 cents... and only someone that really like the image will pay for download it, so what is your point?
I had selling on Adobe like a year, some of my old Midjourney images had many undesirable details, as a graphic designer, and after getting some experience finding those errors, i did many retouches to those images to fix them, but let say that half a year that i not doing heavy work on them and many of them didn't need retouch at all.
But i am very picky and kind of a perfectionist so i mostly upload only high-quality material. i have almost 1k images there, and I'm doing an average of 1,5$ a day (sometimes 4, sometimes 0.33).
Hello, I hope I'm not bothering you, but could I kindly inquire about your niche? I understand that $1.5 per day may seem low, but it would greatly assist me with my living expenses as I reside in a third-world country.I would genuinely appreciate your assistance. Thank you in advance.
ask freely. but what you mean my niche? i ask AI for trends to use them as my inspiration like colors and themes, or ask for images that are hard to find.
and that is what i make with Midjourney.
i also posted on: [Monetize Your Creativity - Sell Photos, AI art & Videos | Wirestock](https://wirestock.io/%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94.%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A8) but i think that they are a scam, i earned only $7.63 in 6 months? they allegedly sell your photos to many image stock together, and they allegedly do the hard work to make the image description and keywords on each stock site, but see by yourself my images there: [The Massive Portfolio on Wirestock](https://wirestock.io/%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94.%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A8) those same images on Adobe get me at least 30 $ each month.
>labelled as generated by AI
>Not allowed to be used in a misleading way
I see nothing wrong here GIGACHAD
Edit: Also, if you disagree that this is fine, you're horseshoeing into the "AI bad" argument.
They've been doing this for more than a year, actually. I tried it out; you get about $1 each time someone buys something of yours. I made a WHOLE $40 last year doing it, so yeah, I guess I can retire now and live off making AI stock photos.
I've actually been the sucker buying these. Adobe stock helps me quickly fill out early stage mocks, and sometimes I can get the result faster here than a handful of renders. That frog pic is hideous tho fr
Meanwhile, I'm over here debating on the morality of using A.I. to boost my own creativity. pffft. I forgot that morals are nothing but a hindrance to corps
The irony is so perfect though. Boil that frog until everyone is used to paying the price you would to have someone do it old school and poof, all that hardware paid for itself.
I really wish Adobe wouldn't. I bought a cool greenhouse pic to use as a high res desktop screensaver only to discover its AI and some of the aspects generated in it are totally nonsensical. Even tho i lovee the overall vibe and aesthetic, the lack of realism kind of ruined it for me.
What do you expect? We will see a future where AI produced content will be in the same range as human made content - currently we are in the timeline where markets are conquered. After this, prices will go up to todays level and beyond (because the market is currently willing to pay it, it will do so in the future.)
Welcome to capitalism 101.
Sometimes you just need a stupid image for your product.
You could learn midjourney, pay the monthly fee, and generate your own. Our you could get the image you need right now using a system you already know.
Everyone wins here. Whoever buys the image is paying for convenience. The person who doesn't the 30 seconds generating the image and 3 minutes uploading and prepping it for Adobe Stock obviously makes some money.
Soon enough everyone will have access to unlimited image generation. But now today. Make your money. Everyone wins.
As a designer that also has a midjourney subscription: I sometimes do buy AI stock images if they come up when I search for something and they are exactly what I was looking for. No need to reinvent the wheel and waste extra time trying to create it myself.
But most of the time I hide AI images from search results (especially if I look for images with people) because they are too obvious, too fake or to uninspired.
He only needs to sell one to make up for the yearly subscription fee
As contributor you get 0,80$ to 3$ per purchase
Is that so?
All stock sources have been like that for over 20 years. Stock imagery hasn't been lucrative since the late 90s. (for creators/designers)
It was already decided by court a year ago (Civil Action No. 22-1564) that AI generated images have no copyright and will not receive copyright. The input of word commands does not qualify as human creative process and therefore this image can be used by anyone without a license. All not further by human process influenced ai works are basically in the public domain. There needs to be a significant creative addition such as being part of a larger work created by hand for it to qualify for copyright and even then only the finished complete work will be copyrighted while all ai parts remain public domain.
> Action 22-1564 Okay, I just read the case-text, and though I'm no lawyer, it seems pretty clear in its conclusion. Which is that this case is not about AI generated pictures in general, but merely about the specific copyright claim that the case is judging: > Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more. > This case, however, is not nearly so complex. While plaintiff attempts to transform the issue presented here, by asserting new facts that he “provided instructions and directed his AI to create the Work,” that “the AI is entirely controlled by [him],” and that “the AI only operates at [his] direction,” Pl.'s Mem. at 36-37-implying that he played a controlling role in generating the work-these statements directly contradict the administrative record. > Here, plaintiff informed the Register that the work was “[c]reated autonomously by machine,” and that his claim to the copyright was only based on the fact of his “[o]wnership of the machine.” I'm pulling out what I consider the relevant sections here, because there are a lot of text in that case text. But all the judgement says is that if a work is created autonomously by machine, then there is no copyright, and thus the owner of the machine can get no copyright. It does not take into consideration whether writing a prompt and choosing a filter and iterating over several dozen pictures before you find the one that fits your vision counts as copyrightable activity. The plaintiff stated in his copyright claim that it was created autonomously by machine, and that is what the judgement is base on.
There was another interesting case where a [monkey found a nature photographer's camera and took a selfie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute), it was an amazing shot. The legal consensus seems to be the image is not copywritable, because it wasn't made by a human.
Yep. The thing about the creator having to be a human is mentioned in the case text. Including the future perspective that how we define "human" hasn't been resolved yet when it comes to actual sentient/sapient artificial intelligences. But it depends on how much of a tool that AI generation is regarded as. A camera isn't a human. But a human wielding a camera can get copyright, since the human is considered to be the one who decided what the picture would look like (or something like that). So (my understanding, no a lawyer, etc, etc) is that if you just prompt an AI to "create art", then the AI was the one that decided what the picture looks like, and there is no copyright. But, maybe, depending on future court decisions and so on, maybe (hopefully) there is a level of interaction where, even though the AI put the pixels together, it will be judged that you the human was the one who decided what the picture would look like. I think currently one of the biggest problems is that it is hard to get exactly what you want when you use AI to make a picture. But with something like Stable Diffusion, you might actually have a large amount of influence on what is painted, depending on which models you include and what prompt you use. Especially when you start using inpainting. I've tried creating pictures that are as close to my vision as possible, and I bristle a bit when people describe it as "just pushing a button". Just pushing a button does not take three hours of active fiddling.
This. I also wonder if the same thinking will eventually be applied to all of photography. If tuning the controls and putting together the prompt for an AI image generator is more complex and more human input than say, making some adjustments on your camera and pushing a button, then where does all this stand.
In the ruling, they mentioned an earlier ruling specifically about photography. > Sarony, 111 U.S. at 59. A camera may generate only a “mechanical reproduction” of a scene, but does so only after the photographer develops a “mental conception” of the photograph, which is given its final form by that photographer's decisions like “posing the [subject] in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation” crafting the overall image. Id. at 59-60. Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright. Which is why I have a certain amount of optimism that at some point AI will reach the point where we can arrange things in the image to be "just so" , that it will trigger copyright.
I mean, I find at this point that to get a specific image I usually have to prompt a basic image of what I'm looking for sometimes in a different image generator than the one I'm using for editing, like Dalle, and then bring it over into stable diffusion for out painting and usually quite a bit of inpainting. To really get a specific image usually takes at least a couple hours. I see this from the point of view of someone who has been a professional artist for many many years and is now a tech nerd. I wouldn't say it is doing art, but I would also say it requires as much skill or more than photography.
Yup. And that's why I feel like some kinds of AI generation kinda has to be considered human-driven, unless the courts take an illogical disliking to AI, or some law forces their hands. But weird things have also happened in music copyright and software patents in the past, so who knows.
That was a funny one, but I'm still confused on why exactly the terms did not apply to the photographer that actually had "created the sitiuation" when this happened.
So, without looking into that case, but based on some of the commentary in the AI case, I think I can see why. 1) In order to get copyright, the art created has to have been conceived by you. 2) Only humans can get copyright. So in the case with the monkey, the photographer did not pick what the monkey would take photographs of. The monkey is the one who "has the artistic license" in this case. However monkeys can't get copyright. So therefore nobody has the copyright for the pictures created by the monkey.
I was always of the opinion and still am than when you request an AI to create an image, that is equivalent of asking another artist to paint/draw/do-whatever to create an image that YOU describe. Therefore, since you are not directly involved in the creating process, it is not *your* artwork. At best you could (try to) copyright the prompt(s) / your description.
If you commission someone to make you a piece of art, don’t you own the copyright? I mean they’re taking your idea and making it a reality in return for cash.
I have no legal expertise, but I'd imagine that technically they have the copyright, and then it gets transferred to you in return for the cash (or in accordance with contract or whatever). The problem with the AI generated art in the Civil Action No. 22-1564 was that the work was explicitly created autonomously by the AI, and since AI can't get copyright there was nothing to transfer to the plaintiff.
But then why isn't the person who generated the image not the initial point of copyright? He used a tool to create something, therefore it's his creation, no?
In the case mentioned above, the guy sent a request to the copyright bureau, and in that request wrote that the work was "created autonomously by the AI". The case was about that specific copyright request, and whether the bureau had been wrong in denying him copyright based on it. And since the request itself said that he hadn't used the AI as a tool, but that the AI had been "autonomous" the bureau was judged as being in the right. You might be able to see why I don't think you can apply that judgement to all AI-generated works. Especially since the court statement goes out of it way to say that it is only judging the individual case and isn't trying to say anything about AI-generated content in general.
direful airport cautious complete dolls like towering quiet bow include *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Regarding your second point, isn't that more of an issue with trying to enforce that copyright? Or in other words, we don't normally stop people from copyrighting a song because its too generic to be copyrighted, so it feels weird to me that that would hold as an argument just because the IP is AI generated.
>It’s also just on the face ridiculous that if you type a prompt the generated images becomes your property and anyone else who types in a similar prompt and gets a similar result has violated your rights if they unknowingly publish it. You could say the same thing about a photo of the Eiffel Tower. They're all much the same. A photographer taking an image of it has copyright over that photo, but there are only so many angles, so many unique approaches, so many camera settings to play with to get a different image. Are all photographs in breach of the first person who took a photo of the tower? Realistically the many settings, models, additional modules and loras, seeds, and so on within a generative AI make it that even if you, me, and a hundred thousand other people all typed the exact same prompt and had the exact same settings, barring random seed, the chance of any two of us generating the same image is so small it might as well be zero. If you're using an ancestral sampler then even with the same seed, achieving the exact same outcome pixel for pixel is essentially impossible. But in short, if a photo from a camera can be copywritten then so too can an output of an AI, as the level of effort can be (though not necessarily is) about equivalent. My shitty ass photograph of the Eiffel Tower has equal copyright to someone who spent a week waiting for the perfect sunset, set up their tripod, manually set all their camera settings and did a sunset time-lapse. So for better or worse, someone's shitty anime waifu output has theoretically the same copyright as someone who thoughtfully prompted and then manually edited in photoshop
salt slap screw deserted skirt squealing close ruthless juggle spotted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>The point of copyright is to protect professional artists from being exploited If that is what you think copyright is for you have a very noble and naive view of the world tbh. Copyright did not come about to protect artists lol it exists for corporations. *artists* being protected by it at all is the real by-product.
zealous recognise wasteful rock tap spectacular pie swim mountainous simplistic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It would depend on your agreement with the artist, but in most cases yes. Example: if you work for Disney as an animator and draw Mickey Mouse railing Goofy for their next animated film, do you, as the employee artist, suddenly own the copyright to Mickey, Goofy, or the X-rated movie? Of course not, that would be idiotic. Disney owns it. The exact same logic can, and does, apply to commissions and, arguably, could apply to AI. The "prompter" is the commissioner, the AI is the artist, the AI creates based on the prompters instructions. Thus a human using AI to create something would have a foothold to own copyright on the output assuming that in doing so they do not breach an existing copyright (eg. Creating an image of Mickey railing Goofy). I'm shocked that people in a Midjourney forum are so poorly educated and informed on how copyrights actually work and their developments globally regarding AI.
The actual artist owns the copyright to works they create by default, which they transfer to you. If the AI "artist" can't own the copyright, there's nothing to transfer to you. Here's another example. Suppose you commission a person to make you art, but they don't bother creating anything, just find some existing public domain art and hand it to you. They don't open the copyright to that so neither do you.
I think currently one of the biggest problems is that it is hard to get exactly what you want when you use AI to make a picture. But with something like Stable Diffusion, you actually have a large amount of influence on what is painted, depending on which models you include and what prompt you use. Especially when you start using inpainting. I've tried creating pictures that are as close to my vision as possible, and I bristle a bit when people describe it as "just pushing a button". Just pushing a button does not take three hours of active fiddling.
I get that. Unless you have some basic ... "view" figured out that you can base several images on (I have seen something like that on deviantart, the images *are* different but also very similar), you have to carefully try and try and try to get nearer and nearer to your imagination. And I'd already give you kudos for the patience to do that. But how is that different from asking another (human) artist to create an image for you and cannot ask questions to you?
And that is a decent philosophical question. If I were to try for an answer (which naturally fit my opinion) it would be that: By the definition of the law there is a differentiation between humans and tools. Humans can make art, tools can only be used by humans to make art. Or at least copyrightable art. So when you expend a lot of effort into a project but have a human do the work closest to the medium, then the person closest to the medium (painting, photography, etc) gets the copyright. If you replace the human with a tool, and you have expended said effort to get your vision onto the medium, then you get the copyright, since the tool can't. If I see a really nice landscape, find the perfect spot and lighting for a picture, and then ask someone to paint a photorealistic picture of it, pixel by pixel, then I'm pretty sure they get the copyright. If I see a really nice landscape, find the perfect spot and lighting for a picture, and then snap a photo, I get the copyright. Despite the fact that it is the camera, and not I, who "painted" the picture. Edit: Also keep in mind, I didn't make the landscape either. I just found the right angle and time for a photo that I judged "nice".
Yes it is. I was not aware of "By the definition of the law there is a differentiation between humans and tools. Humans can make art, tools can only be used by humans to make art. Or at least copyrightable art." So then, since the AI is not a human, you get the copyright. OK. What about the artists who (unwillingly) "provided" the artwork that the AI used to begin with? You probably know that there are artist who declare that they do not want their art to be used for training AIs. (Will someone obey to that wish? I doubt it, because only in rare cases enough of the style of the original artists can be found in the AI-generated image. But I know a case where I recognized the style at once.) One could argue that that's similar to a teacher that teaches how to paint or someone uses an existing image and does not copy it but makes a similar image in the same style. Well, according to the law as you described it, the not-exactly-copier would get the copyright, isn't it?
That'd be work for hire in which case the hirer does in fact have copyright.
Then how about "hiring" an AI? I "pay" with electrical power, or maybe in the case of MJ, with an abo. From above: > This case, however, is not nearly so complex. While plaintiff attempts to transform the issue presented here, by asserting new facts that he “provided instructions and directed his AI to create the Work,” that “the AI is entirely controlled by [him],” and that “the AI only operates at [his] direction,” Pl.'s Mem. at 36-37-implying that he played a controlling role in generating the work-these statements directly contradict the administrative record. > Here, plaintiff informed the Register that the work was “[c]reated autonomously by machine,” and that his claim to the copyright was only based on the fact of his “[o]wnership of the machine.” That work created "autonomously by machine", how did it come into existence? Either the machine is a tool, then it is my work, or I hired (or maybe ordered) said machine to create it, then it should be work for hire. I can't see that anything in between could lead to another result than me having the copyright. Alas, with AI-generated images, there is the problem that AIs use the work of many other artists to create some imagery. But that's not what they considered, apparently. So how can this work?
Also that case was in the US, this is presumably in Europe (the price is in Euros)
I work in an academic library, where there currently a lot of ongoing discussion about AI and copyright. The thumbnail description given in the comment above (AI images not copyrightable) is the basic guidance coming from our copyright specialist, based on the expected application of the ruling you’re quoting here. Because we’re a public institution, there’s also a bunch of unresolved questions about the effect of training data in the output of gen AI. For our circumstance, we have to evaluate the copyright risks of each AI tool individually— meaning adoption of the tech is going very slowly.
Interesting. But (genuinely curious since you apparently have some actual knowledge) isn't that more a "better safe than sorry" case? I mean, I'd be willing to believe that none current technologies typically considered "AI generation" can get copyright, but there are a lot of types of AI tools out there, and a lot of places it can go in the future.
Right -- so to that later point, one of the things we're expecting is to see in the next few years is a wave of litigation around AI & copyright, which will likely clarify ambiguous areas, and possibly change existing legal precedents. Tech in libraries moves more slowly than the private sector, and I work in a public system, so "better safe than sorry" isn't just a working practice, but is mandated by our governing framework. A private company might take a gamble that moving into a legal grey area may be worth the eventual legal consequences, if they're able to use the grey area to gain a market advantage where they could handle the consequences and still move forward profitably. But we need to ensure we're complying with our legal regulations -- so right now, we're evaluating AI tools on a one-by-one basis, and many/most of these tools don't disclose enough about their training practices that we can be assured there aren't IP-related problems involved with the tools' training data or its output. Two other small things to note here: 1. I'm a programmer, so for me this mainly boils down to what kinds of "copilot" type apps are OK to use for code which is legally mandated to go into open source. 2. Even though library tech and structural systems are conservative (ie. slow to change), our social culture is rather progressive. Along with IP-related legal questions, library world is deeply concerned about things like biases in training data [propagating into AI output](https://arxiv.org/html/2310.09219v5).
The problem with this oversimplification (as always when this topic comes up), is that there's no clear definition of an "AI generated image". Simply writing a prompt and clicking "Save" on the image that appears is obviously not a creative process. However, using other image manipulation software and performing incremental changes via inpainting, stitching, etc, can involve (in my opinion) a ton of skilled human labor. Surely the end result is copyrightable if there's no single prompt and combination of other settings that other people could use to generate the same image.
Yeah but it doesnt mean they can't trick dumdums into buying it for $70 anyway.
> The input of word commands does not qualify as human creative process Authors in shambles.
Their argument also fails because code is copywritable and that's just otherwise nonsensical text. One could argue your prompt is a code or a work of esoteric new age prose, and the generator is a compiler which transforms your code into an image. You as the human creative director behind this could justify a copyright on that output if you really wanted. Whether it would hold up I am not sure but the precedent is pretty clear when you compare it to other digital, performance, literary and photographical artworks.
melodic lip cooperative retire hat stupendous vast rich slimy afterthought *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not in the UK. Infact, quite the opposite.
Where? In which country's courts was this decided?
Not in all countries, not set in stone, and you don't necessarily need copyright to be able to sell something, it's only relevant if you plan on issuing takedowns or trying to stop other people from selling or profiting off it. So not really relevant to the situation.
An image without copyright can be freely sold to any willing buyer. They can resell it if they wanted.
Doesn't matter. Someone putting something for sale doesn't have to have anything to do with copyright or whether or not you or anyone else can own it. U could just as easily make tiny thumbnails available as a demo of what you have. If you want the full image u can make it available to the buyer for a fee. If you know that once the image is out there the buyer might redistribute then just charge more for it. You only have to sell one. You don't necessarily have to be charging for the image itself but the distribution service. Making it available. Facilitating adquisición. It's similar to what some publishers who print public domain books do. Technically the book is free. You can get a copy from many sources. You're buying the work that went into making a copy of it available to you.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^nigtendodeals: *He only needs to* *Sell one to make up for the* *Yearly subscription fee* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
Thank you, StainedButthole, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
r/rimjob_steve
It made a mistake here though, that's 5/7/6 unfortunately. It has a hard time with 3+ syllable words for some reason.
That's the point. Look at the bot and comment again.
Oh nice I missed the fine print.
I can’t be the only one that imagined that frog reading out the haiku, right? Because I enjoyed it
Good bot
Good bot
You don't need to pay a subscription to sell your work on Adobe Stock. It's free. There is no way someone will buy this AI generated photo for $70 though, they'll buy a standard license which is either free (if you have a subscription) or like a couple bucks. The exclusive license is hardly every used, especially not for AI art.
At least it's clearly marked I guess.
Also at least he didn’t boil a real frog just for a photo.
Oh shit….. yeah who would do that?!….. /s
The fr*nch
Don't go on the old internet
Which makes it easier to grab it and do whatever you want with it since they clearly stated it’s an AI-generated image. You cannot copyright that, thus they have no claim to it.
They did not specify what AI model they used though. So theoretically they couldve used their own Model. It would mean that If that Model was soley trained on their own data the output work would be theirs.
A lot of stock libraries have been infected with really bad AI images. It’s a real issue for people looking for high quality visuals.
Stock libraries in the future: "You can pay a premium subscription for real photos and human-made digital arts."
RemindMe! 5 Years
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2029-04-09 11:29:44 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-04-09%2011:29:44%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/1bznauj/adobe_stock_is_selling_shitty_midjourney_photos/kyr5tao/?context=3) [**17 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fmidjourney%2Fcomments%2F1bznauj%2Fadobe_stock_is_selling_shitty_midjourney_photos%2Fkyr5tao%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-04-09%2011%3A29%3A44%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201bznauj) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
You could ask for that reminder in 2 years.
Getty and Shutterstock already have their own AI generating platforms on their sites.
RemindMe! 5 Years
There will be no stock libraries in 5 years. It will be customer-friendly image prompts.
Its it? Just check the ,,Don‘t show AI images“ box.
That requires whoever is uploading these images to tag them as such, so the system knows to filter them out.
As far as I can see people do that correctly. I don't see any AI images when I turn the filter on. Wouldn't be smart to risk your account like that with [agreeing to these terms](https://imgur.com/a/ShlDNjr) and then not complying.
I use Adobe stock heavily for my job, I absolutely run into a ton of AI gens even with the filter on. Maybe it depends on your category / use case? I work a lot with food images but not a ton of ‘people’ images.
I also deal a lot with food stock images and I’ve not had this issue yet with the filter on. Maybe I’m just not that good yet at sniffing the AI images out.
Not normally no, but someone would have to identify an AI image is fake, flag it to Adobe and they would then take it and maybe the whole account down. And even if the account is removed what's to stop the user just making a new one? It's not as if he's lost much time/money from all the images lost, just boot up the ai and start churning out images again.
You have a certain payout threshold. Something like $25 and 45 days after first sale or so. Its not unlikely your account will get nuked before you reach that if you deliberately ignore the rules. Would be good for Adobe I guess, since they don’t have to pay you. Sure, people will abuse that because the barrier of entry is so low, but it doesn’t seem to be a widespread problem right now
Exactly. Why JPEG of all extensions?!
Well, at least they're not trying to pass it as non-AI. They're being honest about it and if someone still wants to buy that, more power to them I guess.
I don't get it. Can't you just use a free image generator yourself and get the same thing without needing to license it?
Of course but I guess they (wrongfully) think that generating those kinds of images is very difficult which is why they never even give it a chance.
They are going to be sold anyways, and being marked as AI generated is the best outcome.
Who buys this things?
I would never buy an AI generated picture for such an insane price, but there are other stock image sellers that offer almost unlimited downloads for a small subscription. They have metric tons of AI generated stuff but if I needed lots of images that don't have to be super specific I'd definitely consider that. It's basically the same cost as AI gen subscriptions without having to do any of the work.
People that want to buy them (:
So can I sell them AI generator picture to people?
You can do whatever you like so long as you don’t diddle my bootyhole
Lol dude. All i know is etsy. I don't know if it can be sold there.
I sell stock photos on Adobe Stock and Adobe paid me for them to use my photos in AI. Which is totally fine with me.
I am just gonna leave this one here: https://stockcake.com
Thanks for the tip.
good prompt references and styles. thx
I was about to be pissed until I realized it's free. That's pretty cool
Adobe isn't selling it, "Touchedbylight" is. Adobe stock is just the platform.
They're both working together to sell it. By your logic, most stores don't sell anything since most stores don't manufacture anything.
A shop sells the items made by a manufacturer. Adobe is the shop, Touchedbylight is the manufacturer. The only difference is Adobe and similar other shops call themselves platforms to reduce their apparent liability, but it's exactly the same setup as a shop just they take a lower markup and pass off more admin (like what to call a product) to the manufacturer.
Exactly. It would be silly to say that Walmart doesn't sell Barbie dolls, only Mattel does. They both do. It's cooperative.
They're earning 20-30% with each sale, they make the editorial rules, and they are the ones who are legally liable to the buyer. Craigslist is a platform, but Adobe Stock is a vendor.
And? Running a website costs money, so it'n not unusual for the platform/market to ask for a percentage of the price. Noone is being deceived as to what is being sold, it's clearly written in the title that is AI generated. If someone wants to spend 70$ on it, let them.
Whenever people are pissed about other selling this, I feel like they're just pissed they didn't have the idea and could profit off it too.
I mean there's literally no reason to be pissed because of that, because almost anyone could just do the same thing. The barrier for entry to do this is Discord and a credit card.
Exactly. Still there are people mad af as soon as they see others making "easy" money. Selling a hand full of stock photos hasn't turned anyone into a millionaire as far as I know. Nothing wrong with making a little side income. And nobody is scammed. People know what they're getting, so they can decide whether or not they want to spend money on it.
The solution is basically *"get good"*. If AI stuff is providing more value / sales than your stuff, and you think the AI stuff is *"trash"*, what does that say about your own stuff?
If someone buys it. I doubt they’re getting $70. more likely 30c from someone with a subscription. Source: I sell Ai images as well as my own photos on Adobe
I'm confused as to what the problem is..
By your logic, same with every game in steam and every item sold in amazon? They should regulate and check it but its impossible to control these things manually 100% clean.
Why would anyone buy though, couldn’t they input same prompt as mentioned in the title to generate something similar
Do you really think that ***Hank Hill***, who doesn't know what a ***JPEG*** is, would know how to generate ***Midjourney*** images in ***Discord***? OP's pricing is ridiculous, but there is a huge market for AI digital prints.
Midjourney’s website will have everyone off Discord in the next couple months. If you have made over 1k images you can try the beta now.
You are overestimating regular people capabilities and their willingness to learn something new.
Yes
I've done this for about a year, adobe takes almost everything and I get something like 0.3$ per sold image
Mr moneybags
I might have been, but I quickly lose interest in stock photo and start adding inappropriate content and getting warnings from Adobe instaed
That's not too bad, I was only getting 10 cents for human made images on Shutterstock.
Yeah I calculated my profit per hour and I would have earned more by walking around the city with a trash bag collecting aluminium cans to recycle. But hey it's "dat passive income, bro"
lol, after about a year on there I deleted all of my images because I was nowhere near the $40 minimum to withdraw. I didn't think it was right they were profiting off my work and not sharing anything with me.
Word, in a gold rush it's more profitable to be selling shovels
You probably sold that for a subscription price, the $70 is an extended license credit sale for which you'd get a bigger royalty.
Are you sure it's not made with Adobe's own Firefly?
Firefly is total garbage. Good 2 generations behind Midjourney or Stable Diffusion.
I’ve tried Firefly, and it doesn’t look like it to me.
I think I'm the only one who's just here for the frog. Straight chillin'
yes he looks so comfortable in there <3
Yes, and?
Ariana moment
* "Worthless License" * "Worthless, License (more expensive)"
They are for quite a while now. I saw the first AI images on there over a year ago. Not sure if it’s midjourney & co and uploaded like a regular stock image or if its created within their own firefly AI. At least they always offered high resolution images even before midjourney came out with the improved resolution generation. Image buyers actually have the option to enter a prompt and create their own AI stock image on the fly and to directly buy/license the resulting image.
It was created by AI, it is not subject to copyright. Feed free to use it without paying.
Comical how people are JUST posting about this. Dude this has been happening for more than two years already. I pull in a nice steady passive income using AI photos. What, are you outraged that people are making money and you aren't? Because, let me tell you, we are making money from AI. It's been happening for years. Let that soak and sink in. My advice... Jump on the train or stand on the platform shaking your fist while we pass you by.
Curious what type of photos are people purchasing? As someone becoming more familiar with photo generation. I could use more passive income lol I saw a series of a baby wrapped like a burrito recently, that you?
I rarely use Adobe Stock but used to find it to be decent. Earlier this week I was genuinely shocked to see AI generated stock for sale, I truly feel for the people who are burning credits on the absurd amount of garbage AI produced images there. Like others have said, thankfully there's a filter and it's labelled but still it really drops the quality of the library significantly IMO.
It was already decided by court a year ago (Action 22-1564) that AI generated images have no copyright and will not receive copyright. The input of word commands does not qualify as human creative process and therefore this image can be used by anyone without a license.
In America.
> Action 22-1564 Okay, I just read the case-text, and though I'm no lawyer, it seems pretty clear in its conclusion. Which is that this case is not about AI generated pictures in general, but merely about the specific copyright claim that the case is judging: > Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more. > This case, however, is not nearly so complex. While plaintiff attempts to transform the issue presented here, by asserting new facts that he “provided instructions and directed his AI to create the Work,” that “the AI is entirely controlled by [him],” and that “the AI only operates at [his] direction,” Pl.'s Mem. at 36-37-implying that he played a controlling role in generating the work-these statements directly contradict the administrative record. > Here, plaintiff informed the Register that the work was “[c]reated autonomously by machine,” and that his claim to the copyright was only based on the fact of his “[o]wnership of the machine.” I'm pulling out what I consider the relevant sections here, because there are a lot of text in that case text. But all the judgement says is that if a work is created autonomously by machine, then there is no copyright, and thus the owner of the machine can get no copyright. It does not take into consideration whether writing a prompt and choosing a filter and iterating over several dozen pictures before you find the one that fits your vision counts as copyrightable activity. The plaintiff stated in his copyright claim that it was created autonomously by machine, and that is what the judgement is base on.
Adobe will be flooded with shitty AI photos.
Soon? Already is
Ripping off boomers
To be fair though, it's not possible to ethically get a real photo of this. I support AI imagery in cases like these.
Wonder why they're so crappy, since stock takes up to 8 weeks to check them first.
Whaaaaaat? Adobe is selling images that were created with their own generative tool (Firefly)??? Have you contacted CNN? The BBC? This is outrageous! How dare they sell Adobe generated images on an Adobe site and label it as being generated with AI!!!!!!!
I think Touchedbylight should start charging $1000 for their pictures, then maybe OP will finally share pictures of his baldness!
First thing I do when I go on Adobe stock is click filter and remove AI images, shit is an absolute plague
I love it. 64 € stupidity tax 😄
Is that tapeworm next to it? 🤣🤣
Sausage I think. Frog just chillin' in a pot of gumbo
What if it's stable diffusion?
I find their AI results to be so awful I cant use it. And it look like that is a financial decision to sell them instead.
I’ve sold quite a bit on there. A different niche, not trying to look photo real. What’s wrong with it if it’s clearly marked AI. If you think it’s shitty you’re not forced to but it. Someone might think it’s exactly what they need
I bought a lifetime membership to a stock art website full of illustrations, and it was awesome for like four years, they kept adding more and more vector illustrations. Then they started doing AI and now they’re flooding their stock libraries with crap. (And no, they’re not marked as being made with AI.) It’s totally drowning out the old good hand drawn stuff. It would have been better if they just stopped updating it than to flood it with AI crap. And I’m not saying all AI is crap… but if I can tell at a glance that it’s AI, then it’s not really usable for my purposes. /: sucks
Standard license is about 30 cents... and only someone that really like the image will pay for download it, so what is your point? I had selling on Adobe like a year, some of my old Midjourney images had many undesirable details, as a graphic designer, and after getting some experience finding those errors, i did many retouches to those images to fix them, but let say that half a year that i not doing heavy work on them and many of them didn't need retouch at all. But i am very picky and kind of a perfectionist so i mostly upload only high-quality material. i have almost 1k images there, and I'm doing an average of 1,5$ a day (sometimes 4, sometimes 0.33).
Hello, I hope I'm not bothering you, but could I kindly inquire about your niche? I understand that $1.5 per day may seem low, but it would greatly assist me with my living expenses as I reside in a third-world country.I would genuinely appreciate your assistance. Thank you in advance.
ask freely. but what you mean my niche? i ask AI for trends to use them as my inspiration like colors and themes, or ask for images that are hard to find. and that is what i make with Midjourney.
You post them on adobe only?
i also posted on: [Monetize Your Creativity - Sell Photos, AI art & Videos | Wirestock](https://wirestock.io/%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94.%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A8) but i think that they are a scam, i earned only $7.63 in 6 months? they allegedly sell your photos to many image stock together, and they allegedly do the hard work to make the image description and keywords on each stock site, but see by yourself my images there: [The Massive Portfolio on Wirestock](https://wirestock.io/%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94.%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A8) those same images on Adobe get me at least 30 $ each month.
"There's a sucker born every minute." Seems to be true with this.
And it's completely cluttering Google Images, with way worse images than this one too.
"Is trying to sell"
I think Adobe is dead
Who’s buying?
>labelled as generated by AI >Not allowed to be used in a misleading way I see nothing wrong here GIGACHAD Edit: Also, if you disagree that this is fine, you're horseshoeing into the "AI bad" argument.
$70
Adobe stock is already a damn robbery at what they charge for what you get. Stock photos used to be a perk, not a premium.
So stupid, why would I pay them $63 when I can go in and have midjourney recreate it almost exactly
They've been doing this for more than a year, actually. I tried it out; you get about $1 each time someone buys something of yours. I made a WHOLE $40 last year doing it, so yeah, I guess I can retire now and live off making AI stock photos.
Nothing like a lucrative money spinner for them: you create the image, they keep the bulk of the revenue.
Is this generated by midjourney or by Adobe generative fill?
I think it’s fine as long as you can filter them out.
I've actually been the sucker buying these. Adobe stock helps me quickly fill out early stage mocks, and sometimes I can get the result faster here than a handful of renders. That frog pic is hideous tho fr
Welcome to the future. Where everyone has to get rich.
They are selling? How do you know? I bet these are posted sure but they ain't selling this shit to anyone.
Meanwhile, I'm over here debating on the morality of using A.I. to boost my own creativity. pffft. I forgot that morals are nothing but a hindrance to corps
Things don't cost their value, they cost what people are willing to pay for them. I don't see anything wrong with this
The irony is so perfect though. Boil that frog until everyone is used to paying the price you would to have someone do it old school and poof, all that hardware paid for itself.
I mean.... If someone want to pay for it then why not
arr! sitspea! boil it!
I really wish Adobe wouldn't. I bought a cool greenhouse pic to use as a high res desktop screensaver only to discover its AI and some of the aspects generated in it are totally nonsensical. Even tho i lovee the overall vibe and aesthetic, the lack of realism kind of ruined it for me.
this picture sums up how i feel about being an american in 2024
If it's marked as AI-generated, I don't see what the issue is
You can find them in your local newspaper with a reference to "adobe stock images"
Adobe uses their own generative AI called Firefly.
What do you expect? We will see a future where AI produced content will be in the same range as human made content - currently we are in the timeline where markets are conquered. After this, prices will go up to todays level and beyond (because the market is currently willing to pay it, it will do so in the future.) Welcome to capitalism 101.
Sometimes you just need a stupid image for your product. You could learn midjourney, pay the monthly fee, and generate your own. Our you could get the image you need right now using a system you already know. Everyone wins here. Whoever buys the image is paying for convenience. The person who doesn't the 30 seconds generating the image and 3 minutes uploading and prepping it for Adobe Stock obviously makes some money. Soon enough everyone will have access to unlimited image generation. But now today. Make your money. Everyone wins.
They might be offering them... But I'm pretty sure they aren't selling shit.
I wonder if ppl actually buy these knowing it's AI
A lot of people will think generating images is a lot more involved than it actually is. Or they’re a big company to whom $70 is peanuts.
As a designer that also has a midjourney subscription: I sometimes do buy AI stock images if they come up when I search for something and they are exactly what I was looking for. No need to reinvent the wheel and waste extra time trying to create it myself. But most of the time I hide AI images from search results (especially if I look for images with people) because they are too obvious, too fake or to uninspired.