Adobe Stock will sell AI-generated artwork with conditions

Posted:
in General Discussion
Adobe recently announced it would begin accepting -- and selling -- stock images generated by AI tools, so long as they are labeled as such.

Adobe Stock
Adobe Stock


Many generative AI tools exist, such as Dall-E, Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and others, that let people create artwork.

Adobe made the announcement on Monday for its marketplace of stock images called Adobe Stock. The company will set specific guidelines to address royalties and intellectual property.

Creators submitting content generated by an AI tool must own or have the right to use the image, which must be submitted as an illustration. Further, it has to be labeled with "Generative AI" in the title.

Adobe requires that each artwork complies with its new Generative AI Content Guidelines. For example, an artist needs to include a model release for real people depicted in the image or a property release for other artworks.

The policy also forbids submissions based on third-party content, including text prompts referring to people, places, property, or an artist's style without proper authorization.

Artists are concerned

The move is not without controversy. As AI tools become more popular, copyright and intellectual property questions arise.

For example, in September, Getty Images banned the upload and sale of generative AI images, citing legal concerns. This is because AI tools are trained on images scraped from the web without any kind of attribution. And these scrapes included copyrighted works.

Web scraping is legal in the US. Depending on interpretation, the images generated by these tools fall under the "fair use" doctrine. Some artists have called for regulation, and a compensation model for art built on their works by AI.

People using AI tools that rely on text prompts can type what they want the tool to create. However, they can also have the AI generate an image based on a specific human artist's style.

"I'm very concerned about it," commercial illustrator Greg Rutkowski told Forbes in September. "As a digital artist, or any artist, in this era, we're focused on being recognized on the internet. Right now, when you type in my name, you see more work from the AI than work that I have done myself, which is terrifying for me. How long till the AI floods my results and is indistinguishable from my works?"

In 2022, a person won an art contest in the Colorado State Fair fine arts competition using AI-generated artwork.

"I wanted to make a statement using artificial intelligence artwork," Jason Allen told The Pueblo Chieftain. "I feel like I accomplished that, and I'm not going to apologize for it."

And, there have been other examples of artists taking commissions, and using AI-generated art without disclosure. Or worse, they're passing it off as their own work, done by hand.

The trend of AI art shows no signs of slowing down. Despite the controversy, Adobe seems confident in its policies and will add more features to make this content more transparent.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,576member
    Let me be upfront; I hate Adobe. I find their software awkward and unintuitive to use, every iteration gets worse. I hate how they were one of the first to go al in on rental software. I think what they charge tor CC is beyond exorbitant. So now they think that releasing AI generated art to artists that are increasingly competing with AI generated art is a good idea.

    Adobe is scum.
    edited December 2022 watto_cobragoodbyeranchh2p
  • Reply 2 of 12
    In a nutshell: just another way to rip-off human artists. Adobe will only catch a percentage of the policy violations and I'm sure they know it.  

    AI image scraping should not be legal. Period. 
    edited December 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 12
    Wow. I have no idea there are such things as AI generated arts. I checked some and some look really cool.
    neoncatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 12
    DAalseth said:
    Let me be upfront; I hate Adobe. I find their software awkward and unintuitive to use, every iteration gets worse. I hate how they were one of the first to go al in on rental software. I think what they charge tor CC is beyond exorbitant. So now they think that releasing AI generated art to artists that are increasingly competing with AI generated art is a good idea.

    Adobe is scum.
    Despite your different usernames, there's enough similarity to your constant spamming of this meme on various message boards that you're easy to spot. Over and over again you wage your crusade. No one should use software they don't want to. But your constant problems with Adobe put you firmly on the outside looking in among those of us who's daily bread is conceived of and executed in the CC suite. Somehow we're able to manage and profit without so much ennui. 

    I highly recommend the Affinity suite. It's fine for many uses, even light professional. Embrace them and live a less stressful life. 

    Have a nice day.
    h2p
  • Reply 5 of 12
    I checked some and some look really cool.
    That's only because the "AI" sampled human art that already looked really cool. There's no real purpose behind "AI" art other than to rip-off human artists. 
    ravnorodomwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 12
    I checked some and some look really cool.
    That's only because the "AI" sampled human art that already looked really cool. There's no real purpose behind "AI" art other than to rip-off human artists. 
    Hmmm. I was wondering why some look so perfect. That explains it. I need time to dig more into this. Probably end up wasting my time... like those NFT.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 12
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,576member
    neoncat said:
    DAalseth said:
    Let me be upfront; I hate Adobe. I find their software awkward and unintuitive to use, every iteration gets worse. I hate how they were one of the first to go al in on rental software. I think what they charge tor CC is beyond exorbitant. So now they think that releasing AI generated art to artists that are increasingly competing with AI generated art is a good idea.

    Adobe is scum.
    Despite your different usernames, there's enough similarity to your constant spamming of this meme on various message boards that you're easy to spot. Over and over again you wage your crusade. No one should use software they don't want to. But your constant problems with Adobe put you firmly on the outside looking in among those of us who's daily bread is conceived of and executed in the CC suite. Somehow we're able to manage and profit without so much ennui. 

    I highly recommend the Affinity suite. It's fine for many uses, even light professional. Embrace them and live a less stressful life. 

    Have a nice day.
    I am all in with the Affinity suite. they make a good product and don’t charge you up the *** for it. I am very glad to be “on the outside looking in”. The trouble is that Adobe is so big and so influential that they lead the industry. Other players will follow their bad design, exorbitant pricing structure, and things like this AI BS. 

    I am very happy to point out how toxic Adobe is. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 12
    Wow. I have no idea there are such things as AI generated arts. I checked some and some look really cool.
    It all starts to look the same after a while.
    ravnorodom
  • Reply 9 of 12
    If an image is 66% real and 33% computer generated (CG), how will Adobe classify that? This approach sounds like a workaround to get CG art into their library without the CG label. For example, I could have a picture of the Sun and big blue sky in the top 90% of the image, but the bottom 10% was a beautiful CG landscape. And I should submit it this way knowing that the user would crop out the sky, never knowing the landscape portion was CG.

    Besides, most photographs today are 90% real and 10% photoshopped, and that isn't forbidden and doesn't require a "photoshopped" label. The only difference between photoshopping and CG is that a human has to be there to direct and control the photoshopping, while CG is mostly automatic. But what if a CG program existed that requires human direction and control to create its images, would that make it just an advanced "photoshop" application? Who decides how much "control" has to exist before an app is declared to be a CG app? I would like to point out that Adobe's own photoshop apps use "Sensei AI" to use CG to do things like fill in backgrounds. Is Adobe going to ban photos using its own Sensei AI software? If not, that's unfair and possibly monopolistic, favouring only its own CG software on its Stock publishing website.

    That's my two cents.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,875moderator
    I checked some and some look really cool.
    That's only because the "AI" sampled human art that already looked really cool. There's no real purpose behind "AI" art other than to rip-off human artists. 
    AI will eventually be used by most artists because they will take care of mundane tasks just as computers have done for other fields of work. Inanimate objects have very little artistic merit and are very tedious for artists to have to draw - trees, sky, grass, telephones, floors, tables, chairs, windows. An AI can fill those parts in seconds and it can learn the art style of the artist. Artists can't rip themselves off.

    Current implementations of AI art are trying to create entire finished art from keywords. That isn't very reliable because it has too little control over the final result but using AI-powered art tools will be the way a lot of artwork is made in the near future.
    ravnorodom
  • Reply 11 of 12
    Marvin said: AI will eventually be used by most artists because they will take care of mundane tasks just as computers have done for other fields of work. Inanimate objects have very little artistic merit and are very tedious for artists to have to draw - trees, sky, grass, telephones, floors, tables, chairs, windows. 
    Wow...normally you make informed comments but this one is way off the mark. Try looking up "still life" and get up to speed on how inanimate objects are full of artistic merit.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    22july2013 said: The only difference between photoshopping and CG is that a human has to be there to direct and control the photoshopping, while CG is mostly automatic. 
    For personal use, you can do whatever you want with images you find on the internet. For professional use, there are all kinds of legal restrictions. Example: a contemporary artwork may be available to license but it can have restrictions on what types of digital editing are allowed, IF ANY. Some artworks that are licensed cannot even be cropped. And the other reality is that a lot of the artwork you can find on the internet is not available for licensing at all.

    That's just a very simple example of the problem. These "AI" programs aren't licensing lawyers. Scraping from the internet and then selling in a professional market is guaranteed to be violating all kinds of legal protections. The people who make the programs just don't care and apparently neither does Adobe.
    edited December 2022
Sign In or Register to comment.