R ight now, they’re saying that if you type in a text prompt, the resulting image: n o one owns it. “W here the copyright office is now - and I think there’s a decent chance that’ll stick, because technically speaking, i t’s almost nonsensical, otherwise. There are some interesting questions around how - or even if - you can copyright AI-generated images. For users, who want to use Firefly to create their own assets, that’s not a problem they have to worry about. That’s for Adobe and its content partners to figure out, though. He also noted that it is now up to everybody who works in the creative economy to figure out new ways to make money. W e’ll plug it into Firefly and then if someone says: I want it to look like Dana Rao, we pop up a message saying for $2, you can get something in the style of Dana Rao, all of a sudden, I get a new revenue stream,” he explained. But what if you can monetize it? What if we can say: y ou give us your assets. Artists don’t want their style to be ripped off. “W hen I think about a forward- looking model, it’s style. He also noted that, in addition, Adobe could maybe pay photographers for when a user asks for an image that’s specifically influenced by their individual style. B ut there’s no need right now for us to solve that problem while we’re in beta,” said Rao.
“S peculatively, I could use an AI to analyze an image and say: where do I think it came from? T here’s just a number of ways to imagine how you could come up with the right model. But Rao believes there may be proxies that the company could use - and the solution for that may actually be another AI system.
#Adobe stock contributors how to
He argued that there are lots of different ways Adobe could pay contributors for how their images influence the AI-generated content, but because it’s hard to know what exactly influenced how the model created a new image, it’ll also be hard for Adobe to decide how to compensate the content creators that contributed to every AI-generated image. He stressed that Adobe wants there to be a value exchange between the contributors and the company. That’s the message we want to get out there. W e’re committed to compensating the people who are contributing their work to these databases. “I think the number one thing is that we’re committed. “What w e’ve said is that we’re really reviewing all the different ways you could possibly do this an d we’re going to do that through the beta,” he said. Rao didn’t provide too many additional details, but he did explain the company’s thinking in a bit more detail. In the company’s defense, it’s been quite open about this, though how it expects to do this remains a bit vague. And while Adobe has the rights to use this content to train its model, Adobe Stock contributors will surely want to get paid for helping the company train these models, too. Today, stock photographers tend to receive royalties for every time their photo gets licensed on a platform like Adobe Stock. Indeed, Adobe itself put AI ethics in the spotlight because the company clearly believes that this is, in part, what allows it to differentiate its generative AI offerings from those of its competition.īut that also creates questions about how to pay these contributors for the content they’ve licensed to Adobe, especially if services like Firefly take off. And while the Adobe Summit, the company’s annual digital marketing event, unsurprisingly puts its focus on how generative AI can help marketers market more effectively with AI, there was no escaping the discussions around AI ethics, especially in the context of Firefly. Maybe more so than any other company, Adobe is deeply embedded in both the creative economy and the world of marketing. And while that’s not necessarily a new observation, the company’s launch of its Firefly generative image creator and overall GenAI platform this week puts this in a different context. You have to have a baseline of understanding of facts,” Dana Rao, Adobe’s general counsel and chief trust officer, told me. “ We’re at a tipping point where AI is going to b reak trust in what you see and hear - and democracies can’t survive when people don’t agree on facts.
0 kommentar(er)
