Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

stockperformer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 230 posts

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#141

Post by grantcas »

wilimitis wrote: post #73
GaggiX wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the paradox of both humans and machines showing signs of creativity?

I'm pointing out that your "AI Effect" is one-sided in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that we care more to prove the affirmative of whether a machine is conscious rather than prove that it isn't . If not, I don't think we can proceed. The issue is that the AI Effect you linked is often actually used in the reverse, including by yourself, where the burden of proof should be to prove a machine is NOT conscious.…

[dead]

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#142

Post by Animats »

ksaj wrote: post #2

I had to put together a presentation that was somewhat graphic-heavy. I used Dall-e 2, and the ability to get things so tailored to what I needed, so quickly, was absolutely worth it. I don't know if AI will replace stock photography, but I wouldn't bet against it. The ability to charge a high price for stock photography is over though.

> The ability to charge a high price for stock photography is over though.

Yes. Selling stock photos for crappy ads will be dead in a year. Unless you're at the level of Ansel Adams or Margeret Bourke-White, your content is not worth much.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#143

Post by dheera »

indymike wrote: post #115
mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #108

If you haven't tried to purchase a stock photo recently, it is incredibly difficult. I can order same day delivery of physical goods from Amazon much faster than trying to buy a single stock photo. All of the services are subscriptions now and they have dark UX patterns to convince you the only way to get the images is to sign up for an annual plan that will auto-renew. In comparison, typing a prompt into a generativ…

I'm not sure that is the case... I've used Shutterstock and Adobe Stock in the past two weeks and both times, it took about 3-4 minutes to find something I liked, and 10 sec (subscription) to 1 minute (non subscription) go through the license/payment cycle. > All of the services are subscriptions now and they have dark UX patterns They do. I have a subscription to one of the services, and it's just super easy and I u…

> 1 minute (non subscription) go through the license/payment cycle

No, it takes me several minutes to get my lazy ass off my chair, go find my wallet which is inside some pants inside the laundry basket, pull it out, find my credit card, enter the number in, enter the billing address, enter the zip code only to find that Google autofill has now decided to edit my address, then go edit the address, only to find that Google autofill has decided to edit my city, go edit the city, then just go "screw this" and use Stable Diffusion.

If you want to minimize friction for payments (a) don't display any GDPR or newsletter popups (b) don't ask me to register an account or verify an e-mail address or phone number (c) just let me hold my credit card to the webcam to pay. Do NOT display 17 text boxes to fill in.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#144

Post by tourmalinetaco »

indymike wrote: post #115
mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #108

If you haven't tried to purchase a stock photo recently, it is incredibly difficult. I can order same day delivery of physical goods from Amazon much faster than trying to buy a single stock photo. All of the services are subscriptions now and they have dark UX patterns to convince you the only way to get the images is to sign up for an annual plan that will auto-renew. In comparison, typing a prompt into a generativ…

I'm not sure that is the case... I've used Shutterstock and Adobe Stock in the past two weeks and both times, it took about 3-4 minutes to find something I liked, and 10 sec (subscription) to 1 minute (non subscription) go through the license/payment cycle. > All of the services are subscriptions now and they have dark UX patterns They do. I have a subscription to one of the services, and it's just super easy and I u…

> it took about 3-4 minutes to find something I liked, and 10 sec (subscription) to 1 minute (non subscription) go through the license/payment cycle

It took around 5 minutes for me to even be allowed to download the free low res version of an image. Between forced signup (by clicking the “free download” button, with no indication of needing an account), waiting to confirm my account via email, and having to return to the page after forced redirects begging me to pay for a subscription I’ll never use, all for a single image to play with in GIMP.

I genuinely hate how predatory UX has become in recent years.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#145

Post by ghaff »

dragonwriter wrote: post #88
voxadam wrote: post #75

Isn't the uncopyrightable nature of AI generated artwork a potential issue here? If I produce ad content for a company whose public image is incredibly important (e.g. Apple) and that content includes AI art what is to stop a competitor, or anyone else, from reusing that same art in a counter ad or to produce other content to similarly harm the original company? On the other hand, if I were to use images from a stock…

> Isn't the uncopyrightable nature of AI generated artwork a potential issue here? For some uses of stock art, probably not (nonexclusive use is common and cheaper), for others yes, if AI art is not copyrightable (an opinion of the Registrar of Copyrights that it is not if the only input from the human claimant to the finished work is a text prompt is perhaps being grossly overread the way some people seem to think i…

I really don't see this bright line between "AI" tools and the ton of other tasks that Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. can do for you to various degrees. Increasingly (finally) voice/text will become an important command tool for many types of graphical tasks. Unless you drastically raise the threshold for copyright protection (e.g. you can't use a computer), I'm not sure where you draw a line.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#146

Post by flangola7 »

mikojan wrote: post #135
pdntspa wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's truly evil that aspiring artists go to museums, copying (^H^H learning from) the masters

[flagged]

Humans are an anthropomorphized bundle of tissue circuits. We are not special.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#147

Post by emrah »

raincole wrote: post #129
emrah wrote: post #32

Since AI is mixing to create images and not being truly creative, I reckon it will be a worthy business to be able to detect where the pieces in an AI- generated image comes from.

> where the pieces in an AI- generated image comes from. A single image "comes from" millions or even billions of pieces. It truly works like that (albeit counterintuitive). It doesn't just combine 4 or 5 images and apply a filter.

That's great. Then what's the fuss about copyright if the pieces from the original training data are that tiny?

I saw mentions of companies being reluctant to use AI generated images because of potential copyright issues. What issues are they talking about?

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#148

Post by celestialcheese »

barrkel wrote: post #8
jiggawatts wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish MidJourney had some decent competition. Dall-E hasn’t improved since it was released, and the other good models like Google’s Imagen weren’t made public…

Stable Diffusion is still good but you need to fine tune it (not that expensive with Lora) and use controlnet to get good results. The model is just too small on its own.

Civitai is a good place to get these models if you don't want to train your own. NSFW partially

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#150

Post by tourmalinetaco »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50
wnkrshm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. More power to the owners, I guess.

The trajectory of ML appears to point towards massive transfer of wealth to capital owners and impoverishment of the working classes. We need to find a way to distribute the benefits of such developments.

> We need to find a way to distribute the benefits of such developments.

It’s called free software and making models at various ‘weight classes’ to support many GPUs. Basically don’t let companies like OpenAI/Google/Microsoft run the show and, ironically, support companies like Facebook who open source their models.

And yes, I know OpenAI has open sourced models in the past, but the fact that they won’t open source ChatGPT, GPT-4, and select other models like DALL-E 1/2 make me wary of them.

Post reply on HN