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

151–160 of 230 posts

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

#151

Post by barbariangrunge »

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…

By way of comparison, look at the unreal marketplace or the unity asset store. It's easy to buy art on those sites. But almost nobody on there makes enough money to live off of. At the moment, I can only think of 1-2 creators on there who I think can live off their earnings, and they all live in parts of the world with low costs of living

IMO, the only value in selling assets on those stores is to attract the attention of companies who might want to hire you for real work

It's not viable to have an art company without some way to drive repeat transactions. Subscriptions are the only thing they can come up with that keeps the companies afloat and able to pay people's salaries

But yeah, I sure don't like them as a customer

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

#152

Post by barbariangrunge »

pdntspa wrote: post #131
amelius wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say dark patterns, but the true dark behavior is AI copying (^H^H learning from) all those stock photos and giving them away for free.

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

These stacks of gpus are not people. Repeat with me. These stacks of gpus are not people.

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

#153

Post by ssijak »

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…

by that definition it is enough to pass through an AI generated image in an upscaling program and it is now not just only the prompt. or open it in Photoshop and click once with a content-aware fill somewhere.

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

#154

Post by quitit »

I think it's too soon to see real data on this because the current leader in AI imagery is still quite limited in what it can produce. There are too many examples of stock photos where no combination of tokens is going to render a similar picture, there are still very prominent and noticeable limits on what AI can produce.

When creatives are seeking out a stock photo, they're not looking for a piece of generic clip-art to fill a void on a page. They're looking to satisfy far more prescriptive set of requirements, the sort of thing that should really be shot anew, but budgetary and timing constraints typically mean that a pre-shot photo will have to do.

As AI improves it'll make a bigger impact, even right now in its limited form, it's not looking good for junk-stock peddlers, which will disappoint absolutely no one.

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

#155

Post by ravenstine »

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…

Photography is a valuable skill, but stock photography and footage have been too overvalued for a long time. I'm not surprised that they're having a rude awakening in the face of things like Stable Diffusion. For most purposes, stock photos and illustrations don't have to be perfect, but just good enough. Or good enough for an amateur to make finishing corrections to.

That said, it also seems like the industry needs to be disrupted. Not by AI per se, but by competition that wants to sell itself as stock photos without the bullshit.

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

#156

Post by kixiQu »

harry8 wrote: post #12
stingraycharles wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the sad thing is that these models are most likely trained upon most of these stock photos to begin with. I can understand the frustration of the industry.

The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.

I understand why people are making this argument about drawing/painting – I don't really agree with it, but I understand how it coheres – but it doesn't follow for photography.

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

#157

Post by bheadmaster »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #152
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

These stacks of gpus are not people. Repeat with me. These stacks of gpus are not people.

Strawman argument - nobody is claiming that stacks of GPUs are people.

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

#158

Post by bheadmaster »

cnity wrote: post #149
flangola7 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you truly believed this you would never turn off a computer.

There are many humans I'd turn off if it wasn't illegal.

And even more of them I'd turn off only if I knew with certainty that I could turn them back on whenever I want, and that their memories would simply continue where they stopped.

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

#160

Post by pelagic_sky »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #101
two_in_one wrote: post #15

Like it or not, it's here like CGI in movies bestsellers. I don't envy artists, most of them will have to rethink their plans and switch to graphics or web designers, or something similar. Not sure who will be next. Probably GPT will take over virtual bookshelves on Amazon. Mandatory "AI generated" mark may help a bit. I will not waste my time reading it. I think we should expect a flood of "masterpieces" in differen…

> Mandatory "AI generated" mark may help a bit This will never happen, promise you that a major CGI sequence will ship completely AI generated in a Marvel movie within 3 years. This tech will be so integrated into workflows of Disney and the like that the idea of an "AI Generated" watermark will be as ridiculous to them as a "3D Rendered" watermark and if any legislation comes about they'll be against it.

I could potentially see movies needing to credit AI in the end credits. Not sure how that would work out. Maybe list all the scenes and what AI was used? But none-the-less, not an easy clear cut solution.
Post reply on HN