Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator • Hacker News Board

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#201

Post by krisoft » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

egypturnash wrote: post #149

mesh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. fyi, for Adobe Firefly, we are training or models. From the FAQ: "What was the training data for Firefly? Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired." https://firefly.adobe.com/faq (I work for Adobe)

I am definitely glad to see attention being paid to ethical sourcing of training images but I am curious: did the people who made all those stock images get paid for their work being used for training? Did they check a box that explicitly said "Adobe can train an AI on my work"? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?

I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for Adobe. :)

The contributor agreement linked from here[1] is this: [2]

"You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work for the purposes of operating the Website; presenting, distributing, marketing, promoting, and licensing the Work to users; developing new features and services; archiving the Work; and protecting the Work. "

I guess this would fall under the "developing new features and services".

What is funny is that "we may compensate you at our discretion as described in section 5 (Payment) below". :) I like when I may be compensated :)

And in section 5 they say: "We will pay you as described in the pricing and payment details at [...] for any sales of licenses to Work, less any cancellations, returns, and refunds."

So yeah. Sucks to the artist who signed this. They can use your work to develop new features and services, and they do not have to pay you for that at all, since it is not a sale of a license.

1: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-gu...

2: https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/service...

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#202

Post by spoiler » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #53

lelandfe wrote: post #50

From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "firs…

Still on the fence for whether or not you should be able to opt out of training (I'm sure many artists would love to "opt out" of humans looking at their art if the human intends to, or might, copy the artists' style at some point).

It's not quite the same... And I'm not sure how people on HN of all places are failing to grasp that these algorithms aren't sentinet, much less people.

I think this is incredibly cool technology, but using other people's property without their consent is stealing (I'm not talking about legality, but morality here).

The second reason why it's not the same is that people can't look at X million pictures and become proficient in thousands of different art styles. So, again its not legality but more about ethics.

I guess different people have lower moral standards than others, and that's always been part of the human condition.

With all that out of the way, I think artists won't get replaced, because these tools don't really produce anything... Substantial on their own. An artist still needs to compose them to tell a story. So, all this nonsense about how it will replace artists is misguided. It can only replace some parts of an artist's workflow.

I know there was an art competition where someone won with a piece that was AI-aided, but honestly it looked like colour sludge. The only thing that was really well executed in it was the drama created by the contrast from sharp changes in values near the centre of that work, and something vaguely resembling a humanoid silhouette against it. You could've called it abstract art if you squinted.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#203

Post by xsmasher » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #73

TylerE wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creative people are paid to be creative, not enter keyboard shortcuts all day. It’s the idea and vision that are the real differentiator.

Kids at street corners have idea and vision, no shortage in that. What matters is putting together idea and vision with execution. And for anything that is beyond basement scope, execution further subdivides into craft and access. Access to the means, and that is true for Hollywood as much as it is true for the smallest-time painter who might not be good at making friends with gallerists. The outliers are those that…

Kids at street corners have idea and vision, but may lack TASTE - the ability to discern the good from the bad. If the button-pushers have great AI but lack taste they will still produce a terrible end product.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#204

Post by ghaff » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #193

egypturnash wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am definitely glad to see attention being paid to ethical sourcing of training images but I am curious: did the people who made all those stock images get paid for their work being used for training? Did they check a box that explicitly said "Adobe can train an AI on my work"? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?

I'm sure that's a no. When you license a stock image you license it for any use whatsoever. You don't get to complain if it becomes the background to a porn movie or an advert for a product or person you despise. Songs can licensed on a case-by-case basis but images are so plentiful as to be a commodity.

Not quite. For example, this is one thing Adobe says in their FAQ: Images showing models can't be used in a manner that the models could perceive as offensive. (For example, avoid using images with models on the cover of a steamy romance novel or a book about politics or religion, etc.)

There are also a few other more Adobe-specific restrictions.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#205

Post by bioemerl » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:48 PM UTC

grondo4 wrote: post #93

madeofpalk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. There is no license that says "You cannot learn from this code and take the things you learn to become a better programmer". That's exactly what I do and it's exactly what AI do.

I think you're missing the one big flaw here. How exactly do you have access to closed source code?

Did you acquire it illegally? That's illegal.

Was it publicly available? That's fine, so long as you aren't producing exact copies and violate normal copyright law.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#206

Post by wahnfrieden » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #193

egypturnash wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am definitely glad to see attention being paid to ethical sourcing of training images but I am curious: did the people who made all those stock images get paid for their work being used for training? Did they check a box that explicitly said "Adobe can train an AI on my work"? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?

I'm sure that's a no. When you license a stock image you license it for any use whatsoever. You don't get to complain if it becomes the background to a porn movie or an advert for a product or person you despise. Songs can licensed on a case-by-case basis but images are so plentiful as to be a commodity.

Simply untrue, legally and socially

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#207

Post by rafram » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

daveslash wrote: post #88

jonifico wrote: post #14

IMHO,it was only a matter of time before the big names started to include AI generations on their software. I'm guessing if most of the AI design tools that are being launched everyday and which relies mostly in consuming a public api could be easily absorbed?

People have been talking about things like ChatGPT Doing code, but I just realized... something like ChatGPT could be incorporated right into your IDE. Think Clippy, for Code... " I see you're trying to write a recursive function to compute finocacci. Would you like help? " Or Code Reviews / Static-Code-Analysis: "Hey Visual Studio. I've written a RESTful API for my application. What do you think of the approach, arc…

That’s just Copilot.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#208

Post by judge2020 » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #200

egypturnash wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hi, I'm an artist, I do not give a shit about other humans looking at my work, I am delighted when a younger pro comes to me and thanks me for what they learnt from my work. That tells me they were fascinated enough with it to look at it and analyze it again and again. I made a connection with them via my drawing skills. I am catastrophically unhappy at the prospect of a corporation ingesting a copy of my work and st…

Is there a license that exists that you could put on your work to prevent its use in model training?

If, as I alluded to, you and the SCOTUS (and other courts) interpret AI art as similar enough to humans where the 'training' process is analogous to a human looking at art and learning how to create good art (or even copy another artist's style), then the license you apply to art does not matter, because it'd just be "learning" about how art works, and not any actual usage of the original work. In this case the AI would be considered a human for the purposes of copyright infringement, where it would infringe on the original work if it recited or recreated any single work from memory without any substantial changes to turn it into either a parody (fair use) or its own work separate from the images it has learned from, even if it mimics the art style of any single artist (since artists can't copyright their styles).

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#209

Post by judge2020 » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

omoikane wrote: post #180

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure many artists would love to "opt out" of humans looking at their art if the human intends to, or might, copy the artists' style at some point I’m pretty sure that would be a death knell for art. Where are these mythical artists who have never looked at anyone else’s art?

It's the same problem with fake copies of Van Gogh and so forth, except historically those fakes were produced at a much slower rate because of the time needed to master the skills to produce those fakes. With modern tools, those fakes could be mass produced, while the original artists are still alive.

> It's the same problem with fake copies of Van Gogh and so forth, except historically those fakes were produced at a much slower rate because of the time needed to master the skills to produce those fakes. With modern tools, those fakes could be mass produced, while the original artists are still alive.

Those people got in trouble for recreating specific works, or creating new works in his style and defrauding people by saying they were originals. Safe to say that not disclosing "this is not actually a work created by , just in their style" would be grounds for fraud, especially if you were to sell it.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#210

Post by quitit » Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57

dopeboy wrote: post #11

What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a…

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

Also missed: All these big tech companies were already invested in AI and using it in their products: it just happens that the latest batch of AI tools are far more impressive than their internal efforts.