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

Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#251

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

krisoft wrote: post #228
unreal37 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody owes creators who have been paid fully for their work "extra" compensation just because AI is involved. Assuming they have been paid, the work belongs to Adobe.

> Assuming they have been paid That is the question we are asking, yes. Based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like Adobe doesn’t have to pay a cent to the creators to train models on their work. Does that sound fair to you?

Some very strange responses in this sub-thread.

When the agreement was signed no one was even able to imagine their work being used for AI. As far as they knew they were signing a standard distribution agreement with one particular rights outlet, while reserving all other rights for more general use. If anyone had asked about automated use in AI it's very likely the answer would have been a clear "No."

It's predatory and very possibly unlawful to assume the original agreement wording grants that right automatically.

The existence of contract wording does not automatically imply the validity of that wording. Contracts can always be ruled excessive, predatory, and unlawful no matter what they say or who signed them.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#252

Post by yieldcrv »

faizshah wrote: post #18

At this point someone is going to make a startup off just managing your AI waitlists. (Kidding)

There were/are airdrop farmers doing that in the crypto space

Airdrops can be very lucrative (5, 6 figures with market depth supported by VCs allowing easy conversion to cash)

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#253

Post by NaN1352 »

What’s interesting to me is how this only works because of prior art.

BUT, when prior art will be AI-assisted if not 99% generated art, from a pool of prior human art ever so slowly diminishing… where is this going?

For one, "art" can only lessen in value. Perhaps physical art will grow in value as digital art’s "made by without AI" tag becomes unprovable and meaningless.

I think it’s bad. Whomever provides these tools is not refilling the pool of prior human art, only muddying it up. Therefore everything will converge. It was quite obvious already the way eg. most webapps nowadays have the same boring design… but this is worse.

But I don’t know it must be the inevitable evolution, perhaps this is how we will end our differences… as human’s "collective mind" becomes more and more evident.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#254

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

stale2002 wrote: post #247
krisoft wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming they have been paid That is the question we are asking, yes. Based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like Adobe doesn’t have to pay a cent to the creators to train models on their work. Does that sound fair to you?

And I am sure that you use your computer for work, to make money, and yet you based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like [The computer buyer/you] doesn’t have to pay a cent to the [computer creator] for all the money you make using that computer. Does that sound fair to you? See how stupid that sounds?

It sounds stupid because it's a completely different thing.

A tool maker does not have a claim on the work made with a tool, except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement.

Creative copyright explicitly does give creators a claim on derivative work made using their creative output.

That includes patents. If you use a computer protected by patents to create new items which specifically ignore those patents, see how far that gets you.

I expect you find this inconvenient, but it's how it works.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#255

Post by krisoft »

yoden wrote: post #241
krisoft wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming they have been paid That is the question we are asking, yes. Based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like Adobe doesn’t have to pay a cent to the creators to train models on their work. Does that sound fair to you?

The creators of these images assigned the rights to adobe, including allowing Adobe to develop future products using the images. So yes, this is perfectly fair. It's completely different than many (most?) other companies, which are training on data they don't have the right to re-distribute.

> So yes, this is perfectly fair.

I think you are making a jump here. I’m not a lawyer, but your first sentence seems to be about why it is legal. And then you conclude that that is why it is also fair. I’m with you on the first one, but not sure on the second.

The creators uploaded their images so adobe can sell licences for them and they get a share of the licence fees. Just a year ago if you asked almost any people what “using the images to develop new products and services” mean they would have told you something like these examples: Adobe can use the images in internal mockups if they are developing a new ipad app to sell the licences, or perhaps a new website where you can order a t-shirt print of them.

The real test of fairness I think is to imagine what would have happened if Adobe ring the doorbell of any of the creators and asked them if they can use their images to copy their unique style to generate new images. Probably most creators would have agreed on a price. Maybe a few thousand dollars? Maybe a few million? Do you think many would have agreed to do it for zero dollars? If not, then how could that be fair?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#256

Post by saberience »

mesh wrote: post #139
Filligree wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the great aspects of open-source stable diffusion (civitai.com et al.) is there's a model for every purpose. Does your inpainting model work with every style? Or is it going to have trouble matching the content for e.g. specific fanart?

It would have trouble matching on trademarked styles, or individual artists / creators styles. One of the primary goals for Firefly is to provide a model that can generate output that respects creators and is safe for commercial use. (I work for Adobe)

Sounds like a good way of making it useless or otherwise 100X less useful than Stable Diffusion.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#258

Post by mesh »

aschearer wrote: post #191

While this is very exciting it's worth pointing out most of the page falls under "WHAT WE’RE EXPLORING." That is to say, these are from the marketing department and it's impossible to know whether they are strictly aspirational or just around the corner. From the page: > Looking forward, Firefly has the potential to do much, much more. Explore the possibilities below ... We plan to build ... We’re exploring the poten…

Yeah, we are being a little more open, a little earlier, in part because this space is so new, and we really want feedback / direction from the community.

Currently in the beta, there is text to image, and text effects, and will have vector recoloring in the next couple of weeks.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#259

Post by krisoft »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #251
krisoft wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming they have been paid That is the question we are asking, yes. Based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like Adobe doesn’t have to pay a cent to the creators to train models on their work. Does that sound fair to you?

Some very strange responses in this sub-thread. When the agreement was signed no one was even able to imagine their work being used for AI. As far as they knew they were signing a standard distribution agreement with one particular rights outlet, while reserving all other rights for more general use. If anyone had asked about automated use in AI it's very likely the answer would have been a clear "No." It's predatory…

> If anyone had asked about automated use in AI it's very likely the answer would have been a clear "No."

Maybe. Maybe not. Very clearly there is a price point where it could be worth it for the artist. Like if adobe paid more for the rights than they recon they will ever earn in a lifetime or something. But clearly everybody would have said “no” at the great price point of 0 dollars.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#260

Post by cmorgan31 »

balls187 wrote: post #238
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…

It's important to note that this is generative AI. As pretty much everyone on HN is aware, AI is a broad term for a variety of technologies. AI has been in our everyday lives for quite some time, but not in a way that generated (no pun intended) such buzz. Having my iphone scan emails and pre-populate my calendar with invite suggestions is far less newsworthy as the ability to generate a script for an Avengers film w…

I can’t think of a company more suited to take advantage of the generative AI hype. If firefly is built into the adobe stack you’ll have a rather elegant composition and refinement toolkit to modify anything you dislike about the generative output.
Post reply on HN