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

281–290 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#281

Post by stale2002 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #254
stale2002 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

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

No actually, not for this situation. They don't if they sold the right to do that, which they did.

> except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement

Oh ok. So then, if in situation 1, and situation 2, there is the same exact prior agreement on the specific topic of if you are allowed to make derivative works, then the situations are exactly same.

Which is the situation.

So yes, the situations are the same, because of the same prior agreement.

Thats why the situation is stupid. The creator sold the rights to make derivative works away. Just like if someone sold you a computer.

And then people used the computer, and also used the sold rights to make derivatives works for the art, because both the computer and the right to make derivative works were equally sold.

> which specifically ignore those patents

Ok now imagine someone sells the rights to use the patent in any way that they want, and then you come along and say "Well, can you considered that if the person didn't sell the patent, that this would be illegal?"

That wouldn't make any sense to say that.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#282

Post by webnrrd2k »

unreal37 wrote: post #219
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?

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.

I'm not sure it true that creators are owed nothing further... It seems analogous to a musician signing over rights for one thing, like recording rights on wax disks, records or whatever. Then along comes radio, after the artists signed away a smaller set of rights. The radio companies claim that they owe the artists nothing. But is that true?

And that's a different question from whether or not they deserve extra compensation. Is it moral or ethical to use their work to directly undercut them via ai 'copying' their work?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#283

Post by theFletch »

tonmoy wrote: post #61
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…

From Adobe's reddit post[1]: > We are developing a compensation model for Stock contributors. More info on that when we release If they can properly compensate the stock contributors based on usage then I think this is a very fair approach. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/11xgft4/discussi...

I didn't see this before I posted, but I'm glad that's the case. In fact, it might be great for contributors that don't have a large library or aren't ranked as well.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#284

Post by spoiler »

lelandfe wrote: post #277
spoiler wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do! If they aren't in some way public domain, then the authors should have a say, or be if the work is purchased. I have a bit of cognitive dissonance on the subject of blog posts or articles in general, since those are kinda public domain? But I still think it should be opt in/out-able. I realise I'm also a bit of a hypocrite since I've enjoyed playing with these AI tools myself, and I realise they'd be nowhere as…

IANAL: Authorship is protected in the US by default https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers In order for blog posts (or other written works) to be in the public domain, authors must explicitly waive those rights. But, not that it needs saying, copyright's applicability in training data is basically the entire subject of debate right now. https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-gen...

Ah, I had no idea that was protected too! That's good. I think the reason I was morally on the fence was that people already put blog posts out with the intent of sharing their knowledge with the rest of the Internet...

So my assumption was that anything trained on it will just help further expand that knowledge.

Although I do realise now as I'm typing this—AI could diminish their audience, clout and motivation, which isn't what I'd want.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#285

Post by jacobr1 »

unreal37 wrote: post #219
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?

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.

The prior deal was based on royalties for use. Adobe pays you 33% percent of anything they make. It is consignment. So if someone uses a specific photo for $20, you get paid $6.60, no money us paid upfront.

So what should adobe pay you for using the data in training? Some kind of fraction of the overall revenue they generate from the new product? The license currently used for their stock program make it seem like they don't have to pay anything at all, because this use cases wasn't understood previously. Adobe reserved to rights to do it, so legally they can - but if they want to continue getting contributions they will need to figure out some kind of updated royalty sharing agreement.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#287

Post by jacobr1 »

flangola7 wrote: post #232
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?

ChatGPT trained on my GitHub code and I wasn't paid anything at all. Is that preferable?

It might also be wrong, yes. I have plenty of code licensed under very permissive licenses that still requires attribution. It is an open question of how much the AI system is a "derived" work in a specific, technical sense. And it probably will remain hard, since the answer is probably on a continuum.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#289

Post by jonahrd »

spoiler wrote: post #202
judge2020 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

But these stock image artists provided consent when signing a contract and selling their work to Adobe. The contract is pretty clear that you basically don't own the work anymore and Adobe can do whatever they want with it.

If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#290

Post by bash-j »

brookst wrote: post #269
roughly wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be very, very interested to see a compensation system that took into account the outputs of the trained model - as in, weights derived from your work are attributable to X% of the output of this system, and therefore you are due Y% of the revenue generated by it. It sounds like Adobe is taking seriously the question of artist compensation, and I'd love to see someone tackle the "Hard Problem" of actual attrib…

I've looked a few times, but have not seen any research on assigning provenance to the weights used in a particular inference run. It's a super interesting space for a bunch of reasons. But the naive approach of having a table of how much each individual training item influenced every weight in the model seems impossibly big. For DALL-E 2's 6.5B parameters and 650m training items, that's 4.2 quadrillion associations.…

Could you not use tags used to label the image? If your image contains more niche tags that match the user input, your revenue share will be higher. Depending how much extra people earn for certain tags, it might incentivise people to upload more images of what is missing from the training data.
Post reply on HN