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

351–360 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#351

Post by olejorgenb »

rcarmo wrote: post #4

Obviously requires an Adobe account, which hints at it being folded into their subscription pricing. I wonder if this is a customer retention move given the number of third-party plugins to use Dall-E, SD, Midjourney, etc. with Photoshop. (I also wonder who is powering this or if it's an in-house solution -- that should be telling...) Edit: Why, they've trained this on Adobe stock images. OK, this may be very interes…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247630 points to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35089661 from Adobe Research. Maybe it's based on that?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#352

Post by justinclift »

webnrrd2k wrote: post #282
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.

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 com…

Heh Heh Heh

Half the problems with music is because of record companies magically inventing new ways to try and extract more money from each other and their supply chain.

"Oh, your band looked at some hookers they passed on the way to the recording studio? Well, they obviously owe those hookers a cut of the royalties now for inspiration..."

Trying to use AI as an excuse to be paid a 2nd time (for previously fully paid works) seems like another attempt at rent seeking in a similar manner.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#353

Post by dahwolf »

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…

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

Instead of lower morality, I'd say it's selective morality.

I bet quite a few artists (rightfully) feeling threatened by this phenomenon would have absolutely no problem watching a pirated movie, using an ad blocker, read paywall-stripped articles, the like....whilst this is principally the same thing: taking the work of others without consent or compensation.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#354

Post by ghaff »

nickelpro wrote: post #136
ghaff wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the closed-source work. Right. And they're only exposing elements presumably not covered by copyright to the developers writing the code. (Of course, this assumes they had legitimate access to the code in the first place.) Clean room design isn't a requirement in the case of, say, writing a BIOS which may have been when this first came up. But it's a lot ea…

I don't understand what your point here is. The initial spec-writers learned from the original code. This is not illegal, we seem to be agreed on this point. grondo made the point that learning from code should not be prohibited. What are you contesting?

My point was that, assuming access to the code was legit, and the information being passed from the spec-writers to the developers wasn't covered by copyright (basically APIs and the like), it's a much better defense against a copyright claim that any code written by the developers isn't a copyright violation given they never saw the original code.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#355

Post by vdfs »

freedomben wrote: post #229
airstrike wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader) are you saying it won't work? if that's the case, that seems really silly. actually, it goes against everything I believe in (as well as my understanding of even the kindest meaning of the word "hacker"). it drives me up the wall, it makes my blood boil who is going…

GP works for Adobe, and Adobe's bread and butter are the professional creators who would love a world where there is hardware DRM on your eyes and you can't even see their creations or a likeness of them without paying a royalty (and one to "rent" the memories of the visualization, not to "own" the memories like we do now). While I largely agree with you, the GP post is exactly what I would expect from an Adobe perso…

I forgot for a second that this Adobe, the top stories on HN about Adobe are almost all negative

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#356

Post by olejorgenb »

O__________O wrote: post #39

Possible this is not significant, appears that within the feature set is a text-to-vector image generator that produces editable vectors art. There’s no direct link I was able to find, but feature is listed here: https://firefly.adobe.com/ Is anyone aware of any similar open source or services that handle text-to-vector generative AI?

Very short demo of the feature(?): https://youtu.be/c3z9jYtPx-4?t=180

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#357

Post by unreal37 »

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…

I don't know if there is a concept in copyright that prevents someone from viewing your work.

Like, if you created a lovely piece of art, hung it on the outside of your house, and I was walking on the sidewalk and viewed it. I would not owe you money and you would have no claim of copyright against me.

Copyright covers copying. Not viewing.

So an AI views your art, classifies it, does whatever magic it does to turn your art into a matrix of numbers. The model doesn't contain a copy of your art.

Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can't see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#358

Post by bash-j »

brookst wrote: post #294
bash-j wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's interesting, but I'm not sure it works. I think that works out to "for any given prompt, distribute credit to every source image that has a keyword that appears in the prompt, proportional to how many other source images had that same keyword". If I include the tag "floor", do I get some (tiny) percentage of every image that uses "floor" in the prompt, even if the bits from my image did not end up affecting mo…

The tags could be added by a model rather than the user submitting the image. Maybe do both and verify the tags with a model? Users could get a rating based on how reliably they tag their pictures and are trusted to add more niche tags at higher ratings. You could even help tag other pictures to improve your rating.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#359

Post by dragonwriter »

unreal37 wrote: post #357
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know if there is a concept in copyright that prevents someone from viewing your work. Like, if you created a lovely piece of art, hung it on the outside of your house, and I was walking on the sidewalk and viewed it. I would not owe you money and you would have no claim of copyright against me. Copyright covers copying. Not viewing. So an AI views your art, classifies it, does whatever magic it does to turn y…

> Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can’t see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy.

Memory involves making a copy, and copies anywhere except in the human brain are within the scope of copyright (but may fall into exceptions like Fair Use.)

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#360

Post by olejorgenb »

DizzyDoo wrote: post #10

How is this 'Firefly Model' trained and sourced? Will it be on the contents of the stock.adobe.com library? Clicking through the available pages it seems like a lot of 'coming soon' talk, so there's not really any detail about any of the underlying process.

For what kind of model it is, another poster pointed to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35089661 (a GAN) as a possibility.
Post reply on HN