17 ms·
>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 t
by mesh 4y ago
>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 https://firefly.adobe.com/faq
(I work for Adobe)
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoThanks for correcting my bad assumption, appreciated.
- samstave 4y agoHa, I didnt even need to read the article to assume this! I instantly thought of how bitchin' their library of images must be. Can you tell us how many images/size of set?
- egypturnash 4y agoI 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?
- anigbrowl 4y agoI'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.
- ghaff 4y agoNot 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.
- anigbrowl 4y agoWell, Adobe are publishers of the stock images so they can enforce such terms. What I mean is that the person selling a stock image to Adobe, Getty, Shutterstock or whoever has no say on what happens to it afterward. The publisher is going to assert universal rights in exchange for cash. If they narrow their own terms as in your example above, they don't necessarily create any sort of duty to the seller whose photo rights they purchased. I should have been clearer and specified sale of rights rather than licensing of a stock image in my original reply, which I now realize is confusing. Companies certainly can offer more narrow terms/commitments about what the stock images can or cannot be used for if they want to, but economically they're incentivized to maximize their own freedom, and not to negotiate a complex bundle of rights for individual images. Of course for journalistic and artistic images that are unique in some way, the original creator can negotiate.
- ghaff 4y agoIt's probably not very common but people can and will absolutely bring lawsuits if you misrepresent them based on stock photography including but not limited to manipulating the photographs. (Of course, people can sue for whatever reason but using random stock photos for "bad people" can get you in trouble.)
- janekm 4y agoThat's not what happens when you sign a contributor license with Adobe, Getty, Shutterstock or other stock image libraries... These companies pay you 0 until the time a customer of theirs acquires a license to reproduce the image you contributed. Only at that point do you get paid a percentage of the license fee. Currently nobody has been paid anything by Adobe for their stock images used in the training (at least as far as I know).
- krisoft 4y agoI'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-guidelines.html https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-gu... 2: https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20220415.pdf https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/service...
- roughly 4y ago> 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. And in this case, to develop new features and services that specifically undercuts your existing business, viz. selling stock photos for money. Sucks to the artists, indeed.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cto_of_antifa 4y ago[dead]
- pradn 4y agoThe terms seem like legalese for "you pay me money now and get to do anything with it". It doesn't seem far-fetched for training AI models to be a valid use-case. This is way better than scraping the whole internet, for art by artists who have had no commercial arrangement with Adobe.
- unreal37 4y agoNobody 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.
- krisoft 4y ago> 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?
- flangola7 4y agoChatGPT trained on my GitHub code and I wasn't paid anything at all. Is that preferable?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago"Since someone screwed me, they should screw you"? Crab bucket mentality?
- flangola7 4y agoNo one is screwing anyone. I also learned from reading GitHub code and continue to do so. I haven't "screwed" the original code authors by forming an abstract memory of their code. Any country that tries to forbid this will be torpedoing their economic competitiveness against countries that allow it.
- mesh 4y agoWe are working on a compensation model for Stock contributors for the training content, and will have more details by the time we release. The training is based on the licensing agreement for Adobe contributors for Adobe Stock. (I work for Adobe)
- egypturnash 4y agoThanks! I am delighted to know that Adobe's got plans on that front.
- roughly 4y agoI 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 attribution in these types of systems.
- brookst 4y agoI'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. And then you have to figure out which weights contributed the most to an output. I would love to see any research or even just thinking that anyone's done on this topic. It seems like it will be important in the future, but it also seems like a crazy difficult scale problem as models get bigger.
- bash-j 4y agoCould 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.
- jokethrowaway 4y agoSure but are you standing on the shoulders of Stable Diffusion or not? Fine tuning Stable Diffusion with your own images is way easier than creating Stable Diffusion in the first place. If you're creating your own I stand corrected and that's some serious investment.
- leet 4y agoThis is not based on just fine tuning Stable Diffusion.
- irrational 4y agoWhere did you read that they were using Stable Diffusion?
- mesh 4y agoAdobe Firefly is not based on Stable Diffusion. (i work for Adobe)
- astrange 4y agoStable Diffusion 1.x isn't original work either; it uses OpenAI CLIP. But training your own is pretty doable if you have the budget and enough image/text pairs. Most people don't have the budget, but at least Midjourney and Google have their own models.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoPublic domain content. So if i host a large cluster of AI generated lighthouses that slightly look like cocksOnTheRocks, Firefly will suggest that after crawling and retraining? What a time to be alive.
- cyanwave 4y agoThis is why I love this website. Mostly civil communication between smart people.