To suggest that the acceptance or rejection of AI-created artwork is divisive would be an understatement. In this regard, Adobe has just joined the latter camp, announcing that it would begin accepting “illustrations generated with generative AI” on its Stock platform.
If you read the press release carefully, you’ll see that Adobe sees this as the most reasonable compromise. The business acknowledges individuals have worries regarding AI-generated art, but recognises that technology is going to be employed regardless of any ethical considerations. Adobe anticipates that contributors will utilise AI to “diversify their portfolios, broaden their inventiveness, and boost their earning potential.” To coincide with the adoption, Adobe is revising its Stock contributor guidelines to emphasise the importance of being upfront and honest with potential buyers of AI artwork.
Changes implemented by Adobe
All information created by artificial intelligence, including photo-like visuals, must be clearly labelled as such. Adobe will only accept “real” photos if they were shot on a physical camera. Creators should include the “Generative AI” tag and note that their work is “fictitious and created” to be considered for publication. Adobe doesn’t want users to identify contributions with “inaccurate descriptors”, such as suggesting a picture is a 3D model when it’s not, or claiming the persons being represented are genuine.
Whether photorealistic or cartoonish, submissions that include “identifiable property [like a corporate logo], or noteworthy persons…” will also be rejected. If your content is based on or features “an identifiable person,” you must get a “model release,” which gives you the legal right to utilise that person’s appearance. The images must be of great quality as well, and nothing too terrifying is allowed.
Some websites, including Getty Images, have blocked artificial intelligence (AI) graphics because to concerns about copyright infringement. However, Adobe is attempting to do so. When it comes to licencing AI-generated material, it seems that consumers are being requested to get acquainted with the terms and conditions of a certain AI tool. You can’t submit works for commercial licencing if the tool’s creators don’t want to see them. Adobe claims that the royalty rates for AI-generated stock photographs are consistent with those for conventional Stock assets.
Adobe does not seem to need any kind of copyright documentation for its products. We inquired as to whether or not Adobe intended to implement licencing moderation checks or whether licencing was to be handled entirely on the honour system. If Adobe provides a comment, we’ll include it here.
Creative practice in the years to come?
It should come as no surprise that a large number of online artists struggle with this kind of innovation. People are flocking to publicly accessible AI engines to make art, and this has many worried about a loss of revenue. One possible negative consequence is that it might kill the inspiration of aspiring artists. With their statement, Adobe maintains a constructive tone by suggesting this is only a different path.
In terms of copyright, this is certain to be an intriguing experiment. Shutterstock decided it would be preferable to work with companies like OpenAI, the parent company of DALL-E after Getty Photos barred AI images from its site due to possible copyright issues.
Subtly charming pop culture geek. Amateur analyst. Freelance tv buff. Coffee lover