A.I. and the stock industry

[Phil]

Andy Hutchinson's candid thought-provoking analysis of the future of the stock media industry and A.I. generative art.

 

If an occasional "bleep word" offends you might not want to view.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Gowh5paPo

 

[Brian Yarvin]

Phil, he sounds exactly like the people who were predicting the death of photography when CGI came along. Come to think of it, he sounds just like the folks who predicted the death of photography when digital came along. Upon reflection, he also sounds like the people who predicted that cheap twin-lens, 35MM automatic, and autofocus cameras respectively would all kill photography.

 

Certainly, people must have said that dry plates and roll film would do the same thing. 

 

... and here we are. Things have really changed, but never for the reasons guys like these describe.  

[Phil]

Brian - yep - there are always prognosticators of gloom and doom. 

 

One thing we can be sure of - the industry will change. 

Whether AI is a major stock industry change agent is TBD.   In 5 years we can revisit the industry to see.

 

My gut instinct tells me this change has potential to be more disruptive to the industry in some ways than the transition from film to digital.

 

[John Mitchell]

Interesting video. I gather this bloke isn't exactly fond of stock photo agencies. 🤯

[gvallee]

29 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Interesting video. I gather this bloke isn't exactly fond of stock photo agencies. 🤯

 

I've met him. He runs a successful one man show in a scenic area where I used to live south of Sydney. He's good with his drone as well.

I haven't listened to the video yet.

 

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

I've met him. He runs a successful one man show in a scenic area where I used to live south of Sydney. He's good with his drone as well.

I haven't listened to the video yet.

 

 

Have fun. He has a colourful vocabulary, you might say. 🙀

 

He might be right about "thing-based" (non-specific) stock photography. Glad I'm getting too old to worry much about this stuff. 👴

[Inchiquin]

8 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Phil, he sounds exactly like the people who were predicting the death of photography when CGI came along. Come to think of it, he sounds just like the folks who predicted the death of photography when digital came along. Upon reflection, he also sounds like the people who predicted that cheap twin-lens, 35MM automatic, and autofocus cameras respectively would all kill photography.

 

 

He may be over-reacting, but there is one huge difference this time: CGI, and all the images produced by those earlier innovations, still required humans to generate the actual images.

 

Alan

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Inchiquin

[NYCat]

I remember when people were upset about Photoshop ruining the reality of photographs. That was nothing compared to this. I find it quite frightening for reasons other than what it is doing to photographers. Think about politics. Or maybe don't.

 

Paulette

[CarloBo]

Classic click bait content...one things is sure, no one has ever been able to predict what the future would look like in 5,10 or 50 years,  well except Paul the Octopus who foresaw the result of World Cup matches..

[Phil]

10 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

He might be right about "thing-based" (non-specific) stock photography. Glad I'm getting too old to worry much about this stuff. 👴

 

Yes - it does makes his argument more plausible - maybe more applicable to commercial stock media and for editorial not-so-much.

Like yourself I'm not terribly concerned personally,  But not glad to be getting/gotten old  🧓

 

I think how the AI companies/gatekeepers manage access to their generative art AI systems could play a role in how much impact they have to the stock industry. 

Currently I suspect they are providing (free?) public access as a systems beta-test program.

 

How long before access requires a paid login account or is behind a paywall?   At some point they will want/need to monetize their creations. 

[John Mitchell]

16 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Yes - it does makes his argument more plausible - maybe more applicable to commercial stock media and for editorial not-so-much.

Like yourself I'm not terribly concerned personally,  But not glad to be getting/gotten old  🧓

 

I think how the AI companies/gatekeepers manage access to their generative art AI systems could play a role in how much impact they have to the stock industry. 

Currently I suspect they are providing (free?) public access as a systems beta-test program.

 

How long before access requires a paid login account or is behind a paywall?   At some point they will want/need to monetize their creations. 

 

Then again, AI-generated images may turn out to be just another passing fad. Time will tell of course.

 

You probably don't know much about Canadian politicians (it's OK, we understand), but these AI versions are really good. 

[spiegel]

 

After Alamy has become a small-turnover MS agency in recent years, AI presents an opportunity to rise again.
I believe that the "normal" MS images, i.e. the laughing family on the beach, the hand-shaking businessmen etc. will soon be completely replaced by AI. AI is developing at breakneck speed and the quality deficiencies that still exist today will soon be a thing of the past. "Real" images from this field will become obsolete.
But there will still be a need for editorials, I believe. Of people in contemporary history, of travel destinations, or of works of art and buildings. Perhaps this need will become even greater given the AI glut. Since Alamy has always been strong in this area, I hope for a revival here in the future.
If my prediction is correct, it might be a good idea for contributors to expand their own portfolio with editorials and their own AI images.



 

[Harry Harrison]

Presumably Alamy will need to provide some guidance on AI sooner rather than later, two other prominent agencies did just this in September of last year and their decision will have pushed more AI generated images in the direction of Alamy presumably.  I can understand that these photo-realistic images of people do contain 'people' in terms of Alamy's optional AIM fields, as they would in illustrations, but can they therefore have model releases? Similarly with property I suppose. Is there a case for having a new main search category for AI in addition to 'Photographs' and 'Illustrations'? Currently the saccharine model-released images of families on beaches, attractive 'seniors' on cruises etc. live happily in the new Vital collections (some even in Ultimate) but without model releases their AI created facsimiles can't join them there.

[wiskerke]

7 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

You probably don't know much about Canadian politicians (it's OK, we understand), but these AI versions are really good. 

Website blocked due to compromised. (Malwarebytes)

Compromised sites (or servers) are otherwise legitimate sites that are being used by hackers without the owner's knowledge. Compromised sites are often used to house and spread malware.

 

wim

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 10/04/2023 at 19:08, Phil said:

Andy Hutchinson's candid thought-provoking analysis of the future of the stock media industry and A.I. generative art.

his predictions are flushed down the toilet, the loo, the commode;

if you ain't heard, in another thread a contributor reports
Alamy stopped accepting AI "for now"

so interesting;

leaves some wondering if a buyer

got burned by what they thought

was a real photo & their audience
had The Mother of all Kerfuffles...

 😵      😵      😵

Edited April 12, 2023 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, wiskerke said:

Website blocked due to compromised. (Malwarebytes)

Compromised sites (or servers) are otherwise legitimate sites that are being used by hackers without the owner's knowledge. Compromised sites are often used to house and spread malware.

 

wim

 

Interesting. The link still works fine for me with no blocking or scary warnings.

[wilkopix]

37 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

leaves some wondering if a buyer

got burned by what they thought

was a real photo & their audience
had The Mother of all Kerfuffles...

Quite possibly ... AI also raises the rather delicate subject of copyright and how those who create the original content that goes into making an AI image get paid.

[geogphotos]

Maybe:

 

1) Clients don't need photographers creating AI images and offering via stock agencies.

 

2) Clients can make their own AI images and bypass stock agencies.

 

3) Agencies can only offer value added if they overcome the legal/copyright issues that Clients don't understand.

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

Another library seems to have thought it through, and worked out a way to reward contributors via an AI fund, and contributors can opt out and remove their images from inclusion in the dataset Also a lot of potential subjects are rejected as 'non-licensable content' to avoid copyright problems. No idea how it's working in practice.