Shame On Adobe

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Does anybody seriously think just using a software platform means all that data can be mined to take profit away from the originator?

Absolutely. They do it all day. Mining data and selling it to the highest bidder is at the core of Facebook, Google, and other tech companies. 

In Adobe's case, I don't believe that they would literally steal my content. But their AI will steal my ideas, my contribution to the zeitgeist, my way of thinking. In Facebook's case, people usually keep saying that they have nothing to hide as an answer to why they feed the data Kraken freely. In Adobe's case, it's their feeling of being not really creative or important. My little photos don't play a role in the vast universe of AI. Why then hide them?

(I'm not saying that you think that way!)

If that is really what this is about, why bother casting a vote in an election? (Many gave up and think that way) Free science, competitive entrepreneurship, and uncontrolled, flourishing arts are the foundations of democracy. Big, multinational corporations already threaten science and competition scaringly. Arts and creativity are now next in the line. 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hansvons]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

t was a lesson that anyone can steal (perhaps ‘misappropriate’ is a better word in my case) your images unless you never let them out of the house in digital form.

I've been in the advertising business for half my life. "Misappropriation" and saying sorry are primary business. It has happened countless times to me and many others, sometimes on severe scales. How will that evolve when AI exploits little pieces of one's work in the shady darkness of the vast digital universe, sampling ideas in little bits and pieces and using them as bricks and mortar for hungry corporations? Will we be able to take a stand in court? Doubt it.

[LocalHero1953]

45 minutes ago, hansvons said:

In Adobe's case, I don't believe that they would literally steal my content. But their AI will steal my ideas, my contribution to the zeitgeist, my way of thinking. In Facebook's case, people usually keep saying that they have nothing to hide as an answer to why they feed the data Kraken freely. In Adobe's case, it's their feeling of being not really creative or important. My little photos don't play a role in the vast universe of AI. Why then hide them?

Hasn’t it always been thus? Which painter or musician hasn’t been inspired by the creative ideas of a predecessor or contemporary and built them into their own work, perhaps with another new idea as well. Music is full of quotes from previous composers. And just look at the current Royal Academy Summer Exhibition.

I suspect the reason we don’t like it in this case is that it is a corporation rather than an individual that’s doing it. Sure, they’re making money by doing it, which may limit the original photographer’s ability to make their own money, but that’s not limiting their ability to make new creative work. When there are photographers who will put their tripod feet in the same holes made by Ansel Adam’s or Paul Strand, has that harmed those two originators?

[Tom R]

27 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Hasn’t it always been thus? Which painter or musician hasn’t been inspired by the creative ideas of a predecessor or contemporary and built them into their own work, perhaps with another new idea as well. Music is full of quotes from previous composers. And just look at the current Royal Academy Summer Exhibition.

I suspect the reason we don’t like it in this case is that it is a corporation rather than an individual that’s doing it. Sure, they’re making money by doing it, which may limit the original photographer’s ability to make their own money, but that’s not limiting their ability to make new creative work. When there are photographers who will put their tripod feet in the same holes made by Ansel Adam’s or Paul Strand, has that harmed those two originators?

I think that it’s a matter of “scale.” Sure, individual actors may do a variety of things, but the scale, scope and speed with which these technologies work is deeply problematic. For example: What will distinguish “your creative work”  from the billions of similar images created and disseminated by algorithms at a scale that dwarfs any individual’s capacity?

If you have the time and interest read "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, "which is available on Kindle or as a physical book. This is a good starting point.

[hansvons]

@Tom R I know that book, albeit not having read it. Before I went into environmentalism, I pondered whether to become a digital freedom activist. Thanks for pointing me to it. Maybe I find the time now. 

@LocalHero1953, good discussion. The argument of the culture “stealing” co-creatives is an interesting one. I have a few thoughts on that:

1. It builds on whataboutism, essentially justifying one wrongdoing with another. 

2. “It’s in the air" is very often the real reason why ideas get "stolen". In reality, mostly nobody robbed anyone from their ideas. They are part of the zeitgeist and thus ready to be grabbed from the collective, mysterious collective cultural memory, which isn't only a storage but an active, thinking "brain". 

3. Leveraging technology to feed on the forefront of the zeitgeist is new. Until now, an individual was needed to do that, who, in turn, added new ideas. AI can't (thank god?) do that today. It will repetitively incorporate what it learns into its algorithm, inevitably eroding "creativity" into another applied service for the corporates like bookkeeping. One could argue, human creativity always manifested as applied creativity (that's most of us, including AI) and basic creativity (fine arts etc.), like we have it in science where only basic science is awarded with the Nobel Prize.
But this is dangerous ground because we categorise applied creativity as superfluous for humanity’s cultural progress. It’s not. Applied creativity does most of what we are surrounded by. Some of that we deem to be culturally essential. As Beuys famously said, everyone is an artist. It would be interesting what he would have thought about AI. 

4. Following others' footsteps is ok because not everyone wants to do the hard creative work. Many just want to have a relaxing and interesting leisure time. That's why I rarely see a landscape shot that is clearly visualized with interested, open eyes. There's indeed a photography culture represented by photographers who intentionally hike as little Ansels through nature, hunting for the next generic, moody picture. Iceland is a victim of this kind of creative tourism. 

But is this a good reason to stay home and let corporate AI do the Adams rip-off? No — because maybe someone got lucky and saw something new. AI can't do that. 

 

[otto.f]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:06 PM, fotografr said:

Any user of Adobe products should be aware of their latest rights grab. This one is serious enough to have me looking for alternative editing software after 25 years with Adobe. 

https://www.fastcompany.com/91137832/creatives-are-right-to-be-fed-up-with-adobe-and-every-other-tech-company-right-now

 

Insane, how is this possible!!?? 👺

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, hansvons said:

Absolutely. They do it all day. Mining data and selling it to the highest bidder is at the core of Facebook, Google, and other tech companies. 

In Adobe's case, I don't believe that they would literally steal my content. But their AI will steal my ideas, my contribution to the zeitgeist, my way of thinking. In Facebook's case, people usually keep saying that they have nothing to hide as an answer to why they feed the data Kraken freely. In Adobe's case, it's their feeling of being not really creative or important. My little photos don't play a role in the vast universe of AI. Why then hide them?

(I'm not saying that you think that way!)

If that is really what this is about, why bother casting a vote in an election? (Many gave up and think that way) Free science, competitive entrepreneurship, and uncontrolled, flourishing arts are the foundations of democracy. Big, multinational corporations already threaten science and competition scaringly. Arts and creativity are now next in the line. 

 

So on this forum I guess we should all occasionally post a 'worthless' photo as a disruptor, maybe a of bunny rabbit, then the mining machine will think we are all rabbit fanciers and look elsewhere for creativity, or take the rabbit and use it in it's Ai experiments. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

1. It builds on whataboutism, essentially justifying one wrongdoing with another. 

 

That wasn't my intention. My point was that I don't see it (the creative ideas of one originator inspiring and being incorporated into the work of another) as a 'wrongdoing'. Otherwise we would all be inventing photographic composition (etc) for the first time. I see it as a 'good': one person's creative ideas being used to generate more creative ideas.

I agree with much of the rest of your analysis.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

Insane, how is this possible!!?? 👺

It is not only possible, it has been reality - for a long time.

[Stuart Richardson]

Unfortunately, with my printing business and some 100,000 odd photos in lightroom, getting out is very difficult. Why do you think they pushed everything to the cloud and tried to get people to use "Lightroom" while tagging "classic" to the much more powerful original version? Because it would potentially allow them to make much much more money. Not only would they make you pay a subscription, they would make you pay a subscription for your data storage. Just like a pusher, they gave you the first bit of storage for "free" with the subscription for the software so that you might get hooked. The other major reason was that they wanted your files and data. Facial recognition, GPS data all of those services were provided and even if they were not being actively used at the time, they are extremely valuable data. Now, voila, they have a very good reason to try to leverage your data to make more money. In the AI arms race they need to feed the models, and Adobe is sitting on one of the largest piles of visual data on the planet. The idea that they are not going to try to use it is not in keeping with what tech companies have been doing the last 30 years or so. When having to choose between making more money and protecting customers rights you better believe that they are going to choose making more money. They are legally obligated to as public companies. All we can do is try to complain loud enough to make them step back a bit, but ultimately they are going to get their way. The writer in that article compared it to raptors testing the fence in Jurassic Park. I think it is a very apt metaphor.

The Silicon Valley model is basically to make themselves indispensable with innovative and valuable services, usually at a loss, and then to gradually make those services more and more customer unfriendly until they can use them to extract a ton of value out of their customers, even as the quality of the service provided tanks. 

Edited June 14, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Tom R]

5 hours ago, hansvons said:

@Tom R I know that book, albeit not having read it. Before I went into environmentalism, I pondered whether to become a digital freedom activist. Thanks for pointing me to it. Maybe I find the time now. 

@LocalHero1953, good discussion. The argument of the culture “stealing” co-creatives is an interesting one. I have a few thoughts on that:

1. It builds on whataboutism, essentially justifying one wrongdoing with another. 

2. “It’s in the air" is very often the real reason why ideas get "stolen". In reality, mostly nobody robbed anyone from their ideas. They are part of the zeitgeist and thus ready to be grabbed from the collective, mysterious collective cultural memory, which isn't only a storage but an active, thinking "brain". 

3. Leveraging technology to feed on the forefront of the zeitgeist is new. Until now, an individual was needed to do that, who, in turn, added new ideas. AI can't (thank god?) do that today. It will repetitively incorporate what it learns into its algorithm, inevitably eroding "creativity" into another applied service for the corporates like bookkeeping. One could argue, human creativity always manifested as applied creativity (that's most of us, including AI) and basic creativity (fine arts etc.), like we have it in science where only basic science is awarded with the Nobel Prize.
But this is dangerous ground because we categorise applied creativity as superfluous for humanity’s cultural progress. It’s not. Applied creativity does most of what we are surrounded by. Some of that we deem to be culturally essential. As Beuys famously said, everyone is an artist. It would be interesting what he would have thought about AI. 

4. Following others' footsteps is ok because not everyone wants to do the hard creative work. Many just want to have a relaxing and interesting leisure time. That's why I rarely see a landscape shot that is clearly visualized with interested, open eyes. There's indeed a photography culture represented by photographers who intentionally hike as little Ansels through nature, hunting for the next generic, moody picture. Iceland is a victim of this kind of creative tourism. 

But is this a good reason to stay home and let corporate AI do the Adams rip-off? No — because maybe someone got lucky and saw something new. AI can't do that. 

 

All good points. RE item (3): I wonder if we shouldn’t widen that first verb: “[…] technology to feed” to “[…] technology to feed, and later define […]?. And, I don’t know that it’s that critical that AI be truly capable of “adding new ideas” because I’m unsure that the audience has any way of distinguishing neither the source nor the uniqueness of an idea in this context.

I also find Item (4) interesting for a number of reasons. [I am reading Flusser’s work on Photography.]

Thanks for the post.

[hansvons]

6 minutes ago, Tom R said:

“[…] technology to feed” to “[…] technology to feed, and later define […]?.

Excellent. 

Exactly. Do we want AI to define what we like? I use ChatGPT a lot in my work as my personal editor because it's a great grammarian. Promoting it with ideas leads to generic, uninspired blah blah. To test that, ask it to give you an overview of Warhol's Marilyn series. There won't be one original idea in it. On the contrary, its super-balanced bourgeois presentation of facts and "insights" has the same charm as if you're asking it about toast. However, for the occasionally interested layman, it sounds about right. If you translate that into definitions and education, good night.

[fotografr]

5 hours ago, otto.f said:

Insane, how is this possible!!?? 👺

It's possible because people let them get away with it. I'm sure they expected an initial uproar which they will just ignore and eventually it will die down. Then, back to business as usual. That may have been a miscalculation in this instance because there's quite a strong response on several forums used by creatives. 

Unless you use Adobe's cloud storage, you won't be affected. I never have used it and have chosen instead to store my images on duplicate external hard drives. At this point it seems to have been a good decision.

Edited June 14, 2024 by fotografr

[otto.f]

2 hours ago, fotografr said:

Unless you use Adobe's cloud storage, you won't be affected. I never have used it and have chosen instead to store my images on duplicate external hard drives. At this point it seems to have been a good decision.

Oh, is it that they just want to prevent the "cloud" (which are just big buildings that suck too much energy) to become overloaded? In that case it's just a sustainable initiative.

[fotografr]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

Oh, is it that they just want to prevent the "cloud" (which are just big buildings that suck too much energy) to become overloaded? In that case it's just a sustainable initiative.

I think the goal is to scrape images to train their AI modules. If they just wanted to reduce the size of their cloud storage, they could just increase the rates.

[LocalHero1953]

I have just read that global investment in AI is likely to be $200bn next year. Think of the creativity that would be unleashed if that same sum was spent teaching children painting, music, performance, sculpture.......

The reason that is not happening is because the outcome ('deliverables') would be utterly unpredictable, both in predicting which children would produce something worthwhile, and in predicting what 'worthwhile' might look like. At least with AI the investors know that they will generate something that the average human might quite like, and that they (the investors) will have control over it (and can copyright it).

Edited June 14, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[willeica]

Help is on the way:

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/06/14/meta-pauses-ai-plans-for-europe-after-irish-regulator-request/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Meta pauses AI plans for Europe after Irish regulator request&utm_campaign=evening_update_digest

William 

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I have just read that global investment in AI is likely to be $200bn next year. Think of the creativity that would be unleashed if that same sum was spent teaching children painting, music, performance, sculpture.......

The reason that is not happening is because the outcome ('deliverables') would be utterly unpredictable, both in predicting which children would produce something worthwhile, and in predicting what 'worthwhile' might look like. At least with AI the investors know that they will generate something that the average human might quite like, and that they (the investors) will have control over it (and can copyright it).

I think the metaphor might be more apt if that 200bn was provided to children with the intention of enslaving them and using their minds for the purpose of corporate earnings for as long as they are profitable. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ecar]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:06 PM, fotografr said:

Any user of Adobe products should be aware of their latest rights grab. This one is serious enough to have me looking for alternative editing software after 25 years with Adobe. 

https://www.fastcompany.com/91137832/creatives-are-right-to-be-fed-up-with-adobe-and-every-other-tech-company-right-now

 

Not just that. They'll do everything to own you (and your content) for as long as they can. At least the FTC now seems to be looking into this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adobe-ftc-federal-lawsuit-cancel-subscription/

[fotografr]

2 hours ago, Ecar said:

Not just that. They'll do everything to own you (and your content) for as long as they can. At least the FTC now seems to be looking into this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adobe-ftc-federal-lawsuit-cancel-subscription/

I was not aware of the early cancellation fees. Thanks for posting this. I'll definitely be following the lawsuit.