<story><title>Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator</title><url>https://www.adobe.com/sensei/generative-ai/firefly.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>krisoft</author><text>&amp;gt; Assuming they have been paid&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;Does that sound fair to you?</text></item><item><author>unreal37</author><text>Nobody owes creators who have been paid fully for their work &amp;quot;extra&amp;quot; compensation just because AI is involved. Assuming they have been paid, the work belongs to Adobe.</text></item><item><author>egypturnash</author><text>I 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 &amp;quot;Adobe can train an AI on my work&amp;quot;? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?</text></item><item><author>mesh</author><text>&amp;gt;That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place.&lt;p&gt;fyi, for Adobe Firefly, we are training or models. From the FAQ:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;What was the training data for Firefly?&lt;p&gt;Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;firefly.adobe.com&amp;#x2F;faq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;firefly.adobe.com&amp;#x2F;faq&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;(I work for Adobe)</text></item><item><author>hn_throwaway_99</author><text>I think you&amp;#x27;re missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier.&lt;p&gt;That is, these companies are largely &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn&amp;#x27;t have the unique design talent combination of Jobs and Ive.</text></item><item><author>dopeboy</author><text>What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge.&lt;p&gt;I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a couple things:&lt;p&gt;* Whereas AI was a hand-wavey marketing term in the past, it&amp;#x27;s now the real deal and provides actual value to the end user.&lt;p&gt;* The technology and DX with integrating w&amp;#x2F;products from OpenAPI, SD, is good.&lt;p&gt;* AI and LLMs are capturing a lot of attention right now (as seen easily by how often they pop up on HN these days). It&amp;#x27;s in the zeigeist so you get a marketing boost for free.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>TheOtherHobbes</author><text>Some very strange responses in this sub-thread.&lt;p&gt;When the agreement was signed no one was even able to imagine their work being used for AI. As far as they knew they were signing a standard distribution agreement with one particular rights outlet, while reserving all other rights for more general use. If anyone had asked about automated use in AI it&amp;#x27;s very likely the answer would have been a clear &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s predatory and very possibly unlawful to assume the original agreement wording grants that right automatically.&lt;p&gt;The existence of contract wording does not automatically imply the validity of that wording. Contracts can always be ruled excessive, predatory, and unlawful no matter what they say or who signed them.</text></comment>
<story><title>Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator</title><url>https://www.adobe.com/sensei/generative-ai/firefly.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>krisoft</author><text>&amp;gt; Assuming they have been paid&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;Does that sound fair to you?</text></item><item><author>unreal37</author><text>Nobody owes creators who have been paid fully for their work &amp;quot;extra&amp;quot; compensation just because AI is involved. Assuming they have been paid, the work belongs to Adobe.</text></item><item><author>egypturnash</author><text>I 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 &amp;quot;Adobe can train an AI on my work&amp;quot;? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?</text></item><item><author>mesh</author><text>&amp;gt;That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place.&lt;p&gt;fyi, for Adobe Firefly, we are training or models. From the FAQ:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;What was the training data for Firefly?&lt;p&gt;Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;firefly.adobe.com&amp;#x2F;faq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;firefly.adobe.com&amp;#x2F;faq&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;(I work for Adobe)</text></item><item><author>hn_throwaway_99</author><text>I think you&amp;#x27;re missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier.&lt;p&gt;That is, these companies are largely &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn&amp;#x27;t have the unique design talent combination of Jobs and Ive.</text></item><item><author>dopeboy</author><text>What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge.&lt;p&gt;I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a couple things:&lt;p&gt;* Whereas AI was a hand-wavey marketing term in the past, it&amp;#x27;s now the real deal and provides actual value to the end user.&lt;p&gt;* The technology and DX with integrating w&amp;#x2F;products from OpenAPI, SD, is good.&lt;p&gt;* AI and LLMs are capturing a lot of attention right now (as seen easily by how often they pop up on HN these days). It&amp;#x27;s in the zeigeist so you get a marketing boost for free.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>stale2002</author><text>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&amp;#x2F;you] doesn’t have to pay a cent to the [computer creator] for all the money you make using that computer.&lt;p&gt;Does that sound fair to you?&lt;p&gt;See how stupid that sounds?</text></comment>