There was a short period of time when one could make money with MJ on Adobe Stock, Shutterstock, FineArtAmerica, whatever, but very soon it became very saturated, not to mention buyers became MJ users themselves, so that there is no longer any meaningful amount of money there without some luck.
Money can still be made through derivative works like books etc, but it takes a lot more effort and that market will also be saturated with low-effort crap very soon.
You post a cool picture and get blasted for low effort, so you use tools to enhance it then it’s what’s the work flow, so you show it, then it’s prompt shaming people clutching pearls and nugget’s of golden prompts with artist style’s like it’s Ai dogma all the while producing elitist letters of marque in opinion 🏴☠️
That’s why it will become increasingly obvious not all AI images are the same quality and just as easy to make.
Some types of images will be easy to do oneself but some will still require someone with skill and creativity and an artistic sensibility to create.
The more AI develops the more that will happen.
What will also happen is that the images easy to create will become saturated so we don’t really care about them much. Much like easy to make EDM music you find used everywhere.
We’ll still care about art and value human input even more than before
Interesting legal question. If I can’t use AI art for my company since they have over 1mil net revenue if I buy from Adobe stock can I now use it without licensing restrictions? Or is it the same somehow if I generate during my free time and decide to use it for said company?
FYI i used to pay for the $30 per month MJ Tier from my personal account but my company is too cheap to spend the $200+/mo for a corporate plan. Can I use those images? So much grayzone with this stuff
The concrete answer is "no" but I know what point you want to make. First of all: When you buy it from their platform, you are restricted to their licensing agreement.
We can spin this wheel further and ask the question: What if you sell art via Adobe Stock (or other Marketplace) under their non exclusive license agreement and as you therefore can distribute it via various other ways (marketplaces, websites, etc.) and also give it away for free, how can Adobe (or other parties) control the origin of an image?
There is a similar controversy in sound effect products, like sample packs: you can buy a sample pack but normally sample pack producers don't allow their buyers to make derivate works from the single sounds to resell/redistribute them, but they may make musical productions from them and keep all the rights.
What if a producer buys such sample library and makes a song with the sounds, and releases this piece of music under creative commons zero (public domain) license, which gives any user world wide all rights to the musical piece. This also allows me to cut out a sample of the song, which originated from a sample pack, but release it the way I want.
Is this legal? It is definitely legally complicated. I personally don't know of any case, that went to court. Would be very interesting to know, indeed.
Edits: grammar, minor changes for better comprehension.
You can put AI stuff on Adobe Stock if you explicitly label it as "Generative AI" in the title and tags - this allows people to filter it out if they don't want AI-generated images.
Stock art is stock art. Why should it matter where it came from as long as it serves the purpose for which you plan on putting it?
(edit: technically this person is breaking the rules, since they haven't correctly labelled their images)
i put recently images on adobe stock. there is no (required ) field „generative ai“. in the end, every image is outpainted, inpainted and fixed in gimp. so just „generative ai“ would be not the whole truth. for some kind of paintings a good prompt is the complete art, but what’s on stock is expected are finished productive ready illustrations or graphical elements to be placed in the layout. some of my images are showing photorealistic human, which was a problem due to missing consent of the model, so i put NoRealHuman into title. conclusion: still 90% believe the prompt would be the prod ready result, nope, still some work to do.
