Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Adobe Firefly Is a Big Deal!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 авг 2024
- Check out www.squarespace... for a free trial or go to www.squarespace... to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.
And thank you Squarespace for sponsoring this video.
Adobe Firefly is Adobe's response to many of the AI image generators that have been popping up in recent months. With one clear and important difference. Adobe has the rights toall the images they use in their training data.
Discounts for my Courses brad.site/learn/
Email Newsletter: brad.site/signup/
-----------------------------------------------------
Twitter:
/ bradcolbow
Instagram:
/ bcolbow
Drawing Tech Top 10 lists:
brad.site/
My Drawing and video gear:
brad.site/mygear/
about copyright: a new US policy came out that basically says any works generated by AI are considered public domain (not copyrightable). Because copyright only applies to works created by humans. That says a couple of things:
1. any piece of art created by AI can be used by anyone. So most companies/clients won't want AI art as part of their end product or branding.
2. Derivative works from AI generated works, if different enough from the AI work, can be copyrighted (as usual, to standard copyright law). This means artists will be hired to "paint over" or make tweaks to AI art, and AI art will be used to basically rapid prototype ideas and concepts.
Note I'm not a lawyer, these are just my findings, and this is just a quick tl;dr on the complex aspect of copyright.
Thanks for the information
This gave me the hope I needed :)
Its true and also not 100% true. If marvel made an image of Iron Man with an AI then it is definitively not going to be considered public domain. Iron Man made by an AI is still Iron Man and it is a copyrighted property of Marvel. Every design is protected by copyright no matter how new copy are produced. character design cloth design ect... If somebody is using an AI to make new copy of a design then copyright on that design is still valid. So the only thing people need to do is to train their own AI so that it can make new art pieces of a design they own. Manually editing art made by an AI work too but it is a slow tedious process... But yeah it can work for a single art pieces of something with no specific character or design.
It took me about a week to learn how to properly train a LoRA model for stable diffusion. And now that I know how it work I will include design I own directly in the AI generation process.
@@leucome sorta. what you're referring to is intellectual property. however, the piece of art itself isn't intellectual property. Marvel can most definitely sue for IP infringement, but not copyright, if that AI generated Iron Man image were used somewhere else. It's the same for fan art. Marvel doesn't own the copyright to the fan art you make of Iron Man, you do (unless it's a copy of one of their art), but they do own the intellectual property to it. So they can still sue you for damages.
Your statement is true but there has been an update to this law. Apparently, the US Copyright Office will now allow a copyright if and only if the person can prove that they put meaningful effort into the final work. What this means is that if the image started with AI, it would then have to be modified and reworked manually by a human using standard tools like Photoshop or Illustrator. It seems that the government wants to maintain the human element since copyrights can't be given to AI.
@@linuxzero7283 it's not an update. it has always been this way. Read my 2nd point.
"AI will let us automate labor so we can spend time creating art and music!" was the pitch for AI advancements. But now we're automating a huge part of the process of making art and music so we can spend more time on... what exactly? Creating more rapidfire "content" for corporations and social media?
Welcome to capitalism my friend
Spend more time at a job that you will hate
Maybe labor that nobody want to do even ai.
God, I'm really hate to be human.😓😭
It was the same argument that accompanied efforts to automate manufacturing. The result however were mass layoffs, massive profits concentrated in the hands of a diminishing minority and a big fat "F*** YOU" to the labour market. AI will only deliver the benefits that society demands of its owners through revolution - ZERO.
Lmao get a real job and cope, artists.
McDonald’s is hiring.
Watching your vid just wanted to make you aware of something. Adobe is not fully transparent about their dataset aside from using adobe stock. Although technically they have the right to use these images, that is only because the opt in the images by default without any option for uses to opt their images out. So not as ethical as they claim.
Also Kris is a the person who has been chasing copyright for ai and exposed as a grifter (many chat leaks showing how she is funded to normalise the tech and convince the public not to worry about datascraping issues). Constantly trying to get the USCO to green copyright for prompt base images despite their clear stance after her first attempt.
Thank you for sharing this!
Exactly; I was following this whole debacle as it was playing out on Twitter a few weeks ago. I've since concluded that if Adobe wants to avoid a PR disaster when Firefly fully launches, they need to get rid of that woman and renegotiate with Adobe Stock contributors ASAP, including stuff like (for instance) more generous royalties and/or the ability to opt out of the Firefly data set. Full transparency of all the non-Adobe Stock images in their data set will also help.
I also hope that the USCO continues to stand its ground with respect to her Zendaya ripoff comic because, no matter how much Midjourney shells out for her legal fees, the fact still stands that the "artwork" in said comic is still an auto-generated mashup of other people's work (and Zendaya's likeness, since that's the only way the comic's protagonist could look consistent) without their consent.
Thanks for the info. I didn't realize there was no way to opt out if you participated in Adobe stock. I knew the process wasn't perfect but I was/am feeling like this is a step in the right direction even if it is only one step.
@@thebradcolbow I can understand that. But I do worry of adobe weaponising ethical AI for marketing purposes and further devaluing/dismissing the voices of artists.
The other thing to consider is if there is a vetting process to confirm that any/all images contributed are submitted by the original author.
So yeah I can see how this can be considered a start, but I don't want this to be where the conversation stops. As there is still so much more can be done.
That is a totally 100% reasonable concern.
I wouldn't call Firefly ethical in any way. The artists uploaded the images to sell them, under general TOS. Years before AI was a thing. Now Adobe took those stock photos and used them in AI, with no warning or any way to opt out or delete those images beforehand. The artists were not recompensed for this their photos being used in Adobe's *private commercial product* . After the backlash, after everything is already done, now Adobe said they will begin to think about giving some pennies to the artists whose work was taken. No way for the artists to have an opinion or opt out from this.
Adobe didn't care about the artist's consent or opinions. The artists were not uploading their works to be scraped or used in AI. This is just another case of a huge company screwing artists for profit. Nothing ethical about it.
That's not to say there's no way for AI to be ethical. There is. Many artists would be more than open to *sell* their images to be used in AI But that would require consent from the artists and fair compensation. And the companies would to lose a tiny bit of profit, so of course no one is doing that.
If Adobe asked the artists beforehand and compensated them based on mutual agreement, Firefly would have been ethical. But of course, it's Adobe so that didn't happen. They are not exactly known for their good morals
Exactly what I was thinking. Adobe is becoming more hostile to artists!
Now? Adobe has been at the frontline of graphic Ai generation for many year now. So it just that technology improves so much people think it is a new thing
Exactly. It's actually a bit scary (though not surprising) to see Adobe jumping on the bandwagon, because they do have a chokehold on the creative industry in a way that other companies don't.
Everyday this AI thing make me feel that all my hard work in honing my skills in drawing is completely useless
It only matters if ur monetising ur skill,otherwise it’s jus a hobby and it doesn’t matter imo.
@@dedfish7495 honing skills to make money takes time.
AI can only produce images based on what it's been trained on, so as long as your work is original enough, (and the AI is regulated enough not to scrape your work like it's been doing) there should still be some value in your skills as a flesh-and-blood human artist.
there are people who would abuse ai but their will always be people who would value human output over a machine one. there is a reason why no one respects an Ai stockfish user in a chess match, people can't relate to a machine.
Does the existence of the millions of other incredible artists out in the world make you honing artistic skills useless? There will always be value in knowing how to do things for yourself, no matter how good tech becomes.
I don't even get it how are the users even thinking thay they ll be appreciate d for their work when 99 percent of work is done by ai itself
This is evil. Soulless, evil. We work for decades to reach professional level and now we’ll be obsolete in 6 months.
Technological progress is evil?
So you’d rather we never have cars just so horse breeders can keep their jobs?
You’d rather not have the internet just so phone line operators can keep their jobs?
You’d rather have manually operated elevators just so elevator operators can keep their jobs?
You’d rather have no ATMs just so more bank tellers keep their jobs?
OK, but there are Midjourney pictures on Adobe stock. So, how exactly do they plan to solve that copyright nightmare?
what do you mean - SHOW A CLIENT? how can you show a client something you didn't create and pass it off as your own?
Who said you shouldn't disclose how your work is made?
Just do it😁
@@-Scrapper- If you're going to lie to your clients, your business won't last long. Especially if you post publicly about doing so.
Why would a client want to pay an artist for AI generated art? Typing prompts into a machine can be done by anyone. It is basically the same as a client comissioning the work. The client would just skip the middle man.
@@thebradcolbow Why would a client pay you for AI art when they can type in a prompt themselves? If someone's paying you to create art for them it's safe to say they want it to be created by you, the artist, not AI. All you'd do is show them that employing you is a waste of their money.
I dumped Adobe when they went to the subscription model. Was one of the first 100 owners of photoshop, but RIP.
I want to generate a picture of Brad generating pictures of dogs wearing sweatshirts…on a sweatshirt…worn by a dog.
Jonathan...
@@thebradcolbow you know you need it.
I should have been doing sports, not creativity.
Machines negate the importance of the effort invested in training of drawing and painting.
Isn't Adobe using images posted to Behance, etc? I know Behance mentioned something about art posted being used for AI.
How do we not consent to that is there some option i untick or etc?
I'm not convinced T2I by itself can save Adobe. As much as the ethical branding does seem to matter, too many startups in the past have succeeded by doing something borderline-illegal first and then patching it up after they get enough capital.
For artists who want to focus on art, I sense the most likely path forward will not be with T2I, but to take a sketch they drew themselves, paint in some flat color(easier than ever as of today since Meta put out "Segment Anything Model" which can recognize shapes pretty darn well, even as line art), and I2I it with a customized rendering model. That preserves many of their biggest skillsets - drawing as the interface, then training up a nice renderer(which they can spend a long time on, using whatever methods and materials they like as sources).
Many forms of software are going to converge into streamlined interfaces to various models: the distinguishing factor is just the interface, which might be primarily text, or it could be drawing or various forms of live performance. For branding, you could end up with models and prompts that can generate an entire design system...
...or you could see that market reverse direction from marketers building brands to advertise to consumers, towards individuals and communities commissioning personalized "browsing agents" that find people and organizations that service their needs. If the past is a foreign country, we're getting on the boat right now.
Firefly is a dangerous deal.. (think about it)
?
@@-Scrapper- AI in art and the dangers of it (think copyright infringements, art theft, loosing jobs etc)
@@mr_don_key Yeah let's copyright strike every anime bcoz 99% of them seems to have the same art style. Like all the labour workers lost their jobs but that doesn't mean we should make up new jobs with no use just for the sake of earning money. Try something else that's useful and only create art if you enjoy it.
@@-Scrapper- that last remark is pure cringe to me. So i should do something useful just because AI stole my job? that's the world up side down to me. FUCK AI used badly.
Well that's a fast evolution from unrestrained lawlessness to an approach of ethics. It's going to be very gray, though, as it was determined a wholly AI-generated image could not be copyrighted, how many permutations of unattributable work will create enough layers of obfuscation such that an AI could be trained on those images and be technically free of conflict? Or, as the competition for the AI-generation space becomes more heated and there is more incentive to further-occlude the black box of the models, how will the training behavior of competing programs be made accountable, now that ethics IS a concern and primary objective for projects such as Firefly? If a competitor were to, in bad faith, poison a dataset with deliberately copyrighted (or AI generated) input, can an ethically-minded project successfully purge the influence from a dataset? If it ever happened, would they let customers know? Would they not want to know, because it's not about ethics but more about legal exposure? There's an entire new branch of ethics and philosophy being born parallel to this entire industry
With their current dataset, Adobe will never compete. And with their hideous *software rental* model, more and more creators are leaving Adobe for Affinity and other traditionally-priced, non-subscription software. I started on Mac with Adobe everything, but have happily and successfully moved away from both.
My sentiments exactly. Nothing Adobe is amazing in my books.
@@neatnateable What is Nothing Adobe?
@@tristen_grant In other words, nothing that Adobe makes is amazing due to their business model.
This is legal, but not ethical. The artists uploading to Stock had the expectation that they would get paid when someone buys their image, now with this AI, all that business is effectively over. Adobe used their work in a new tech they had no idea their work was ever going to be used for, gives them no choice to opt-out their images, and completely killed off all the business they were making by having their images in Stock in order to pull a greater profit for themselves.
Also all this ai art bs will bite them in the back. If ai can produce the new era of arts and designs, people wont need to buy expensive computers, tablets or ipads. If anything else people will spend the money on a phone.
That just life and market change. You can say the same about radio and tv. Has they not do this some one else will do it. Free copyright image database is huge as well. They just need to train them and cut into the market share
@@idkwayta1722 think about any passion you got in the job you enjoy doing, then reduce it to typing a sentence. Are you still passionate about it? Do you still need the super expensive computers or tablet?
Hate this, hate the coverage and the positive PR spin
This just fuels my depression even more, what's the point in trying to be better when someone can just generate art in seconds
You do it for you. Because it's what you want to do.
Adapt or die.
@@moswanedev Doing it for you isn't always a good enough motivator. Without a target audience/market, it won't be worth the effort.
@@rawthe If doing it for you isn't good enough of a motivator, perhaps then you don't really want to do it as bad. You cannot always make a living out of passion, but if you are truly passionate about something, you do not stop doing it because you cannot monetise it.
You say that, but realize that the challenge has been the price of admission into the big leagues. Those using art to make a living and those doing it as a passion are in different schools of thought. Those approaching it as a hobby will also lose motivation, because a prompt can do it faster. Not everyone, of course, but most will start venturing into passions away from these, as even the masters left in art and illustration will have their skills unappreciated by their audience.
is this pay to win design?
There are companies that have bigger portfolios of images than Adobe so Adobe could easily license that if they need a bigger data set. I can definitly see big companies prefer this approach. However small companies and private users will probably be more attracted to free options like Stable Diffusion that you can run on your own hardware.
so now its legal to re-sell, because the other platforms kinda shady with their databases.
The logo stuff is pretty cool as it shows that Adobe is likely training this with stock imagery where logos have been modified so that they are more generic and not actual brands, while Midjourneys set has not plastering Coca Cola logos all over. No doubt Adobe knows it can get into trouble with trademarked logos.
There is zero ethical argument for using Ai generated art. Unless the artists from Adobe stock get a commission every single time equal to what they’d get if they made it themselves, this is wrong.
I'm really tired of companies shoving alternative intelligence (I know what ai means ) in my mouth
Is it free to use?
well here we are 9 months later and I have access to both these programs. Midjourney blows firefly out of the water when it comes to prompt on prompt generation. Though firefly does have a better UI, it feels like its just another stabledefusion based image generator, this ones just built into photoshop.
As far as the US Copyright office is concerned, AI generated imagery is not eligible for copyright. I suppose you could make an argument that the series of prompts you use might be eligible since prompts are are authored by humans, but I don't think anyone has tried that yet. Larger firms will want something that they can retain copyright over and it doesn't seem like this type of imagery is protected. I think there's a case to be made for individual sales from people who just want something cool looking, but for business I think they're going to run into some problems. If Adobe can somehow figure out how to make their generated images copyrightable, game over. They will have built another standard that we'll be using.
I wish I shared your optimism. Adobe's intentions seem noble enough. I think eventually we're all going to have to incorporate some aspects of this "synthography" in our work just to keep up. But it doesn't feel good.
Nice vid ^^ We are not yet in a hyperrealistic ; photographic ; rendering, it "looks" still too digital. A way to fix it?
As an artist. Automátic dislike
Short answer: No. In terms of the quality of AI, Adobe is way behind. Everything Adobe is doing now is branding: our images are "legally safe"!
How safe? 1. I don't think the quality of the pictures Adobe is generating is a match to its competitors in the market.
2. I don't think Adobe could collect and handle billions of images on the internet. Adobe is a "small data" company (not a "small" data company), it always has difficulty handling big data.
3. Even if Adobe decided to add some copyrighted images in its training set, when the impression of "legally safe AI" is developed, people won't easily challenge that, at least in the short term.
Adobe Stock is outrageously expensive as a service.
Amazing quality, but way too expensive for most people.
On the other hand, being a member of the creative cloud, I'd make large use of this.
I don't believe Adobe Stock in meant for most people. Its intended for businesses and commercial artists who need to use stock images for their paid work. Generally, the client would be paying for the used image.
I wonder if those self-imposed rules that Firefly has will always make it inferior quality-wise. Since it doesn't have the breadth of learning that other models do.
Can't iterate on selected output? That's pretty limited.
use --c and a number between 1-100 for more variations in midjourney I recommend no more than --c 20 max in v5, you can also add --s 0-1000 for more stylistic generation 100 is the default I usually use --s 700 --c 10
Has anybody gotten access to use it? I'm still waiting for it
Dude! Dude…😢
So many of the channels, art channels no less, I’ve liked putting positive spins on AI.
Take care!
I hate all the AI. So ridiculous. Im not a fan of people relying on AI to create things, albiet graphics, words or videos. Learn to create on your own.
Agree, but sadly the horse is out of the barn. I seriously doubt there's any stopping the AI train. Over time, I've come to realize that life was better before the internet. And I NEVER thought I would say that!
@@LV4EVR I agree. I do believe AI is a fad right now at least in the way it's being used. It won't last in the same way. It will be crushed by monetization like everything else, plus top brands cannot have AI created images being used that they creation is subject to copyright issues. AI is a tool and all these people trying to use it like a solution will fall to the wayside 1 to 2 years from now. They are the same people who cheated in school.
Why tho spend time creatively instead of trying to draw the perfect circle
It's the future, man. We can hate it all we want doesn't mean it's gonna stop the march of progress. You just have to roll with it, and find a niche in a fully ai world.
@@jjay9909 It won't be the future. It's the future like Facebook after Myspace, Instagram after Facebook. The hype today will fade tomorrow for the reasons I mentioned above. Good luck trying to make a living off of AI generated items. I will be here making my $300k a year salary with skills.
hi Brad, great stuff as always. I've seen the capability for inpainting and canvas extension but cant find these features, do you know how to access them? keep up the good work!!
now to make a movie you just need a script writer😂
And I very excited about the new car models that will be designed through these AI.
nope no script writer needed
chaptgpt and beyond do that
just to let you know, I've unsubbed from you now due to these AI posts, they're very disappointing to see
Thats unfortunate but you can subscribe or unsubscribe to whoever you'd like, whenever. I don't like AI but we do need to have discussions about it if we're going to have our voices and opinions heard.
Ugh, now Adobe is on this band wagon
The Adobe fantasy pirates look like they're 2D on slightly misplaced parallax layers.
AI is going to change the art scene far more than Napster changed music. Adobe chases AI or they're dead.
How would Adobe not chasing AI kill the company? They make software and tools for millions of creatives, across many fields. They also have a ton of different services and products.
Its been interesting playing around with the Beta. I like how you can set the camera angle in the software.
Good video, thank you. For me, AI is nice tool to help in the moments when I'm tired or lazy. Its generative side is helpful to avoid stops that day. We don't need final product made solo by AI but ideas or at least small push in work. My view for now
I agree. It helps flesh out my ideas to make them my own
I’m really brainstorming how I’ll be able to use these toys as research and reference purposes - I’m thinking that for the kind of art that I produce, that might be a big ask
This definitely helps me get a better grasp on which apps might succeed more based on my needs, very interesting
All those AI-generated images, Firefly or MJ, all of them look atrocious! No kidding, they look _awful_, I don't know the appeal people see in these. Yes, it's impressive how they are generated, and yes, they can be used as a inspiration, but holy cow do they look off in tons of parts.
Imperfections are what separates art from reality
@@-Scrapper- What about photography?
@@tristen_grant Guess why artists moved away to abstractions after the invention of the camera
So few can see their imperfection and weirdness. It shocks me how people don't notice them. I think we are the minority.
I really enjoyed this video. You did a very good job of explaining and proposing ideas for the future.
For these AIs, the more detailed the prompts, the better.
I do not like the propensity of its rendering!!
Question, what's going on with your second channel
I think battling over training images is a lost cause, only way to do any sort of style policing if any is at the prompt level... ie "picture of dog in VanGogh style" where its obv the intent was to use someones style...I assume very quickly we are going to have 2nd and 3rd level models trained on models so removed from the original picture that the intent to copy is only even visible back at the prompt level while the lawsuits about training data rages for years to come....even then its sketchy getting a bill from your AI for the Van Gogh prompt and not for your "picture of dog in impressionist style, bright blues, thick oil painting" prompt? I say train on anything you want Weird Science style and then judge the final product like we do now.
I only like ai as a way to help form ideas. for example for me, environments or character poses. but when people actually use ai and claim it as their own, i do not agree with.
AI has potential
But the way it is now...
Well, let's just say the way it is being used and made isn't the best (( from an ethical standpoint ))
Hello
I agree that Adobe needs to push and evolve their engine very quickly to catch up and compete. I do love the UI and the diversity of models they plan on releasing as well as the proposed integration with Photoshop.
More videos 👏👏👏👏
Sounds like something an A.I would say lol
What does?
@@tristen_grant "I think this is a good direction for this industry"
cool now we can ethicaly replace and devalue artists
it waaas always about the database right HAHAHAHAHAAAAHHAHAHAHA
7:10 that's Robert DeNiro on the top right corner.
ohmygosh. you're so right!
Seeing how in Midjourney's images the coca cola logo shows up, makes me feel resentment.
I hope Adobe, other creators and new laws will lead AI art in a healthy and moral direction!
AI is a good search tool
AI isn't a good search tool since it makes up information.
Wooow this is amazing
Oh good new. Yes, unethical training has been the main thing keeping me from AI image generators.
Adobe firefly is rubbish
Wait. Are you telling me they actually did it the right way?!
there's no opt-out for people who use adobe stock to sell their images
I’m glad to see MidJourney getting some competition. Legally safe with an intuitive interface and the right price will destroy MidJourney. Does Firefly try to restrict content? MidJourney has a lot of words blocked and will ban you if you try to circumvent. Basically, anything the CEO thinks is bad, like “blood”.
if they are sensible it would "restrict" certain words and names
@@unaninated Please explain what words and names you think should be restricted and why.
@@ethansdad3d I would suggest political or celebrity figures, sexaul content of irl people and minors. Simply it's an awful look for a company claiming to be ethical, and potentially exposes them to critisms of not vetiing their "data sets"
@@unaninated It's unlikely that celebrity, political figures, or nudity are in the training set, however, I can see a legitimate desire to lampoon politicians and celebrities in a non-photographic style.
@@ethansdad3d Due to the opacity of their "creative common" data set we can't say for sure. Regardless, I never said the politians would be in a pornaographic styles. The issue of using public facing people for fake imagery is it can cause mass confusion and used as a disinformation tool. Something of which is not beneficial from a business standpoint.
This is so sick
Thanks Grant!
firefly has the cure