Organic maps SPECIFICALLY doesn't want that. It would be grounds for them being sued and having to comb through their database and remove any "questionable" material.
It would be the end of the project, they don't have money for that.
I wasn't really arguing for the artist. I was arguing that Adobe is ripping people off by selling horseshit when the prices they're charging are for a different product entirely. A more expensive one.
If they want to make AI stock photos available they should have a different tier. It should be cheaper. They shouldn't just mix it in with their regular stock photos. It's a different product and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
No?
People are paying for those pictures, either as a subscription or per-use basis. They're paying a rate to reflects work; photographers, models, rights - all kinds of different costs up front. None of that exists with AI.
It's sort of like sitting down to a restaurant, ordering and paying, and then getting served food from your own home. Some horseshit Kraft mac and cheese and fish sticks.
He's doing what he has the power to do. Rule of law, people. Let's stop insisting everybody be revolutionaries.
That "Adobe Stock" photo from the article is just some generic AI crap.
The door is wide open for a stock photo business right now, I guess.
@Melatonin
@lemmy.dbzer0.com