Last Updated on 06/12/2024 by Chris Gampat
What happens when creativity is no longer a human pursuit to express oneself but a dystopian attribute offered by tech companies for their profit? For starters, every other creative output becomes homogenized or rather a plagiarism of several artworks. To give you a better example of this, dear reader, let us tell you about a recent incident that came to light on Threads. Adobe Stock, notorious for selling artificial intelligence-generated images, promoted a collection of photographs that resemble the works of the late master of landscape photography, Ansel Adams.
Soon after the images were shared, Adams’ estate took the matter into their own hands, slamming Adobe for plagiarizing the photographer’s hard work. On Threads, they tagged the company, adding how Adobe is on the “last nerve” of the estate “with this behavior.”
But Adams wasn’t just a photographer. He was a Renaissance man, wearing many hats: teacher, conservationist, musician, and scientist. His legacy isn’t just about pictures; it’s about a deep connection to the world around us and a commitment to preserving its beauty for generations to come. As you can see, Adam’s estate wasn’t just protecting his work; they were safeguarding a legacy.
Soon after, Adobe took matters into its own hands, thanking the estate for pointing out the issue, and even went as far as to say that the photographs “go against our Generative AI content policy” and that they have “removed the content.”
However, the issue goes beyond that: it’s the unsettling reality that AI can now generate the works of a renowned deceased artist through algorithms. Furthermore, the Adobe Stock page disclosed that these “photographs” were being sold under Adams’ name. It implies that the essence of Adams’ life’s work, including his dedication, experiences, education, and other significant influences on his photography, can now be replicated by a machine. His unique style, which set his work apart, is now being exploited to recreate his legacy solely for profit by a company that appears to be driving photographers towards unemployment.
Reports also disclosed that users could sell AI-generated images on Adobe Stock. However, the platform prohibits photographs created using prompts featuring other artists’ names or designed to mimic another artist’s work.
In the past, Adobe Stock received massive backlash when they were selling AI-generated images from the war in Gaza, wherein some users were passing them off as “real images” on the internet.
In a time when the term ‘artistic’ is being used to describe rather mediocre or plagiarized works of legends, we must hold tech companies and individuals responsible for their actions. AI is supposed to help make one’s life easier, particularly for those balancing multiple jobs to make ends meet, it is now stripping away the essence of our identity. Perhaps, we stop and look at this challenge in a different light.