Search Unity

  1. Welcome to the Unity Forums! Please take the time to read our Code of Conduct to familiarize yourself with the forum rules and how to post constructively.

AI images are now (more) legit and can be purchased elsewhere

Discussion in 'Assets and Asset Store' started by unitedone3D, Mar 6, 2023.


Will you use their AI generator and pay a license fee to get the AI image--for commercial use?

Poll closed Mar 13, 2023.
  1. Yes, legit, paid it (legit..paid it). commercial use now legal. Once paid, not my problem anymore.

    0 vote(s)
  2. No, not legit, artist gets nothing/hush money from the fund. Nebulous artist funding distribution.

    0 vote(s)
  3. Maybe, not too sure, (but I paid this image, thus am deresponbilized of it/license was paid. end of)

    0 vote(s)
  1. unitedone3D


    Jul 29, 2017
    Hi there! Just a 2 cents. TL DR: Shutterstock has a AI image generator on its uses the Shutterstock image database as training model...with the Approval/Permission of Shutterstock uses Dall-e 2 Open AI ...that trains on Shutterstock 400 million images...and creates a 'AI generated image...on the Shutterstock AI generator webpage to do so...Shutterstock will get the permission from the Artist(s) sourced (all the artists from its 400 million images database) and will pay them via a small contribution/depending on how many images they contribute to the total database. This contribution will be paid by you -- as a license fee -- that you pay when buying the AI generated image on the Shutterstock website. (14$ US per AI image license fee, or 30$ US subscription for 10 images/month).


    Currently, AI images are being sold on online stores, including the Asset Store...but they are not legit (are illegit, for now, because they are mostly using Midjourney for their creation; and this company is now in legal tangling; the most likely outcome is a licensing model). When you pay (a license fee) for those AI images, it is more legal for your are compensating/paying the AI creator...but the money is not 'going to the artist' who's images were 'sourced' to make a AI collage/montage image out of them; the money is only going to the AI image seller -- not the source artist (used to 'train the AI on'). This is why Midjourney is in legal battle now; I mean, you are not stealing -- you paid for that image (on the Asset Store), thus, you paid fair's just this money does not 'reach' the artist (source) that is being sourced to make AI images out of; the money is staying with the Asset Store AI image seller; and that is why you can be sued;

    but, obviously, you paid the fair share and it's the Asset Store AI image seller that is in the wrong --- unless, he/she transfers a portion of the money to the Artist that was sourced. -- but that is unfeasable 'to track which artist(s) are being used/sourced from to create Midjourney AI images'. So no money is getting to the sourced artists....and thus only stays with the Asset Store seller. Which then can make him/her, and you, liable for suing (by the artists). Obviously, the brunt of the liability will be with the AI seller..because you paid (Asset Store EULA license) - for the AI image; thus, your part is done and it is 'as if you paid a regular royalty/license - to the artist' (it'S just in the AI seller's hands, they would have to transfer the totality (or a % of the) proceeds to the artist(s)).

    If you did not pay/use 'free AI' images on Asset Store, now you are liable, because no contribution/license fee/royalty fee ends up to the artist sourced.

    Well now, there is a safer way (safe---enough, we'll say..)
    Shutterstock has decided to take that step ahead and put a licensing model immediately on all the AI images you can 'create' on the website itself. (This is in direct contrast to Midjourney/Getty...)

    They call it 'Shutterstock AI image generator' is directly on the website itself and you can 'AI' generate an infinite varition of AI images -- it uses the DALL-e 2 (OpenAI) database for training (it is not as good as Midjourney in results because it never trained on the same database that Midjourney did --- Artstation and other very high quality art...but you can still get very nice results..).

    Now, as said, all this is not free----- 'that'S the point' ---- Shutterstock decided to shortcut things and make a 'Contributors Fund'...that will pay the 'source artists' used to make the AI images; and thus fund - is funded by you...each AI image generated on the 14$ US....for commercial usage. They have a subscription for 30$ a month for 10 AI images. The license allows you commercial usage. The money you paid will be put in this Contributors Fund. And the artists that were 'sourced' to make AI images out of them...get access to the fund; and thus, are paid in such.

    Now, peolpe said this is 'hush money' and they will get 'pennies' 'per AI image'..which is kind of true.
    Because some AI images are made 'out of Thousands of artists' how can you 'pin point/track' the correct artists 'sourced' to make this AI image..quasi-impossible.

    So Shutterstock said that it will 'contact' thousands of artists....and let me they know of such use of their create AI images..and that they will be paid via the Contributor Fund. Now how much? How fairly?...well, people said 'unfairly'....that'S the 'subscription model'...

    i.e. if a 1000 people contributed to a single AI image...that means 14 $ US / 1000 = 0,0014 $ US or not even 1 penny.

    So, I mean, people said it's not fair that they get not even a penny...but that'S the thing Shutterstock said :''the 'share/% they how much images they Contribute (in # of images) to the Shutterstock database'

    So, if a photographer is 'prolific' and has 200,000 images in the database...he/she will get more money (if he/she is sourced from)...than someone who has 4 photos there...people said ''they will get more money''..that's teh other problem. So, right now, the total content - to the Shutterstock database (400 million images) is the decider of how much % they will get.

    Obiviously, that means, many will get not 1 penny (because many will have only 2-3 images there).

    So, this is exactly like Netflix...or Gamepass (on Xbox), it's highly affordable but pays 'on the pennies' to the creators of the content. But, it'S legal (enough).

    So, people who wish to use AI images can now do so in more ethical conscience/peace of mind..

    Buying AI image on Asset Store (less safe) vs Buying AI images on Shutterstock AI image generator (safer).

    Thanks for reading,
    Just a 2 cents.

    PS: I would still use caution, but the minute you Pay for AI actually reduced considerable any legal problem on your end...because that is tantamount to a 'license fee' by any artist to use their you contributed/paid correctly...fairly...''where the money goes...'' is not your problem after that...that is the
    AI seller's problem. Not you as dev using an AI image -- and paid the license fee already to Buy this image to use in commercial endeavor for your commercial game. Shutterstock also offers with standard license a 10,000 $ insurance coverage for suing liability (with more expensive extended license it is 250,000$ coverage for lawsuit/liability; but that is only for regular images...for now AI images generated on Shutterstock don't seem have this insurance lawsuit liability coverage for developers using the AI generated images there in their commercial games; for now it's just a regular license for commercial usage).

    PPS: This is their explanation of revenue for database content creation (so it is looks about the same with AI images contributor fund; I think the 1-5 penny made per AI generated image is about right/the amount they it fair, that is whole other ethical/moral thing...depending on who you the artist(s) sourced, for example):

    How much does Shutterstock pay per image?
    "); display: inline-block; height: 24px; width: 24px; margin-top: -1px; transform: rotateZ(-180deg);">

    Earn up to 40% commission each time our customers download your images or videos. When you sell more, you earn more. Your earnings rate increases as more of your content is licensed. Earn $0.04 on images and 10% on videos when an artist signs up with your link and their work is downloaded.
  2. dajnoo


    Jun 9, 2018
    I believe it's unreasonable to charge for images that are likely generated by a computer in the thousands with a single click. As time passes, the market will adapt to this reality, and those who continue to charge for these images will likely struggle to stay competitive.

    To train a model, you need access to a vast dataset of high-quality images, which can range from tens of thousands to even hundreds of thousands. It's unrealistic to expect one "artist" to create such a dataset in their lifetime. The only way to do it is to use other peoples images (art, photo, etc). It's a collaborative effort.

    I think providing free access to AI is a justifiable approach that can fuel innovation, productivity and creativity. Introducing bureaucracy and financial constraints would only hinder progress and slow down the creative process, improving the quality of life for a single person and lowering it for everyone else.

    I wonder how many products never saw the light of day due to such barriers. Now If I received even a fraction of a penny for each of those products, I would be quite wealthy by now. :D