#industry applications | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bixels · 27 days ago

Text

In the past, people in the Animal Crossing community would make fun of Tom Nook as a sleazy landlord. Since then, he's really rehabilitated his image as this 'heart of gold' businessman (he's the one who puts bells and furniture in trees for you to find! he adopted orphans! he donates to charity!), but New Horizons genuinely paints the most devious version of him.

He's successfully privatized settler colonialism: you pay HIM to move to a "deserted island" (which apparently the oceans in the AC world are just full of) and start a colony that he is directly invested in. At best he's running a weird vacation package scam (you arrive on the island with no money and in debt for "using his services"). At worst, he's using you to set up company towns. For god's sake, he literally has his own fake currency that he forces you to use to pay off your debt. But don't worry, he's repackaged it in a way that definitely doesn't sound like an MLM scam: the Nook Mileage Program!

You're no longer just his tenant or his temporary part-timer, you're his business lackey. The entire tutorial section of the game has you spending actual weeks running around completing tasks and doing hard labor to set up his colony. You're even tasked with preparing his properties and finding buyers for them. No, you aren't a tenant anymore. You work for the landlord. You are directly responsible for finding tenants for him. And he doesn't even fucking pay you. Not for setting up town hall and museum, or his nephew's shop –– which is the ONLY store on the entire island that sells necessities –– or bringing KK Slider to town, or helping populate his town. Not a single cent. No, actually, you have to pay HIM to BUY infrastructure like bridges and stairs and park benches. And all the while, he's telling you're the "resident representative"; you get to call the shots! That the reward is the community's progress. That what you're doing is in everyone's best interest (but most importantly, his).

Since NH's release, people have done a lot of legwork to say that Tom Nook isn't a capitalist while the game shows him at his very worst. He owns the only general store in town. You're forced to use a phone that he modified and branded as his own. Buy Nook-branded furniture and merchandise at the self-serve kiosk in the town hall, a governmental building! There's no conflict of interest here!

But hey, if you're tired of being the landlord/business mogul's goon, you can also find work as a deluxe resort home designer for a company that also pays you in their special company currency that can only be used to buy their products instead of a real salary! Because that's what the Animal Crossing franchise needs! More vacation homes!!!

#this is a really long winded way to say i really really really really hate new horizon's storyline and player role #i really hate that not only your house but the entire TOWN. the whole COMMUNITY you're a part of is owed to tom nook's business #i really hate the “vacation getaway package” angle because it shows just how commercialized the entire premise of nh is #and how lost the game is in its original core concept #animal crossing is about the experience of moving to a new town and becoming a part of that community #just to compare: all past ac games have a similar opening #you're on a bus or train or taxi to someplace new. a stranger strikes up a conversation and you get to know them before arriving #new horizons opens with you at customer service desk filling out an client application before a flight.#in prev games working for nook in the tutorial is meant to be demeaning. you want it to be over with so you can actually start living life #but in new horizons working for tom nook IS your life. and it's so rewarding! don't you feel rewarded?#you aren't a person. you aren't a new neighbor. you're tom nook's client. and then his unpaid employee. and the game insists it's fun to be #that's how void the game is #because it's bad enough that a rpg life sim got turned into a sandbox game where you have to build the town yourself #but the only reason why you're building it is because the landlord who you're in debt to TOLD you to build it.#everything is a rewards program! everything is a tour service! be sure to do your daily tasks to earn nook bucks to spend on nook merch!#that really sucks imo.#i mean. the entire game is based around the vacationing industry. of course it all feels fake and temporary. it's only a vacation.#long post #rant #not art #god the fact that your starter villagers can't even decide where to live you have to decide for them #i've never played a game that does the opposite of handholding #where instead it's the PLAYER who has to handhold the npcs through everything. and newsflash!! it's really exhausting and boring

2K notes · View notes

cogitotech · 2 years ago

Link

#nlp sentiment analysis #Social Media Sentiment Analysis #customer sentiment analysis #sentiment analysis tools #Sentiment Analysis #NLP #business model #Business Reputation #Ai applications #industry applications

0 notes

peachdoxie · 1 year ago

Text

Your resume should include any relevant work experience and skills you have and it's good to include your volunteer work and internships (ideally four of them) as well as your multiple graduate degrees and the certifications you've earned during the process, and also your resume can only be one page in a font that's easy to read. This field is hard to break into because we have a lot of applicants for not a lot of openings and we'll keep them open for years until we find the perfect candidate. A great way to distinguish yourself is by taking any adjacent job you can find even if it means you have to work two or three part time jobs to make ends meet until a new opening is made. It's also good to tailor your resume to the companies and jobs you're applying for so that they know you researched the role and didn't send out mass applications, and oh, I highly, highly recommend that you keep your resume updated and a digital copy on hand so that you can email it to people at a moment's notice because it's good to keep an eye out for opportunities as they come up. Everyone around you has a master's degree and it's basically the new bachelor's and a PhD is the new master's and we really like seeing several years of work experience because there's a lot of stuff you can't learn in a classroom setting. It's a great field and I love working in it and you should pursue it if you're passionate about it!

#anecdotes by peachdoxie #i just came from a career seminar and i am feeling very cynical #this is about a specific field i won't mention for privacy ig but I'm sure it's widely applicable #some of this advice felt very contradictory #like how can a resume be so short and yet there's about eight gazillion things you can do to strengthen it #where is it all supposed to go???#no shade meant to the presenter btw she was very nice and informative about how to get jobs in this particular industry #but tee bee aech it is depressing

333 notes · View notes

soracities · 1 year ago

Note

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

#i think in essence what i'm trying to say is that #some things are true in a microcosm but you cannot make a universal application for them bc the microcosm isn't representative of the whole #and it is dangerous to assume that it is or that it can be bc you're erasing the bigger picture when you do that #it would be like a poc saying they never felt the pressure of skin-lightening creams which is amazing but it doesnt change the fact that a #whole industry exists selling skin-lightening products BECAUSE there is a demand for them and that demand exists BECAUSE there is an #expectation that they SHOULD be used and this is because there is a belief that lighter skin = more beautiful. regardless of how messed up #and damaging that logic is that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world #and therefore those industries exist to maintain that belief because that belief is what drives their purpose and their profits #and we are doing no favours to the countless poc who DO feel pressured to subject their skins to these products or who come away with #a deeply damaged sense of self-worth (not to mention the internalised racism that's behind these beliefs) bc of constantly being told they #are less than for being darker than a paper bag which is RIDICULOUS #saying its all down to choice is not far off from saying you can CHOOSE to not be affected by the pressure but like....that's just not true #you can't choose to not be the recipient of colorism any more than you can choose to not be the recipient of sexism. and its putting a huge #amount of pressure and responsibility for an individual to just not be affected by deeply ingrained societal pressures and expectations whe #what we SHOULD be doing is actually tackling those expectations and pressures instead #they are leaving these systems intact to continue the damage that they do by making everything about what you as an individual think and #believe but while we all ARE individuals we dont live in separate bubbles. we are part of and IN this world together. and it acts on us as #much as we act on it. but like.....i think i've gone on enough already #ask #anonymous

103 notes · View notes

mintowls · 9 months ago

Text

everyday at work i hear something that makes me want to strangle rich people even more

#client wanted to put a swimming pool directly in front of their bedroom to stop. snakes. from getting in. apparently #they’re an older couple and have no intention of swimming in the pool #it’s just to stop. the snakes #also the house is for the two of them and it has three bedrooms. and all the spaces are massively oversized.#they also own the house next door and almost certainly many more #since they just put in an application for a 90 million dollar development somewhere else #hooooo. i like my coworkers and like the technical aspects of my job but im like. losing it #also that time a client yelled at me bc her tiles came late from italy like wtf #am i the tile manufacturer ??? am i the australian border force ???? am i the shipping boat ????????#anyway im going insane. anyone wanna pay me to draw whatever characters i want forever #why don’t i have any interests in industries that are not notorious for horrible work hours …..

25 notes · View notes

13thpythagoras · 28 days ago

Text

#hoping this will be the cure for cancer that finally breaks that pesky 4th wall #the 4th cure perhaps #yes the first 3 cannot be patented #the 4th? debatable but I can try #no doubt the 4th is by far the most allopathic and western possible approach #i'll patent what i will patent and it's just likely competitors can patent something functionally identical #but i'd rather create this new industry and build momentum there #not even the chatbots see the application of the laws of physics they agree are at work behind my prototype design

4 notes · View notes

cahootings · 7 months ago

Text

#okay I have had one very good venting convo to industry colleague bff about interview consequence anxieties #and I feel like I was just exorcised.#I needed that #anyway I am feeling mostly prepared for the interview #and mostly somewhat prepared to deal with the aftermath whatever it may be #and a little less alone #and honestly just ready for the relief of being out of this limbo #it was a year and a half of application limbo #and almost four months of interview limbo #and it has really fucked me up in every way lmao !!!!! like I am at least medicated now but christ alive #anyway. cheers

13 notes · View notes

openeyesproject · 2 years ago

Text

Contributor Applications Open!!

Contributor applications for The Open Eyes Project, a Troubled Teen Industry awareness zine, are now open! We're looking for both writers and artists who are survivors of the Troubled Teen Industry to contribute to our cause. Our goal is to uplift survivor voices by allowing them to share their stories in a fun and creative way, and proceeds from the zine will be donated to charities such as Unsilenced, The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and The Trevor Project.

Applications will be open for the entire month of May, and final response emails will be sent out by the first week of June at the latest!

💜 WRITER & ARTIST APPLICATION 💜

💜 CARRD 💜

That's all! Thank you for reading, and please feel free to send in any questions you may have!

( Reblogs are greatly appreciated! @zine-scene @zineapps @all-zine-apps @zinecenter @fandomzines @anizines @zineforall @zinesubmissions )

#zine applications #artist apps #writer apps #zine apps #zine promo #zine #contributor apps #zines #troubled teen industry #survivor

40 notes · View notes

jcmarchi · 21 days ago

Text

How Adobe is Shielding Artists from AI Misuse

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/how-adobe-is-shielding-artists-from-ai-misuse/

How Adobe is Shielding Artists from AI Misuse

In recent years, the growing ability of generative AI to create realistic visuals, mimic artistic styles, and produce entirely new forms of expression has redefined how art is made and experienced. While this transformation offers remarkable opportunities for innovation and productivity in the creative sector, it also raises concerns about intellectual property rights and the potential misuse of artistic works. A recent study found that 56% of creators believe generative AI poses a threat to them, primarily due to the unauthorized use of their work in training datasets. Recognizing this challenges, Adobe—an American software company known for its multimedia and creativity software products—is taking proactive measures to protect artists from AI misuse. In this article, we’ll explore how Adobe is empowering artists to safeguard their intellectual property in the face of evolving AI threats.

The Rise of AI in Creative Industries

Artificial intelligence is transforming the creative industries, reshaping how we create, edit, and engage with content. From generating music and designing graphics to writing scripts and building entire virtual worlds, AI-driven tools are evolving at a rapid pace. However, as AI’s capabilities expand, so do the challenges it presents—particularly for artists. Models like DALL-E and Midjourney can replicate famous styles or mimic artwork with impressive accuracy, often using publicly available images without consent. This raises serious legal and ethical concerns about copyright and artistic integrity. For many creators, the fear is that AI will learn from their copyrighted work and produce something similar, potentially diminishing the value of their art. The lack of clear legal frameworks for AI-generated content further complicates the issue, leaving the creative community vulnerable. To address these concerns, Adobe is taking proactive measures to develop technologies that can protect artists from the potential misuse of AI.

Adobe’s Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI)

One of Adobe’s most impactful efforts in protecting artists is its Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI). Launched in 2019, the CAI is a collaborative, open-source initiative that aims to provide creators with tools to verify the authenticity of their digital content. By embedding metadata into images and other digital files, Adobe enables artists to assert ownership and trace the origin of their work. This “digital fingerprint” not only ensures that creators are credited but also helps identify when and where their work has been altered or misused.

In addition to protecting copyrights, the CAI addresses the broader issue of content manipulation, which has become increasingly concerned with the rise of deepfakes and AI-generated images that distort reality. By enabling users to verify the provenance and authenticity of digital content, the CAI protects both artists and the public from deceptive or harmful uses of AI technology.

Adobe Firefly

In early 2023, Adobe launched Firefly, an AI-powered collection of creative tools designed to generate images, videos, and text effects using generative AI. One of the key features of Firefly is its underlying data model. Adobe has ensured that Firefly is trained entirely on legally sourced content, including Adobe Stock and publicly licensed or copyright-free images. By building a dataset that respects intellectual property, Adobe aims to mitigate the ethical concerns artists have expressed about their work being scraped from the web and used without their consent.

Additionally, Adobe has implemented licensing mechanisms within Firefly that empower artists to be part of the AI training process on their own terms. Artists can choose to license their work for use in Firefly’s dataset and are compensated if their work is used to train AI models or generate content. This not only ensures fair treatment but also creates a revenue stream for artists who wish to contribute to the AI revolution without compromising their rights.

Adobe’s Licensing Solutions

In addition to protecting the integrity of artistic work, Adobe has also focused on ensuring fair compensation for creators who contribute to the datasets used by AI models. Through Adobe Stock, artists can license their work to be used in various applications, including AI-generated art. Adobe’s compensation model allows artists to benefit from the growing use of AI in the creative sector, rather than being left behind or exploited.

By enabling proper licensing for stock content used in generative AI models, Adobe offers a sustainable way for artists to participate in the future of AI-powered creativity. This is especially important in an era where digital content is increasingly driven by machine learning algorithms. Adobe’s licensing solutions help bridge the gap between AI innovation and artist protection, ensuring that creators are rewarded for their contributions to these advanced technologies.

Protecting Artists in the Era of NFTs

Another area where Adobe is protecting artists from AI misuse is in the escalating field of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). As digital art becomes increasingly valuable in the NFT marketplace, artists face new risks from AI-driven art theft. Unauthorized copies of their work could be minted as NFTs without their knowledge or consent, undermining the ownership and value of their creations.

To combat this, Adobe has integrated CAI technology with leading NFT platforms like Rarible and KnownOrigin. By embedding CAI metadata into NFT art, Adobe allows artists to prove the originality and ownership of their digital work on the blockchain. This helps artists maintain control over their creations in the fast-moving NFT field, where authenticity is the key.

Furthermore, Adobe’s authentication tools are being expanded to include NFTs generated by AI. By binding AI-generated art to the same CAI standards, Adobe ensures that artists can trace and control how their work is used, even when it becomes part of an AI-generated output.

Adobe’s New Tool for Content Authenticity

Adobe recently unveiled a new web app set to launch in early 2025, designed to help creators protect their work from misuse by AI. This app is part of Adobe’s enhanced Content Credentials system, enabling artists to easily add their information—such as name, website, and social media links—directly to their digital creations, including images, videos, and audio.

A key feature of the app is the option for users to opt out of having their work used to train AI models. This directly addresses the growing concerns among artists about their creations being utilized without permission in generative AI datasets. The app also simplifies the tedious process of submitting requests to various AI providers.

Additionally, the app integrates with Adobe’s well-known platforms like Photoshop and Firefly, while also supporting content created with non-Adobe tools. Users can embed tamper-evident metadata, ensuring their work remains protected, even if it’s altered or screenshot.

The Bottom Line

Adobe’s efforts to shield artists from AI misuse demonstrate a forward-thinking approach to an urgent issue in the creative world. With initiatives like the Content Authenticity Initiative, the ethical training models of Firefly, and licensing solutions such as Adobe Stock along with the new content authenticity web tool, Adobe is laying the groundwork for a future where AI serves as a tool for creators rather than a threat to their creativity. As the distinction between AI-generated and human-made art becomes increasingly unclear, Adobe’s dedication to transparency, fairness, and empowering artists plays a crucial role in keeping creativity firmly in the hands of creators.

2 notes · View notes