Images being removed.

The PP detection of AI images seems quite impressive. I put some AI images in a private album (not shared with anyone) a few months ago, and I received a system notification shorty afterwards telling me that my AI images had be detected and removed. I was both amused & impressed in equal measures. 🤣

Edited by Timmee

Timmee said

The PP detection of AI images seems quite impressive. I put some AI images in a private album (not shared with anyone) a few months ago, and I received a system notification shorty afterwards telling me that my AI images had be detected and removed. I was both amused & impressed in equal measures. 🤣

Edited by Timmee

Was that the album 'My best work'...? ;) :)

indemnity

Hard to say - as I haven't seen the rest. 🤣

Timmee said

The PP detection of AI images seems quite impressive. I put some AI images in a private album (not shared with anyone) a few months ago, and I received a system notification shorty afterwards telling me that my AI images had be detected and removed. I was both amused & impressed in equal measures. 🤣

PPCT members look at all images uploaded and can take appropriate actions such as reporting. Our lovely Admin will make a decision when reviewing reports.

There's nothing fancy going on :-)

I'm not sure that I see the problem here.  My understanding is that PP will remove an image that has been reported as possible AI generated, then contact the photographer to ask for a RAW or other proof that the image originated from a real photograph.  Have they not done so in this case?

There are a couple on your port which certainly could be mistaken for the products of AI. Most people want the wholly machine generated stuff kept off PP, but something which is a mix of photography and a lot of photoshop work (which I'm assume those ones are), is meant to be allowed, if some of the supporting bits are the product of AI 

  There are bound to be 'False positives' and once you decide 'this person posts AI generated stuff' it's very easy to sweep a lot their stuff into the "not allowed here" bucket.  I think if you can show your working the pictures should be restored but I've no idea what that process is. There should a way to appeal and serial [real] offenders should get banned. 

indemnity said

Have any selfies been removed?......;)

I'm surprised those were'nt marked as NSFW...👹. 🤣

Timmee said

The PP detection of AI images seems quite impressive. I put some AI images in a private album (not shared with anyone) a few months ago, and I received a system notification shorty afterwards telling me that my AI images had be detected and removed. I was both amused & impressed in equal measures. 🤣

Edited by Timmee

Yeah, but the whole point of this post was was that I wasn't using AI to create images. I was doing everything in Photoshop. The identification and removal process just seem ridiculously unfair and humiliating.... That's why I'm only uploading images now where I have done this style of work, but it's done where I have done it on models who can be tagged on PP, rather than upload an image that has been edited only, that is not a model on purple port

Gothic Image said

I'm not sure that I see the problem here.  My understanding is that PP will remove an image that has been reported as possible AI generated, then contact the photographer to ask for a RAW or other proof that the image originated from a real photograph.  Have they not done so in this case?

In some of those images I never claimed to be the original photographer anyway. I never tagged myself as the original photographer. Some of those images as well remained on Purpleport without being removed!

I think you seem to be missing the point completely. My images were removed as PP admin didnt believe I only use Photoshop, to create my edits. They thought I was just using prompts to create an edit which I wasn't.

If you have a photographer account and then mentioning you were not the photographer on some images on your profile, then you need to open a Photoshop Wizard account to run alongside.

I think if your work possibly looks like AI in future it may be a suggestion that you perhaps video your process of editing and send it to admin. It does sound a bit ott but some apps let you do this anyway without much hassle. So if anyone's work is questioned regularly , perhaps send admin over a video link of the process.

Of course the question than is does admin need to see a human hand at play? which most apps won't show, perhaps not because editing an image shows the process enough.

Edited by Wondrous

Parkstone Photography said

Gothic Image said

I'm not sure that I see the problem here.  My understanding is that PP will remove an image that has been reported as possible AI generated, then contact the photographer to ask for a RAW or other proof that the image originated from a real photograph.  Have they not done so in this case?

In some of those images I never claimed to be the original photographer anyway. I never tagged myself as the original photographer. Some of those images as well remained on Purpleport without being removed!

I think you seem to be missing the point completely. My images were removed as PP admin didnt believe I only use Photoshop, to create my edits. They thought I was just using prompts to create an edit which I wasn't.

This is unfortunately the destiny of almost all creative edits; they will be indistinguishable from AI.

Purpleport is doing the best it can with human surveillance. Automated surveillance might be better for your case (might be less likely to flag you as AI) but unless we as purpleport members are prepared to pay a lot more for membership I doubt it is plausible.

I am wondering if there is some sort of tool you can use to make an automatic montage of the layers of your images, which you then upload to a private album with each shot.

Frankly it is not only you who will have to do this, and increasingly I am wondering if there needs to be an "evidence" mechanism that allows extra file assets to be attached to photos that only admin/a team can view, so that people doing creative work can show it.

I would actually really like a mechanism where any photo could have this in a way that _can_ be shown, because sometimes I think it's nice to show your thinking/contact sheet/comedy outtakes only in the context of the original photo. Like a per-photo album. It might help encourage people to post fewer, better photos to their portfolios, knowing the alternates can still be shown. It's been part of an image management system I wrote years ago, as it goes.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Unfocussed Mike said

Parkstone Photography said

Gothic Image said

I'm not sure that I see the problem here.  My understanding is that PP will remove an image that has been reported as possible AI generated, then contact the photographer to ask for a RAW or other proof that the image originated from a real photograph.  Have they not done so in this case?

In some of those images I never claimed to be the original photographer anyway. I never tagged myself as the original photographer. Some of those images as well remained on Purpleport without being removed!

I think you seem to be missing the point completely. My images were removed as PP admin didnt believe I only use Photoshop, to create my edits. They thought I was just using prompts to create an edit which I wasn't.

This is unfortunately the destiny of almost all creative edits; they will be indistinguishable from AI.

Purpleport is doing the best it can with human surveillance. Automated surveillance might be better for your case (might be less likely to flag you as AI) but unless we as purpleport members are prepared to pay a lot more for membership I doubt it is plausible.

I am wondering if there is some sort of tool you can use to make an automatic montage of the layers of your images, which you then upload to a private album with each shot.

Frankly it is not only you who will have to do this, and increasingly I am wondering if there needs to be an "evidence" mechanism that allows extra file assets to be attached to photos that only admin/a team can view, so that people doing creative work can show it.

I would actually really like a mechanism where any photo could have this in a way that _can_ be shown, because sometimes I think it's nice to show your thinking/contact sheet/comedy outtakes only in the context of the original photo. Like a per-photo album. It might help encourage people to post fewer, better photos to their portfolios, knowing the alternates can still be shown. It's been part of an image management system I wrote years ago, as it goes.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

This is exactly what I said a few weeks back that people did not like, lol. It is becoming impossible to tell, although it does look like most of the image generators online may be adding metadata soon in every image to indicate its origin, which could serve as a checking point to determine if it's completely AI-generated.

CalmNudes said

 1. There are a couple on your port which certainly could be mistaken for the products of AI. 

2. Most people want the wholly machine generated stuff kept off PP

3. something which is a mix of photography and a lot of photoshop work (which I'm assume those ones are), is meant to be allowed, if some of the supporting bits are the product of AI 

 4. There are bound to be 'False positives' and once you decide 'this person posts AI generated stuff' it's very easy to sweep a lot their stuff into the "not allowed here" bucket

5. I think if you can show your working the pictures should be restored but I've no idea what that process is

6. There should a way to appeal and serial [real] offenders should get banned. 

  

Have had to bullet point to answer you

1. Definitely, I agree with you they could be mistaken for AI but they're not AI. None of the images are uploaded to PP now, or in the past, have ever been created solely by using prompts. In every single image I have uploaded to this platform I have created those images myself using Photoshop. 

2. Sorry to be blunt, but I really don't care what other people want on PP. I'm posting work that I'm proud of, that I have created using PS not only AI. I'm not posting work here to please other people. If they're not pleased, then that's not my problem. Like the old saying goes, "Let them grumble......" 

3. Yes I completely agree, which is why, just recently, I started saving not only files as I would normally when I do photography, but I also saved files as PSD, from PS, to show the layers and editing process. End of day, like I have said, I am not uploading any work just as an edit now. If I upload work in the future on PP, it will only be with a model that I have worked with that can be tagged by photos I have taken. I can show my other editing work on different social media platforms. On those platforms as well, I can show speed edits as well as the assets and images I have used.... 

4. Yes, I completely agree with you.

5. I could, but I'm not going to. 

6. There could, but as I said, I'm not going to. I'm going to do a fresh start on Purpleport and do things a different way in future. As for the way other people are handled on PP, I can't really say anything about that because I'm not admin...

ANDY00 said

Unfocussed Mike said

Parkstone Photography said

Gothic Image said

I'm not sure that I see the problem here.  My understanding is that PP will remove an image that has been reported as possible AI generated, then contact the photographer to ask for a RAW or other proof that the image originated from a real photograph.  Have they not done so in this case?

In some of those images I never claimed to be the original photographer anyway. I never tagged myself as the original photographer. Some of those images as well remained on Purpleport without being removed!

I think you seem to be missing the point completely. My images were removed as PP admin didnt believe I only use Photoshop, to create my edits. They thought I was just using prompts to create an edit which I wasn't.

This is unfortunately the destiny of almost all creative edits; they will be indistinguishable from AI.

Purpleport is doing the best it can with human surveillance. Automated surveillance might be better for your case (might be less likely to flag you as AI) but unless we as purpleport members are prepared to pay a lot more for membership I doubt it is plausible.

I am wondering if there is some sort of tool you can use to make an automatic montage of the layers of your images, which you then upload to a private album with each shot.

Frankly it is not only you who will have to do this, and increasingly I am wondering if there needs to be an "evidence" mechanism that allows extra file assets to be attached to photos that only admin/a team can view, so that people doing creative work can show it.

I would actually really like a mechanism where any photo could have this in a way that _can_ be shown, because sometimes I think it's nice to show your thinking/contact sheet/comedy outtakes only in the context of the original photo. Like a per-photo album. It might help encourage people to post fewer, better photos to their portfolios, knowing the alternates can still be shown. It's been part of an image management system I wrote years ago, as it goes.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

This is exactly what I said a few weeks back that people did not like, lol. It is becoming impossible to tell, although it does look like most of the image generators online may be adding metadata soon in every image to indicate its origin, which could serve as a checking point to determine if it's completely AI-generated.

Oh, I would not have disagreed with this. Alas, I think AI is going to ruin every trust mechanism it touches.

What would be better is if the major ones agreed to embed some kind of hidden, steganographic pattern that goes beyond metadata and emerged from the AI model itself (rather than added on at the end). But then it would always be possible to train a system *not* to do that.