Last Friday, the estate of famed 20th century American photographer Ansel Adams took to Threads to publicly shame Adobe for allegedly offering AI-generated art “inspired by” Adams’ catalog of work, stating that the company is “officially on our last nerve with this behavior.”
While the Adobe Stock platform, where the images were made available, does allow for AI generated images, The Verge notes that the site’s contributor terms prohibit images “created using prompts containing other artist names, or created using prompts otherwise intended to copy another artist.”
Adobe has since removed the offending images, conceding in the Threads conversation that, “this goes against our Generative AI content policy.”
However, the Adams estate seemed unsatisfied with that response, claiming that it had been “in touch directly” with the company “multiple times” since last August. “Assuming you want to be taken seriously re: your purported commitment to ethical, responsible AI, while demonstrating respect for the creative community,” the estate continued, “we invite you to become proactive about complaints like ours, & to stop putting the onus on individual artists/artists’ estates to continuously police our IP on your platform, on your terms.”
The ability to create high-resolution images of virtually any subject and in any visual style by simply describing the idea with a written prompt has helped launch generative AI into the mainstream. Image generators like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion and Dall-E have all proven immensely popular with users, though decidedly less so with the copyright holders and artists whose styles those programs imitate and whose existing works those AI engines are trained on.
Adobe’s own Firefly generative AI platform was, the company claimed, trained on the its extensive, licensed Stock image library. As such, Firefly was initially marketed as a “commercially safe” alternative to other image generators like Midjourney, or Dall-E, which trained on datasets scraped from the public internet.
However, an April report from Bloomberg found that some 57 million images within the Stock database, roughly 14% of the total, were AI generated, some of which were created by their data-scraping AI competitors.
“Every image submitted to Adobe Stock, including a very small subset of images generated with AI, goes through a rigorous moderation process to ensure it does not include IP, trademarks, recognizable characters or logos, or reference artists’ names,” a company spokesperson told Bloomberg at the time.
Did you think hitting delete on your AI chatbot conversation actually makes it disappear? Georgia Tech researchers just proved that's not entirely true. They have built a forensic tool called ORISA that can dig deleted conversations from your phone and even rebuild them into a working chatbot session you can keep talking to.
How can ORISA bring deleted AI conversations back?
Touchscreen laptops have been around for years. You can get them in all sizes and shapes. Just not from Apple. For years, the Cupertino giant has treated the idea of a touchscreen MacBook the way I treat a meeting that could have been an email: with open contempt. However, Wednesday looks like the day the company could finally change its mind.
The latest Apple invite puts the “Pro and Tell” showcase in Los Angeles at 10 a.m. PT (1 p.m. ET) on October 28, 2026. Instead of a regular live-streamed keynote, it is an invitation-only, hands-on event for a handful of press and creators (similar to what the company did for the MacBook Neo earlier this year).
Two residents of Chicago have filed a lawsuit in the US over claims that robots run by Coco Robotics and Serve Robotics captured their facial and hand measurements without consent, bringing renewed attention to the food delivery robots. The cases raise a troubling question: If a robot delivers food to your door, can it also be gathering sensitive information about you?
According to a report by The Associated Press, the proposed class-action lawsuits were filed in Cook County on Oct. 9 and allege violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaints claim that the robots’ cameras and LiDAR sensors captured information on customers’ faces and hands as they approached the machines to pick up their orders. Both have denied the allegations.