Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 390 posts

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#21

Post by supergnu »

kradeelav wrote: post #17
waffletower wrote: post #12

It is very easy to see hypocrisy in the FurAffinty statement: "Human artists see, analyze and even sample other artists’ work to create content. That content generated can reference hundreds, even thousands of pieces of work from other artists that they have consumed in their lifetime to create derivative images,” ... “Our goal is to support artists and their content. We don’t believe it’s in our community’s best int…

generated images =/= created AI generated images have the potential to be art in the eyes of the beholder, but let's not pretend that generation is the same as the mental, physical, and spiritual flow state that goes into painting or drawing a piece.

why not? human artists do exactly the same thing - combine learned patterns into new compositions.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#22

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

supergnu wrote: post #8

This is purely a PR move. They don't ban AI content because of fears of legal challenges, but because they see their entire business model fall to pieces. Why would anyone license images from them when they instead can generate any image for free? They only ban AI images in order to make PR with "fears of legal challenges" in the hope that the message that AI generated content could be a legal risk will stick in the…

I suspect that Getty makes most of their money from licensing current interest photos to news orgs.

I don't think that particular business is going anywhere (I hope -the last thing we need, is faked-up news images).

I think ShutterStock may be more threatened.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#23

Post by daniel_iversen »

Their legal worry probably makes sense, but my suspicious mind also feels like it's in their long-term interest maybe not to open pandora's box too much on letting AI art in, because wouldn't one of Getty's competitive advantages be the relationships it has with (I imagine) hundreds of thousands of artists? And so if they let AI art in then suddenly the historic artist relationship means less (because a lot more people can now contribute) and they may end up competing against new and emerging low-cost AI art marketplaces? Not sure, just speculating future scenarios and not eroding ones own competitive moat.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#24

Post by contravariant »

biggerChris wrote: post #19
cantSpellSober wrote: post #6

Email this morning: AI Generated Content Effective immediately, Getty Images will cease to accept all submissions created using AI generative models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall‑E 2, MidJourney, etc.) and prior submissions utilizing such models will be removed. There are open questions with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and there are unaddressed rights issues with respect to the underlying im…

It’s funny because, I can make an image and they wouldn’t know it’s A.i generated.

Doesn't matter, as far as they are concerned that's on you for breaking the terms and conditions. They're just 'making an effort' for legal reasons.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#25

Post by cameronh90 »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #20

I don't mean to be dismissive, but there's no doubt there'll be plenty of other places to host images like this. Does Stable Diffusion and the like automatically add some kind of steganographic code to images so it can be automatically detected, e.g. and not added to future training sets? Obviously this could be removed deliberately, but it would prevent the vast majority of cases.

By default, Stable Diffusion watermarks images. However as it's open source, it's obviously trivial to remove it.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#26

Post by colordrops »

What about images that are a hybdrid, i.e. human composed but using AI elements? Similar to Worhol and photography. I'd imagine a large percentage of artwork will use this approach and Getty will have to evolve their stance to stay relevant.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#27

Post by karaterobot »

biggerChris wrote: post #19
cantSpellSober wrote: post #6

Email this morning: AI Generated Content Effective immediately, Getty Images will cease to accept all submissions created using AI generative models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall‑E 2, MidJourney, etc.) and prior submissions utilizing such models will be removed. There are open questions with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and there are unaddressed rights issues with respect to the underlying im…

It’s funny because, I can make an image and they wouldn’t know it’s A.i generated.

You can also plagiarize someone else's work and submit it as your own, and they won't notice. But if they find out, it'll be removed and there will be some punitive action. I assume it's the same enforcement model in this case.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#28

Post by kradeelav »

supergnu wrote: post #21
kradeelav wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

generated images =/= created AI generated images have the potential to be art in the eyes of the beholder, but let's not pretend that generation is the same as the mental, physical, and spiritual flow state that goes into painting or drawing a piece.

why not? human artists do exactly the same thing - combine learned patterns into new compositions.

I think we may be talking about two different concepts regarding creation of art.

Absolutely humans (and myself, I'm a professional illustrator) use a mental patterns to come up with ideas.

The physical difference in AI generation is the lack of butt-in-chair time of the flow state. Painting/drawing/rendering art is not just mindless time to be compressed; it's a mental/physical/emotional/(and some would say spiritual) flow state with a lot of "input" abstractions beyond the patterns. Things like the creative's personal mood, personal past experiences, recent discussions with friends, recent texts they read ... those all fold into it. I wouldn't trade that flow state for the world, and it absolutely leaves fingerprints in my creations.

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#29

Post by lkbm »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #20

I don't mean to be dismissive, but there's no doubt there'll be plenty of other places to host images like this. Does Stable Diffusion and the like automatically add some kind of steganographic code to images so it can be automatically detected, e.g. and not added to future training sets? Obviously this could be removed deliberately, but it would prevent the vast majority of cases.

I haven't looked into exactly what it does, but it seems like there's a (hidden?) watermark: https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/69ae4b35e0a...

Re: Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of copyright claims

#30

Post by paulryanrogers »

supergnu wrote: post #21
kradeelav wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

generated images =/= created AI generated images have the potential to be art in the eyes of the beholder, but let's not pretend that generation is the same as the mental, physical, and spiritual flow state that goes into painting or drawing a piece.

why not? human artists do exactly the same thing - combine learned patterns into new compositions.

Humans don't usually do stroke for stroke copies of paintings. Or pixel for pixel sampling of photos, unless they get rights to the sources.
Post reply on HN