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

31–40 of 390 posts

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

#31

Post by deltasevennine »

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.

Why is this voted down? It's true. How can this be in actuality prevented?

Changing times. Not even imagery or art can be trusted. A whole range of human creativity based occupations is approaching the border of redundancy.

You can argue that they may never arrive at that border, but there is no argument to be made that this is the first time ever in the history of human kind where artists are approaching that border of redundancy.

And what does this mean for every other human occupation? The AI may be primitive now, but it's still the beginning and it it is certainly possible for us to be approaching a future where it produces things BETTER then what a human produces.

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

#32

Post by Ajedi32 »

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.

Stable diffusion does: https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion#reference-sampli...

Seems like a good idea to me with almost no downsides. If sites start discriminating against images based on that watermark though that's going to incentivize people to turn it off.

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

#34

Post by toomuchtodo »

daniel_iversen wrote: post #23

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 peop…

The US Copyright Office asserts that AI generated images can’t be copyrighted. Getty lives and dies by copyright and artificial scarcity/control of image rights.

For stock images and non current/news events, Stable Diffuison and its successors are the future.

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

#35

Post by supergnu »

kradeelav wrote: post #28
supergnu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spiritua…

so you say what disqualifies AI is that it's a lot faster than humans at doing the same task

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

#36

Post by an1sotropy »

Getty's business relies on the legal framework of copyright, and how it enables control (and sale) of the licensing of copyrighted material. And they're saying: nope - AI output is so ambiguous w.r.t. copyright and licensing of the inputs (when it's not flagrantly in violation, as with recreating our watermarks), that we want to steer totally clear of this.

When HN has discussed Github's Copilot [1] for coding, it seems like the role of copyright and licensing isn't discussed in much detail [2] (with some exceptions awhile back [3, 4]).

Do you think there is a software-development analog to Getty (I mean a company, not FSF), saying "no copilot-generated code here"? Or is the issue of copyright/licensing/attribution even murkier with code than for images?

[1] https://github.com/features/copilot/

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=false&qu...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32187362

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31874166

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

#37

Post by zackmorris »

I always got a weird spidey sense from Getty Images and similar stock photo sites, and this just solidifies it. They exist in this limbo between open and closed, somehow finding a way to greatly enrich themselves while simultaneously not enriching their content contributors. Same for sites that put published papers behind paywalls, and even news sites that block access to articles unless the user goes to the enormous effort of (gasp) opening a new private window in the browser.

I don't know how, but that stuff all has to end. We've got to move past this tragedy of the commons that's happening with copyright. We all suffer just so a handful of greedy rent seekers can be the gate keepers and shake us down.

I had hoped that we'd have real micropayments by now so people could each spend perhaps $10 per month and distribute those funds to websites they visit and content they download, a few pennies at a time. Instead we somehow got crypto pyramid schemes and NFTs.

I'm just, I'm just, I don't even know anymore! Can someone explain it? Why aren't the people with the resources solving this stuff? Why do they put that duty onto the hacker community, which has to toil its life away in its parents' basement on a shoestring budget as yet another guy becomes a billionaire?

I'm just so over all of the insanity. How would something like this AI ban even be enforceable? Whatever happened to fair use? Are they going to spy on everything we do now and send the copyright police? Truly, what gives them the right? Why are we paying these people again?

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

#39

Post by naillo »

colordrops wrote: post #26

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.

I wonder if it applies to photoshop neural filters, or any kind of ML touchup like an instagram face filter. (Probably not but the line seems awfully thin and arbitrary.)

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

#40

Post by speedgoose »

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.

Is it a big issue if some AI generated pictures are included in training datasets?

They would be cherry picked by humans, we don’t share the bad pictures, and generated from other/older models.

Post reply on HN