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

41–50 of 390 posts

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

#41

Post by henryfjordan »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #34
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.

No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human.

It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.

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

#42

Post by shadowgovt »

Great.

So who is now starting the Getty competitor that does accept these or (even better) accepts these and makes them available via CC license?

With good custom and tagging, easier since you have the text prompt that generated the content, you could probably disrupt Getty's entire business model in half a year.

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

#43

Post by toomuchtodo »

henryfjordan wrote: post #41
toomuchtodo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human. It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic...

> An image generated through artificial intelligence lacked the “human authorship” necessary for protection

> Both in its 2019 decision and its decision this February, the USCO found the “human authorship” element was lacking and was wholly necessary to obtain a copyright, Engadget’s K. Holt wrote. Current copyright law only provides protections to “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind,” the USCO states. In his most recent appeal, Thaler argued this “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional, but the USCO has proven unwilling to “depart from a century of copyright jurisprudence.”

Lots of posts on the topic here: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=copyright+office+ai

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

#44

Post by GameOfFrowns »

karaterobot wrote: post #27
biggerChris wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You can also plagiarize someone else's work and submit it as your own, and they won't notice.

Or just take an image that is already in public domain and just slap a gettyimages® watermark on it...

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

#45

Post by supergnu »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #30
supergnu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

neither does AI. They don't operate in pixel space, but in latent space, which is the same as a mental model and the neural networks that do this even have a lot in common with how our visual cortex works. The conversion to pixel only happens in the last step when the concept has been generated as mental model (latent representation). They're doing the same thing human designers do, just orders of magnitude faster.

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

#46

Post by _1 »

henryfjordan wrote: post #41
toomuchtodo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human. It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.

Wasn't there an issue a few years back about a photo taken by a monkey was non-copyrightable?

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

#47

Post by Filligree »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #30
supergnu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither does the AI, so what’s the point?

Yes, if you look hard enough you’ll find some. But that’s true on either side.

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

#48

Post by hospadar »

It does seem like much of Getty's business is redundant if you can trivially generate "photograph of person laughing while eating a bowl of salad"

Maybe the new business is "reasonably high degree of trust that if it's a Getty image it's not an AI fake" for news outlets and the like who want to sell trustworthiness

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

#50

Post by can16358p »

So, where is the line?

Diffusion models, Midjourney: not accepted. Okay that was the easy part.

What if I use a AI-powered sharpening tool like Sharpen AI? Technically it's adding "AI generation" to it. What about Photoshop neural filters? What if I just extend/"touch" an image using DALL-E or Midjourney and still have the original image but with slight additions?

Probably what they mean is "majorly created with AI" but still then how is "majorly" defined then?

Post reply on HN