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

61–70 of 390 posts

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

#61

Post by freejazz »

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.

How are you going to sell stock images if you can't copyright them??

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

#62

Post by jfoster »

Reading between the lines of this, it sounds to me like Getty is preparing a copyright claim against the AI companies:

1. They seem of the opinion that the copyright question is open.

2. Their business stands to lose substantially as a result of such models existing.

3. It would be a bad look for them to make a claim whilst simultaneously accepting works from the models into Getty.

4. At least some of their watermarked content seems to have been included in the training data of the OpenAI model: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32573523

If I'm correct about that, they will probably not settle, as their business was likely worth substantially more than any feasible settlement arrangement.

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

#63

Post by mikkergp »

zackmorris wrote: post #37

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…

I love the micropayments idea for consumers, but I suspect it would be really hard to get businesses on board, similarly to how music companies lost money when moving from albums to individual songs, and now streaming.

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

#65

Post by benzin »

Until paint was produced commercially during the Industrial Revolution (circa 1800), painters had to make their own paints by grinding pigment into oil.[1]

Photography drove painting deeper towards abstraction. [2]

I'm not unsympathetic but the AI revolution might be a similar revolution despite fiddling with code currently being much less pleasant than flinging industrially mass-produced paint from mass-produced tools in a sunlit studio. At least in the medium term, someone will still have to manage the machine.

[1] http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/paintings4.html

[2] http://www.peareylalbhawan.com/blog/2017/04/12/how-the-inven...

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

#66

Post by yieldcrv »

habibur wrote: post #49

If AI generated Images are of better quality than the alternatives, getty or other orgs rejecting AI won't suppress its rise. Rather alternate markets for these images will arise quickly, and people will flock there leaving getty behind.

I'm looking at this too. The kneejerk reaction over the last few weeks has been for incumbent communities to start discriminating against AI art due to a standard of creative merit that they can't articulate. Whereas the AI art communities are rapidly iterating with what is a very creative process, that is just new and unfamiliar. I fully expect them to refine and articulate what that is. Controlling Stable Diffusion with variables is honing one's tools, seeding it with a sketch is very creative. Having tools for faster processing is no different than other content creation and what artists do. I think these communities will make their own places very quickly. Some people will monetize, others are just more able to fulfill their creative vision which I'm more a fan of than gatekeeping how much discipline is necessary to do art.

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

#67

Post by toomuchtodo »

freejazz wrote: post #61
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.

How are you going to sell stock images if you can't copyright them??

One could sell ML API credits to generate the images. For sure, industry revenue volume would decline if once an image is generated, you can’t lock those specific bits up behind copyright.

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

#68

Post by wnevets »

jfoster wrote: post #62

Reading between the lines of this, it sounds to me like Getty is preparing a copyright claim against the AI companies: 1. They seem of the opinion that the copyright question is open. 2. Their business stands to lose substantially as a result of such models existing. 3. It would be a bad look for them to make a claim whilst simultaneously accepting works from the models into Getty. 4. At least some of their watermark…

> 1. They seem of the opinion that the copyright question is open.

I'm surprised it has taken this long to be honest. I've seen generated images with the blurred Getty watermark on them.

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

#69

Post by deltasevennine »

jjulius wrote: post #58
deltasevennine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Why is this voted down? It's true. How can this be in actuality prevented? It's no different than submitting a plagiarized essay to a teacher. Yeah, it's often hard to detect/prevent such submissions and you could even get away with it. But if you get caught, you'll still get in trouble and it will be removed.

This is different from plagiarism. Because in plagiarism there is an original that can be compared against. There is a specific work/person where a infraction was commit-ed against.

In AI produced artwork, the artwork is genuinely original and possibly better then what other humans can produce. No one was actually harmed. Thus in actuality it offers true value if not better value then what a human can produce.

It displaces humanity and that is horrifying, but technically no crime was committed, and nothing was plagiarized.

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

#70

Post by squeaky-clean »

can16358p wrote: post #50

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"…

Yeah I'm curious too. My first thought was the recent post of the Blender3d plugin for using StableDiffusion to generate textures. If you made an elaborate 3d render, but most of your textures were AI generated, is that excluded? The wording suggests it would be banned, but it's not detailed enough to be sure.
Post reply on HN