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

71–80 of 390 posts

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

#71

Post by chmod775 »

advisedwang wrote: post #51

So it's just for copyright reasons. I was wondering whether there were authenticity issues at stake? For example you can imagine someone wanting a stock image of "New York Skyline" and using an AI generated image that looks right but actually contains elements not in the skyline. This could undermine trust in Getty, which would be something they'd want to avoid.

Getty isn't alone in banning AI art, but they're doing it for different reasons than most.

Lots of art sites are currently being flooded by subpar AI generated garbage. If humans curate AI output and upload only that one-in-a-thousand good looking output, that is fine.

Instead we have bots uploading one image every few minutes, auto-generated from some randomly selected tags. Mostly the tags are wrong and the art should maybe instead be tagged such things as "grotesque" and "body-horror".

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

#72

Post by jjulius »

deltasevennine wrote: post #69
jjulius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 dis…

You asked why someone was downvoted for laughing about how AI-generated content is hard to detect/can still be submitted, and then asked, "How can this be in actuality prevented?". The comparison I was making was the comparison to the process of submitting plagiarized content, not whether or not AI-generated content and plagiarized works are the same thing.

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

#73

Post by ROTMetro »

can16358p wrote: post #55
shadowgovt wrote: post #42

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.

This. AI imagery is here to stay and will get better every day. A service should either embrace it or they will lose a significant portion of their users/customers to another who does support AI content. While most of the AI content is not ready for prime time in terms of coherence and resolution, it's just a matter of time that it reaches (and quickly surpasses) traditional methods.

But it's not copyrightable. I guess you can lie and say you created it, but you didn't, and computer generated. You created it no more than you created your house because you picked the layout and paint colors. There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images.

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

#74

Post by ISL »

wnevets wrote: post #68
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.

A little delay at $50k an infringement can go a long, long way.

I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is for infringement, but I bet it is two years or more.

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

#75

Post by lbotos »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #43
henryfjordan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Advisedwang summarizes it below, but here is the key line from the ruling:

https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

"the author of the Work was identified as the “Creativity Machine,” with Thaler listed as the claimant alongside a transfer statement: “ownership of the machine.”

USCO is maintaining that computers/AI cannot hold copyright, only humans can.

If Thaler were to submit again with his own name, I wholeheartedly expect that they would accept it as long as they have no reason to believe it's been previously copyrighted or is not "sufficiently creative". Is that copyright legitimate? Someone would have to then challenge it in court!

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

#76

Post by seibelj »

dylan604 wrote: post #13
z9znz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech world shows us that the winning strategy is to just go ahead and do what you want, ideally with consistent financial backing, and pay our way out of any issues that arise.

Yet another example of when you have money, normal rules no longer apply to you.

There is criminal and there is civil. Just because something is illegal (speeding, jay walk-ing) doesn’t mean I’m some sort of psychopath for ignoring those laws - I make a calculation about how likely it is I’ll be caught vs. time saved.

Similarly a business looks at a penalty and makes a judgement. This isn’t some insane immoral concept.

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

#77

Post by squeaky-clean »

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.

Once copyright rules for AI are ironed out, I imagine Getty will join in (or not be able to, if copyright law goes that way). Other commenters in this post have made points about the courts viewing AI as being non-copyrightable, but prompt-based AI works might be considered copyrightable. I think Getty just wants someone else to handle that inevitable legal battle first.

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

#78

Post by unity1001 »

deltasevennine wrote: post #31
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.

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…

> How can this be in actuality prevented?

By abolishing copyright and making crediting the author a habit. There is no way copyrights can survive the AI. There is no way human civilization will let 200 year old legal practices hold back technological advancement.

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

#79

Post by toss1 »

I'm not sure how they'd enforce it while they still accept other digital art,

But it seems a good decision, both on their stated concern about copyright (it's all a synthesis of the training sets, but who knows how much?), and also that AI art is effectively an infinite output stream that would very rapidly swamp all human output.

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

#80

Post by ISL »

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…

In addition, Getty won't want to be liable for hosting something on which a third party holds copyright and hasn't assigned it to the submitter. They'll have plenty of liability and they have deep pockets.
Post reply on HN