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

81–90 of 390 posts

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

#81

Post by elcomet »

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…

Because it's a legal thing, not a practical thing. If they're preparing a lawsuit, they want to show the court that they forbid people from uploading AI-generated images. It's a rule without real enforcement.

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

#82

Post by latchkey »

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.

I think the copyright stuff is a ruse to distract from the real thing... they just don't want AI artwork.

I asked this same question on here a few days ago when another site blocked AI artwork. I realized that the more that AI artwork gets blocked, the more that this is an opportunity to provide exactly that! Niches make great business models.

Someone responded...

https://lexica.art/

While not quite exactly what I was thinking, I think it is a good first start.

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

#83

Post by ISL »

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.

They can ask that you assert, under substantial penalty of assuming Getty's potential liabilities, that it was not AI generated.

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

#84

Post by spoonjim »

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…

There are two separate open US legal questions:

1) Does the use of copyrighted images in the OpenAI training model make the output a copyright infringement? This is not yet settled law. If I read a thousand books and write my own book, it's not an infringement, but if I copy and paste one page from each of a thousand books it would be.

2) Can an OpenAI generated image be copyrighted? Courts have ruled that an AI cannot hold a copyright itself, but whether or not the output can be copyrighted by the AI's "operator" depends a lot on how the AI is perceived as a tool vs. as a creator. Nobody would argue that Picasso can't hold a copyright because he used a brush as a tool, but courts have ruled that a photographer couldn't hold the rights to a photo that a monkey took with his equipment. The ruling here will probably stem from whether the AI is ruled to be a creator itself, which the human just pushes a button on, vs. a tool like a brush, which needs a lot of skill and creativity to operate.

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

#85

Post by shadowgovt »

ROTMetro wrote: post #73
can16358p wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question of whether it's copyrightable is completely up in the air right now. To my mind, emitting it into the Creative Commons somewhat side steps the question.

Besides, there's all sorts of use cases where copyright is less relevant. Advertising agencies care less if their artwork gets copied because it puts it in front of more eyeballs.

> There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images.

I'm a game developer but not an artist. If a computer can generate the artwork for my game, I completely get to sidestep paying an artist for that work. That's huge value. I would pay a subscription service to a database of AI generated content even if it couldn't be copyrighted.

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

#86

Post by spoonjim »

hospadar wrote: post #48

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

But if OpenAI's ability to create a photograph of a person laughing while eating a bowl of salad is due to mashing up these photos that were mainly from Getty Images, then Getty and its photographers would have a reasonable claim.

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

#87

Post by BashiBazouk »

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.

Why would you search a Getty competitor for AI generated images when you can just roll your own?

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

#88

Post by spoonjim »

mg wrote: post #56

A visualization of the announcement by a neural network: https://twitter.com/illubots/status/1572620909885669378 (I'm building an illustration agency for robot brains, aka neural networks. So far, I have 3 robots who can consistently draw in their unique style. This is by illustration robot Jonas)

These are really cool

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

#89

Post by lbotos »

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"…

They are hedging their bets. Effectively the only time this will get resolved is if someone takes an AI artist to court for alleged infringement. Then and only then will the law be clarified wrt AI art.

Until then, Getty is betting their business on the parts of copyright law they know well to reduce risk.

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

#90

Post by init2null »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #32
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.

many people, if not most, use one of the many forks with the watermarking and the aggressive nsfw filter removed from the code. Graphics card RAM and speed is precious.
Post reply on HN