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

111–120 of 390 posts

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

#111

Post by tiborsaas »

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.

Of course it is. Following your logic no photograph can be copyrighted taken with a camera. After all, the subject already existed you've seen in your camera, you merely recorded the photons with a sensor, digital or analog, doesn't matter.

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

#112

Post by ReflectedImage »

Jevon23 wrote: post #109

The impression that I’m getting from a lot of the comments here (and a lot of past discussions about AI art on HN) is that tech people view the art industry as a “challenge”, and they want to use machine learning tools to “defeat” it - either because they just want to demonstrate the sheer power of these tools, or because they think artists are irrational for thinking that there’s something special about human art an…

That reads a lot like pretending that progress can be held back.

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

#113

Post by Jevon23 »

ReflectedImage wrote: post #112
Jevon23 wrote: post #109

The impression that I’m getting from a lot of the comments here (and a lot of past discussions about AI art on HN) is that tech people view the art industry as a “challenge”, and they want to use machine learning tools to “defeat” it - either because they just want to demonstrate the sheer power of these tools, or because they think artists are irrational for thinking that there’s something special about human art an…

That reads a lot like pretending that progress can be held back.

Is it “holding back progress” to ban the use of engines in chess tournaments?

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

#114

Post by furyofantares »

Jevon23 wrote: post #109

The impression that I’m getting from a lot of the comments here (and a lot of past discussions about AI art on HN) is that tech people view the art industry as a “challenge”, and they want to use machine learning tools to “defeat” it - either because they just want to demonstrate the sheer power of these tools, or because they think artists are irrational for thinking that there’s something special about human art an…

I'm simply deeply interested in knowing where this all goes. I'm not exactly forcing AI art into places where it's not wanted, but I am deeply interested in knowing where we will end up with all of this.

I have basically no prediction, but it feels like we're on the cusp of some very powerful tools. I don't know if it will end up just being a novelty, or if it will replace current jobs, or if it will simply create powerful tools for humans to make new art with. Just no clue.

In addition to this deep curiosity of what the future holds, I'm also very interested in it philosophically. I run a daily word game website, and every day's puzzle comes with an image that I generated for that day's words when you solve the puzzle. I often get people emailing in, asking who the artist was, because the day's image spoke to them, they found it beautiful.

It always feels like I'm giving them such a let down when I give them the answer. They were looking for a human connection. The most valuable thing isn't the technical skill; it's the connection to another human who generated this image (though the technical skill is a demonstration of the artist's commitment and is another thing to connect with). Finding out that a human didn't generate the image is a lead balloon. I find this a very interesting, salient example in the "what is art?" and "what is meaning?" categories.

It also brings me back to the tools question. Because, in many cases, ultimately there is a human connection to be made. I had an idea, and I worked with an AI to realize it. Sometimes it took quite a bit of work on prompts. Not nearly as much as it would take a technical artist, and I didn't get as exact an output as I had in my head.

But if they want a connection to another human imagining something that speaks to them, it's there, I imagined it and then a computer realized it. It's not as meaningful as a piece that an artist committed numerous hours to after a lifetime of honing the craft, but it's not devoid of meaning either. And I don't have any art skills to speak of, so in fact it enabled some human connection that wasn't possible before.

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

#115

Post by seibelj »

dylan604 wrote: post #101
seibelj wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>There is criminal and there is civil. Okay, but everything you said after that has nothing to do with that statement. You choosing to break laws has nothing to do with criminal vs civil. It has everything to do with where your moral compass points. You choose to break rules because you've decided to do that based on whatever moral integerity you do/don't have.

Sure but many laws are ridiculous and immoral. See slavery segregation anti-women laws etc. etc. People love to get in their moral high horse when it suits them (“Business bad!”) but conveniently ignore it in other cases.

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

#116

Post by thereisnospork »

spoonjim wrote: post #86
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.

How different[0] is that from a painter viewing ~half a dozen Getty images, then repainting in combination to not pixel-perfect, but near, detail? Afaik[1] the hypothetical painter has neither committed infringement on the source works and has input sufficient creative effort into the new that it would be copywritable.

[0]Granted it differs a little, but not by that much either.

[1]IANAL

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

#117

Post by z9znz »

retzkek wrote: post #107
z9znz wrote: post #10

Haha, Getty images should be planning a big pivot strategy, not worrying about AI content. I predict that within 5 years we will have this all refined to the point where we can generate almost any image we want, to our liking. If you're shopping for a stock photo, you only have what's available. I've looked for things before, and sometimes you have lots of options which just aren't quite what you want. So you take "g…

1. Train AI model using your massive library of stock images and offer image generation to your massive existing customer base. 2. Sue or C&D all other image generation services that can be shown to be using models trained in part with your images. 3. Profit! It's really not a far step from "search for existing images with these keywords" to "generate image from these keywords/prompt". There's also the option to star…

> It's really not a far step from "search for existing images with these keywords" to "generate image from these keywords/prompt". There's also the option to start with stock images, pick the closest, and have AI refine it to better match the user's vision, so now instead of "good enough" you have "perfect."

This is what I expect to see soon, from many competing providers. There are more than enough free images to train from such that Getty doesn't really have an advantage (imo).

Unfortunately for them, I suspect they will follow the "big laggard corporation" playbook and use protectionist strategies instead of evolutionary. So they'll be late, and they'll lose significance.

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

#118

Post by toomanydoubts »

hedora wrote: post #103
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…

What if someone uses the Stable Diffusion editor plugin for photoshop, etc?

I don't see how that's an issue. Using photoshop doesn't automatically allow you to post the images. You can post the images IF it was not made/edited by an AI model, regardless of if photoshop was used.

If you use the Stable Diffusion plugin, then you're using stable diffusion, and therefore can't post the image. It doesn't matter at all that you used the photoshop plugin.

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

#120

Post by space_fountain »

Jevon23 wrote: post #109

The impression that I’m getting from a lot of the comments here (and a lot of past discussions about AI art on HN) is that tech people view the art industry as a “challenge”, and they want to use machine learning tools to “defeat” it - either because they just want to demonstrate the sheer power of these tools, or because they think artists are irrational for thinking that there’s something special about human art an…

There are different sorts of creative excises. I do think that there is something interesting going on in the contrast between generative art and generative programing responses, but it's also true that most creative output is work and isn't done for the joy of doing it. Getty images exists to provide quick easy to use stock images not to plumb the depths of human existence. Photo realistic painting or abstract art will remain interesting and some people will want to know it was done by a human just like cameras, photoshop, and digital art in general hasn't destroyed the market for paintings, but they have pretty much destroyed the market for portrait painters. Idk what the future will bring, but it probably won't be a bunch of humans hired to paint the goings on at red carpets and it probably will involve AI doing more of what we might call creative work
Post reply on HN