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

141–150 of 390 posts

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

#141

Post by pbhjpbhj »

anigbrowl wrote: post #122
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…

I predict they'll lose because any of the existing contenders floats effortlessly over the 'transformativity' hurdle. While I'm worried about the impact of widely deployed AI on commercial artists, musicians etc. and don't think many developers have really come to grips with the implications and possibilities for all fields, including their own, I feel nothing but amusement at the grim prospects of commercial image b…

It seems clear that such training of AIs requires copying an image onto a computer system in which the training algorithms are performed. Maybe that fits in Fair Use (I doubt it: it's commercial and harms the original creators) but it certainly doesn't fit in Fair Dealing (in UK).

I certainly, personally, approve of weak copyright laws that allows for things like training AIs without getting permission; neither USA, EU, nor UK seem to have such legislation however.

This is all personal opinion and not legal advice, nor related to my employment.

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

#142

Post by egypturnash »

b800h wrote: post #91
unity1001 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think there's a strong case for arguing that we may actually completely ban AI and any sufficiently strong ML algorithm. AI hasn't even realised a millionth of its potential yet, and it's already running rings around humans (cf. algorithmic feeds driving political conflicts online). I think potentially it will cease to be tolerated and be treated a bit like WMDs.

I am beginning to feel like the Butlerian Jihad may have had the right idea.

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

#143

Post by pbhjpbhj »

karmasimida wrote: post #133
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…

They should sue, and it will clarify things a bit, and the matter would be settled for the years to come. What is certain is that AI-powered image creation will here to stay forever.

But this will decide whether it's democratised or locked-up by those who own large bodies of training data.

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

#144

Post by j-bos »

GameOfFrowns wrote: post #44
karaterobot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Getty's way ahead of you: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-ag...

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

#145

Post by preinheimer »

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.

First time I generated an image that had some iStockPhoto watermarks on it I started getting really uncomfortable.

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

#146

Post by judge2020 »

nneonneo wrote: post #136
ar-nelson wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of confidence on HN and other tech communities that a court would never rule that training an AI on copyrighted images is infringement, but I'm not so sure. To be clear, I hope that training AI on copyrighted images remains legal, because it would cripple the field of AI text and image generation if it wasn't! But think about these similar hypotheticals: 1. I take a copyrighted Getty stock image (that…

It’s not about reconstruction, it’s about the notion of a “derivative work”. Translating a work would absolutely be derivative (consider the case of translating a literary work between languages: this is a classic example of a derivative work). Blurring a work but incorporating it would nonetheless still be derivative, I think. The challenge with these models is that they’ve clearly been trained on (exposed to) copyr…

Note that a derivative work doesn't instantly make it 'fair use' for the purposes of copyright. You typically still need 'adaptation' permission from the copyright holder to made a derivative work of it, so you can't make 'Breaking Bad: The Musical' by recreating major scenes in a play format, at least not without substantially changing it[0].

For the purpose of fair use, copyright.gov has an informative section titled "About Fair Use" which details what sort of modifications and usage of a copyrighted work would be legal without any permission from the copyright holder https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/#:~:text=a)(3).-,About%20...

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_My_Name!_(Musical)

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

#147

Post by bakugo »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #131

It's always weird to see the contrast between HN's reaction to copyright questions about text/image generation, and HN's reaction when it's code generation. When a model is trained on 'all-rights-reserved' content like most image datasets, the community say it's fair game. But when it's 'just-a-few-rights-reserved' content like GPL code, apparently the community says that crosses a line? Realistically, this tells me…

If this was a website for artists instead of programmers you'd see the exact opposite pattern. Unfortunately, people only seem to care when it threatens their own livelihood, not when it threatens that of the people around them.

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

#148

Post by colinmhayes »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #141
anigbrowl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I predict they'll lose because any of the existing contenders floats effortlessly over the 'transformativity' hurdle. While I'm worried about the impact of widely deployed AI on commercial artists, musicians etc. and don't think many developers have really come to grips with the implications and possibilities for all fields, including their own, I feel nothing but amusement at the grim prospects of commercial image b…

It seems clear that such training of AIs requires copying an image onto a computer system in which the training algorithms are performed. Maybe that fits in Fair Use (I doubt it: it's commercial and harms the original creators) but it certainly doesn't fit in Fair Dealing (in UK). I certainly, personally, approve of weak copyright laws that allows for things like training AIs without getting permission; neither USA,…

How is this any different from training artists? Other art is copied into their brain and they transform it to create something new.

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

#150

Post by pbhjpbhj »

advisedwang wrote: post #59
toomuchtodo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Take a look at the decision: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... The person was still trying to get the AI marked as the owner. In fact in the application "does not assert that the Work was created with contribution from a human author" which the office acceded to but did not actually agree or disagree with. So it still says nothing about whether a human can have copyright over a image the…

I feel like recent considerations on the need to be creative in producing prompts for AIs like Stable Diffusion to work on/with promotes the argument that a human is sufficiently involved in the process (some times!) to warrant a claim to ownership of the copyright. If they trained the AI then I think it would be a no-brainer in favour of the human being a creative input into the creation of the work.

Just my personal opinion.

Post reply on HN