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

151–160 of 390 posts

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

#151

Post by rfrey »

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…

> Getty images should be planning a big pivot strategy

They very well might be, with step 1 of the plan being "delay".

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

#152

Post by LanceH »

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…

Is there a difference here?

With code, you literally copy it and put it in a device and fail to provide the source, breaking the GPL.

With a copyrighted set of images, you scan those and break them down into some set of data and then never need to actually copy the images themselves -- my understanding anyway.

Does that set of data contain copied works? Or is it just a set of notes about the works that have been viewed by the AI?

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

#153

Post by dingdong123 »

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,…

[dead]

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

#154

Post by belorn »

extra88 wrote: post #110
spoonjim wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cann…

> if I copy and paste one page from each of a thousand books it would be. It almost certainly would not be infringement. One page of text out of an entire work is very small. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is one of the factors considered when making a fair use defense. This hypothetical book would also have zero effect on the potential market for the sour…

A few seconds of a song is also very small, and yet it only take a few notes in some cases for a court to find someone guilty of copyright infringement.

> On top of that, if the plaintiff could win, the actual market value of the source work is relevant to damages and that value is likely almost nothing so congratulations, you tied up the legal system just to get one AI-image taken down.

The pirate bay trial gave precedence that people can be found guilty of copyright infringement in the general sense, rather than for a specific case of a copyrighted work. The lawyers for the site tried to argue that the legal system should had been forced to first go to court over a specific work with a specific person in mind who did the infringement, but the judges disagreed. According to the court it was enough that infringement was likely to have occurred somewhere and somehow. A site like getty could make the same argument that infringement of their images is likely to have occurred somewhere, by someone, and the court could accept that as fact and continue on that basis.

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

#155

Post by indymike »

ar-nelson wrote: post #129
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'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…

> 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!

Regardless of the copyright of the training data which really is unresolved, the copyright-ability of output of AI is questionable at best. There's no way to monetize the generated images for a stock art that isn't at risk of a court ruling pulling the rug from under it.

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

#156

Post by bdcravens »

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…

Any marketplace will eventually deal with low quality at scale without serious intervention. Amazon. Github when there's financial incentive for commits. eBay. Your local flea market. etc

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

#158

Post by indymike »

colinmhayes wrote: post #148
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but a computer is not a person - and copyright law is not very friendly to machine generated output.

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

#159

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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…

>No one was actually harmed. //

In a couple of years, unchecked, many artists will be out of work and companies like Getty will be making a lot less revenue. That's "harm" in legal terms.

On a previous SD story someone noted they create recipe pictures using an AI instead of using a stock service.

These sorts of developments are great, IMO, but we have to democratise the benefits.

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

#160

Post by bell-cot »

> The creators of AI image generators say the technology is legal...

I'd bet that said creators are not lawyers, nor (well-)advised by lawyers, nor even able to cite substantial law nor case law to back up that "say".

And with the extremely low bar for calling something "AI" these days - how close to "kinda like Google image search, but with a random filter or two applied" might a low-budget "AI" get?

Post reply on HN