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

171–180 of 390 posts

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

#171

Post by anigbrowl »

toomanydoubts wrote: post #118
hedora wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LOL how will they even know? Are they going to ask for every .psd and read the entire edit history? what's to stop you making images all day in SD, and when you find one you like, just tracing over it in a new layer?

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

#172

Post by cheald »

toomanydoubts wrote: post #118
hedora wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of Photoshop's built-in tools could arguably qualify as "AI models" (think things like content-aware fill!) - I don't think Getty would say that using them would disqualify your image, but isn't that essentially the same thing, except that this version is ultra high-powered version?

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

#173

Post by jarrenae »

I've actually been working on a stock photos site built around Stable Diffusion for some of these exact reasons. https://ghostlystock.com/ is the first version, but we're adding a bunch of useful features to make it more useful for people to find legitimately useful stock images.

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

#174

Post by fl0id »

naillo wrote: post #39
colordrops wrote: post #26

What about images that are a hybdrid, i.e. human composed but using AI elements? Similar to Worhol and photography. I'd imagine a large percentage of artwork will use this approach and Getty will have to evolve their stance to stay relevant.

I wonder if it applies to photoshop neural filters, or any kind of ML touchup like an instagram face filter. (Probably not but the line seems awfully thin and arbitrary.)

one big difference is - what was it trained on? It is unlikley a little photoshop filter, whether ML or not was trained on billions of images.

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

#176

Post by adamsmith143 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #143
karmasimida wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stable Diffusion is already out in the world. The cat is out of the bag.

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

#177

Post by wnevets »

cheald wrote: post #168
wnevets wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not that the watermark is on them per se, but that the model tried to emulate an image it had seen before which had a watermark on it. Imagine showing a child a bunch of pictures with Getty watermarks on them, then they draw their own, with their own emulation of the watermark. They don't know it's a watermark, they don't know what a watermark is, they just see this shape on a lot of pictures and put it on their…

> It's not that the watermark is on them per se, but that the model tried to emulate an image it had seen before which had a watermark on it. Imagine showing a child a bunch of pictures with Getty watermarks on them, then they draw their own, with their own emulation of the watermark. That's essentially what's going on.

The blurred watermark is what makes its obvious they used Getty's (copyrighted?) images to train the model.

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

#178

Post by peoplefromibiza »

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…

> consider the case of translating a literary work between languages: this is a classic example of a derivative work

This is a classic example of "you need a license on the original material to sell it" (unless it is public domain)

You need the rights also if you are translating from a pre existing translation in a different language (i.e. you're translating a Japanese book from the French authorized translation).

Translating an opera is not automatically derivative work and does not fall under the umbrella of fair use.

source: my sister is a professional translator

EDIT: technically you'd need to acquire the rights even if you translate it by yourself, for fun, and show it to someone else.

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

#179

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

How are you going to un-invent it? Will this involve confiscating GPUs or criminalizing owning more than 1 of them? The thing is much like the problem of gun control in a warzone; weapons are just not that hard to make especially if you have a surplus of parts.

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

#180

Post by sdenton4 »

cheald wrote: post #168
wnevets wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not that the watermark is on them per se, but that the model tried to emulate an image it had seen before which had a watermark on it. Imagine showing a child a bunch of pictures with Getty watermarks on them, then they draw their own, with their own emulation of the watermark. They don't know it's a watermark, they don't know what a watermark is, they just see this shape on a lot of pictures and put it on their…

It's not even necessarily trying to emulate any particular image it's seen before; it may just decide 'this is the kind of image that often has a watermark, so here goes.'
Post reply on HN