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

201–210 of 390 posts

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

#201

Post by iudqnolq »

anigbrowl wrote: post #166
advisedwang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A distinction without a difference, since this was just someone who was hoping to be the beneficial owner of an AI with an enforceable copyright interest. Recall the failure of the photographer who allowed monkeys to play with his camera equipment, leading one of them to take a selfie photo that became famous. The photographer asserted copyright on the basis that he had brought his camera there, befriended the monkey…

"Is an AI-created work copyrighted and owned by the AI?" and "Is an AI-created work copyrighted and owned by a human?" and " Is an AI-created work copyright infringement?" are three separate questions.

Just because the answer is no to the first doesn't mean the answer is no to the second, and the third is ever more distinct. That's why this is an open question educated lawyers make guesses about.

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

#202

Post by TillE »

Imnimo wrote: post #138

I'm not a copyright lawyer or anything, but the way I look at it is that the big concern is that you can't easily prove that a particular AI output is not just a memorized copyrighted training example. So even if we assume that it is perfectly allowable to train your model on unlicensed images, that doesn't protect you if your model spits out a carbon copy (or something close enough to be infringing) of a copyrighted…

Yeah, it's pretty easy to get Stable Diffusion to spit out images which are blatantly recognizable as slight distortions of real photographs or product images. I think "medieval market square" was a prompt which got me variations of one photo of a European city.

It's sophisticated software, but the analogy with teaching a human artist really doesn't hold. Ultimately it's making complex mashups, and the copyright law around that is not straightforward.

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

#203

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

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?

A) This is just taking divided opinion and treating it like a person with a contradictory opinion (as others have noted).

B) Nothing about GPL makes it "less copyrighted". Acting like a commercial copyright is "stronger" because it doesn't immediately grant certain uses is false and needs to be challenged whenever the claim is made.

C) If anything, I suspect image generation is going to be practically more problematic for users - you'll be exhibiting a result that might be very similar to the copyrighted training, might contain a watermark, etc. If you paste a big piece of GPL'd copy into your commercial source code, it won't necessarily be obvious once the thing is compiled (though there are whistleblowers and etc, don't do it).

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

#204

Post by pessimizer »

unity1001 wrote: post #78
deltasevennine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

> There is no way human civilization will let 200 year old legal practices hold back technological advancement.

Human civilization has kings and queens, and laws based on the sayings of ancient prophets.

Instead of trying to figure out what "human civilization" will accept, figuring out what current wealthy capital-owners will accept will be more predictive.

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

#205

Post by Retric »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #165
tobyjsullivan wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they were humans, a court could deem the outputs copyright infringement I'm not sure I understand how this is self-evident. The closest equivalent I can see would be a human who looks at many pieces of art to understand: - What is art and what is just scribbles or splatter? - What is good and what isn't? - What different styles are possible? Then the human goes and creates their own piece. It turns out, the lega…

It's worth pointing out that the problem, in this scenario, is for the creator (ie, the human running the algorithm). They will need to determine whether a piece might violate copyright before using it or selling it. That seems like a very hard problem, and could be the justification for more [new] blanket rules on the AI process.

Proving artwork you created is free from all copyright issues is similarly impossible, but in practice isn’t an issue. So, I don’t see any AI specific justification being relevant.

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

#207

Post by [deleted] »

bakugo wrote: post #147
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.

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by aaroninsf »

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…

Unfortunately for the Getty et al, "feels like" is worth exactly $0.

Any court that understands the technology at even a lay level, has no path to find infringement applying existing precedent.

NB "style" is not protected.

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

#209

Post by b800h »

unity1001 wrote: post #199
b800h wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> we may actually completely ban AI and any sufficiently strong ML algorithm. Who are 'you'. The US, or maybe Angloamerican countries may do it. Many countries won't. Those who don't do it, will get ahead of everyone else.

At what cost? Perhaps the WMD comparison continues to work here.

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

#210

Post by Turing_Machine »

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...

That's Getty's business model.
Post reply on HN