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

321–330 of 390 posts

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

#321

Post by chlorion »

cheald wrote: post #264
kranke155 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s completely ridiculous to believe that copyright claims are unenforceable because you ran it through an ML transformation engine. I hope Getty sues and wins. Train your datasets on your own data! This is mass IP theft.

Nonsense. Observations about certain characteristics of a copyrighted work are not covered under that work's copyright. If I take a copyrighted book and produce a table of word frequencies in that book, no serious person would claim that the author's copyright domain extends to my table.

It wouldn't extend to your table, but if you used that table to generate a book of your own, it's very possible a serious person would claim the author's copyright extends to the generated book.

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

#322

Post by robocat »

kranke155 wrote: post #250
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 completely ridiculous to believe that copyright claims are unenforceable because you ran it through an ML transformation engine. I hope Getty sues and wins. Train your datasets on your own data! This is mass IP theft.

Be careful not to watch any copyrighted films through your kranke engine. The copyright owner could ask for all copies to be removed from wet storage, fair damages. I wouldn’t wish that on ainybody.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp... Slater claims the copyright (the monkey and the Canon EOS 5D DSLR definitely don’t have the copyright).

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

#323

Post by nomel »

nomel wrote: post #228
strangescript wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it copyright infringement to experience copyrighted material and make new art based on those experiences? Of course not. The end here is inevitable. Even if some really backward thinking judgements go through, eventually it will wash out. In 20 years AI will be generating absurd amounts of original content.

> Is it copyright infringement to experience copyrighted material and make new art based on those experiences? Yes, covered under "derivative work": https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf > A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already existing works. Common derivative works include translations, ..., art reproductions, abridgments, and condensations of preexisting works. Another common…

This is being downvoted, so I'm worried my understanding is incorrect. Could anyone explain how this is wrong? IANAL.

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

#324

Post by sojournerc »

Morgawr wrote: post #311
mr_toad wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How common is it for an artist to accidentally generate a work that resembles an existing work?

I can't speak for digital art because I'm not an artist but I can say it's extremely common for original music to (often accidentally/subconsciously) include melodies or pieces of melodies from other music.

That's more like two paintings sharing the same color scheme or using the same brand+color of paint but still being unique. The performance of those melodies and structures is what makes a song unique and creative.

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

#325

Post by [deleted] »

cameronh90 wrote: post #25
ClassyJacket wrote: post #20

I don't mean to be dismissive, but there's no doubt there'll be plenty of other places to host images like this. Does Stable Diffusion and the like automatically add some kind of steganographic code to images so it can be automatically detected, e.g. and not added to future training sets? Obviously this could be removed deliberately, but it would prevent the vast majority of cases.

By default, Stable Diffusion watermarks images. However as it's open source, it's obviously trivial to remove it.

[deleted]

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

#326

Post by dcow »

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 don't know if there's a clear answer to (1), but with respect to (2) I believe there is precedent that the copyright owner would have a strong case if they had reason to believe the python library author had seen their work and it played a roll in the transcription to python. You can't look at a GPL work and literally transcribe it to license launder. Companies have tried. You can implement a similar idea in a clean room, though.

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

#327

Post by chlorion »

shadowgovt wrote: post #85
ROTMetro wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question of whether it's copyrightable is completely up in the air right now. To my mind, emitting it into the Creative Commons somewhat side steps the question. Besides, there's all sorts of use cases where copyright is less relevant. Advertising agencies care less if their artwork gets copied because it puts it in front of more eyeballs. > There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images. I'm a…

The computer can generate artwork for your game, but only after training on other people's artwork that they spent effort and time creating. I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. You are basically side-stepping paying for artists by laundering their work in my eyes.

If you trained only on things that granted you permission to do so, or if you bought a bunch of art works to train on this would be really cool.

I am interested in seeing how this turns out legally. Copyright law is intended to protect humans and their intellectual property, and these "AI" or "ML" systems are not humans, so I am not so confident that generating work from other peoples is going to be legal.

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

#329

Post by eropple »

aaroninsf wrote: post #208
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…

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.

I do understand the technology at at least a lay level (unless your Scotsman is true by your conclusion), and it seems to me that the idea that it's "style" and not "permuting the input data" is one that seems to be a postulate, not a fact.

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

#330

Post by shadowgovt »

chlorion wrote: post #327
shadowgovt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question of whether it's copyrightable is completely up in the air right now. To my mind, emitting it into the Creative Commons somewhat side steps the question. Besides, there's all sorts of use cases where copyright is less relevant. Advertising agencies care less if their artwork gets copied because it puts it in front of more eyeballs. > There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images. I'm a…

The computer can generate artwork for your game, but only after training on other people's artwork that they spent effort and time creating. I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. You are basically side-stepping paying for artists by laundering their work in my eyes. If you trained only…

> I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work.

I think this is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of any attempt to ban the sort of technology, because a system like stable diffusion is just a denoiser attached to an image fitness algorithm that has been trained on a bunch of input. And we certainly can't make training such algorithms illegal; if we do, YouTube loses the ability to police uploads to its site overnight because such image recognizers can also be used to detect likely instances of copyright infringement.

Post reply on HN