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

91–100 of 390 posts

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

#91

Post by b800h »

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.

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.

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

#92

Post by jackblemming »

henryfjordan wrote: post #60
_1 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't there an issue a few years back about a photo taken by a monkey was non-copyrightable?

Yes and the ruling GP is citing is basically about that scenario but with a computer instead of a monkey. The monkey pressed the buttons on the camera without human direction, and so was the "author". Since the monkey is not a human, no copyright existed. In this case, the human claims the computer had no input at all, it did it by itself, hence no copyright. However we all know that computers can't do things by them…

“I setup the monkey to take the picture”

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

#93

Post by spookie »

mg wrote: post #56

A visualization of the announcement by a neural network: https://twitter.com/illubots/status/1572620909885669378 (I'm building an illustration agency for robot brains, aka neural networks. So far, I have 3 robots who can consistently draw in their unique style. This is by illustration robot Jonas)

That's a cool idea, wish you luck!

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

#94

Post by samstave »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#95

Post by adultSwim »

can16358p wrote: post #50

So, where is the line? Diffusion models, Midjourney: not accepted. Okay that was the easy part. What if I use a AI-powered sharpening tool like Sharpen AI? Technically it's adding "AI generation" to it. What about Photoshop neural filters? What if I just extend/"touch" an image using DALL-E or Midjourney and still have the original image but with slight additions? Probably what they mean is "majorly created with AI"…

It's not just splitting hairs either. Training datasets also come into play with tools like resolution upscalers.

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

#96

Post by zackmorris »

mikkergp wrote: post #63
zackmorris wrote: post #37

I always got a weird spidey sense from Getty Images and similar stock photo sites, and this just solidifies it. They exist in this limbo between open and closed, somehow finding a way to greatly enrich themselves while simultaneously not enriching their content contributors. Same for sites that put published papers behind paywalls, and even news sites that block access to articles unless the user goes to the enormous…

I love the micropayments idea for consumers, but I suspect it would be really hard to get businesses on board, similarly to how music companies lost money when moving from albums to individual songs, and now streaming.

Oh ya, good point. I hadn't considered the long tail problem, how democratizing music production counterintuitively killed the recorded music business so performing onstage is the only real way to make money now.

I feel like that problem is only going to spread to all industries, so that the only work that will be compensated is manual labor.

Someday we'll have to evaluate if running the rat race is the best use of human potential. Is that premature right now? Will it be in 10 years? I dunno, but I feel like now is the time to be solving this, not in some dystopian future where we spend our entire lives just working to make rent..

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

#97

Post by shadowgovt »

BashiBazouk wrote: post #87
shadowgovt wrote: post #42

Great. So who is now starting the Getty competitor that does accept these or (even better) accepts these and makes them available via CC license? With good custom and tagging, easier since you have the text prompt that generated the content, you could probably disrupt Getty's entire business model in half a year.

Why would you search a Getty competitor for AI generated images when you can just roll your own?

It's faster to sift through pre-generated images than to build novel ones.

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

#98

Post by jfoster »

spoonjim wrote: post #84
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…

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…

Yeah, I think it might actually be a good thing to have some of the copyright questions settled one way or the other.

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

#99

Post by OscarCunningham »

latchkey wrote: post #82
shadowgovt wrote: post #42

Great. So who is now starting the Getty competitor that does accept these or (even better) accepts these and makes them available via CC license? With good custom and tagging, easier since you have the text prompt that generated the content, you could probably disrupt Getty's entire business model in half a year.

I think the copyright stuff is a ruse to distract from the real thing... they just don't want AI artwork. I asked this same question on here a few days ago when another site blocked AI artwork. I realized that the more that AI artwork gets blocked, the more that this is an opportunity to provide exactly that! Niches make great business models. Someone responded... https://lexica.art/ While not quite exactly what I wa…

What would be the use-case of an AI-art library? The AI is the library.

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

#100

Post by zackmorris »

jppope wrote: post #38

Business opportunity right there...

Ya you're right, I always seem to go to the negative instead of recognizing opportunity. Companies that set these backwards-looking policies should be aware that someone else can always come along and eat their lunch. I'm always amazed that they think they can just get away with it without consequence!
Post reply on HN