[HN Gopher] Getty Images v. Stability AI - Complaint
___________________________________________________________________
Getty Images v. Stability AI - Complaint
Author : toss1
Score : 188 points
Date : 2023-02-05 19:58 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (copyrightlately.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (copyrightlately.com)
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Getty Images is forced to do it.
|
| Building a collection of stock images is the predecessor to
| generating images from text.
| kgwgk wrote:
| "Making matters worse, Stability AI has caused the Stable
| Diffusion model to incorporate a modified version of the Getty
| Images' watermark to bizarre or grotesque synthetic imagery that
| tarnishes Getty Images' hard-earned reputation"
|
| Not sure about their reputation but they have a point with the
| bizarre/grotesque thing.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| Nevermind Getty, I wonder how contributors who use Creative
| Commons licenses will feel. Anyone who's uploaded to Flickr, or
| Wikimedia Commons, or even YouTube could be victimized by AI
| generation.
|
| The AI will launder the content just like GitHub's CoPilot, and
| attribution will be impossible on the other end. Since Creative
| Commons licenses are not PD, and often do require attribution
| (CC-BY) or they prohibit commercial usage (CC-NC) or they require
| that derivatives must be licensed the same way (CC-SA) or even
| prohibit derivatives outright (CC-ND) all of those requirements
| are going to be stomped into dust by generative AI.
|
| And those licensors won't be big enough to sue anyone.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| This is a strange take. Folks who choose to use a CC license do
| so because they want their work in the public and to be "Use(d)
| & Remix(ed)" https://creativecommons.org/use-remix/. The
| creative commons is very clearly designed to encourage reuse,
| remix and sharing, and the practice of suing over not following
| terms to the letter is a gross warping of the license that's
| happened over the last few years with copyright trolls. The
| Creative Commons organization has explicitly called this out.
| [1]
|
| But I would argue that Stable Diffusion with the open-sourcing
| of their model weights, and use of the LAION dataset which is
| released under CC-BY 4.0, would likely meet both the letter and
| intent of the license.
| https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC_Attribution-ShareAl...
|
| 1 - https://creativecommons.org/2022/02/08/copyleft-trolls/
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| Are you trying to tell us here that if someone refuses to
| conform to the terms of my Creative Commons license, such as
| attribution, that I would be wrong to sue them over copyright
| violation? Folks who use specific CC licenses want the
| licensees to abide by those terms, and we can legally enforce
| that compliance. Content creators are not copyright trolls,
| so please do not tar them all with the same brush.
| LegitShady wrote:
| you could sue them but there are basically no damages, so
| it wouldn't matter.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| Of course not all content creators are trolls. The jump to
| sue and the assumption that all of this is somehow
| victimizing everyone who has released content in the CC
| license is troll-like thinking.
|
| Like I said before, I believe there's a strong argument
| that Stability AI / LAION's use of CC-{BY/SA/ND} is likely
| allowed under the terms of all CC licenses due to the works
| being shared without alteration and with attribution,
| released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (LAION) and the Stable
| Diffusion model being released under a permissive license
| (CreativeML Open RAIL-M).
|
| The real question is if the images generated by the models
| need to provide attribution to every single weight involved
| in generating that image. That's a lot more complicated and
| unclear, but quickly gets into questions like "Should
| artistic style be copyrightable?" and "What amount of
| source material is required to constitute a copyrighted
| work?". But as of right now, I don't see how any of this is
| violating the letter or intent of CC 4.0
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Direct link: https://copyrightlately.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/02/Getty...
| extheat wrote:
| Copyrighted content on the internet isn't a free for all for
| people to train models with. No matter the good intentions, if
| Stability AI didn't take reasonable steps to remove copyrighted
| data from the training set then IMO they have an uphill battle to
| prove the case to a jury (if it gets there).
| visarga wrote:
| Good, how about training on variations of real images?
| Variations should not be copyrightable since they contain no
| human input, and they should be sufficiently different from the
| originals. So the trained model can't possibly reproduce
| exactly any original because it hasn't seen one.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| I wonder if Getty and Stability AI were ever in negotiation for
| licensing their work and this lawsuit is fallout.
|
| Getty announced in Oct they partnered with BRIA (?) to provide
| generative AI tools using their licensed images [1], and
| Shutterstock announced a partnership with OpenAI [2].
|
| So it's clear these rights holders are OK with generative AI, as
| long as they continue to extract their pound of flesh. The
| language around "protecting artists" is horseshit - if you're a
| creative and you see Disney, Getty, etc getting behind your
| cause, you should look _very_ carefully around and make sure
| you're not the one being screwed.
|
| 1 - https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/bria-
| partne... 2 -
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/25/23422359/shutterstock-ai...
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It's not hypocritical to be upset at someone else stealing your
| content to sell it, just because you sell it yourself. That's
| probably a part of why you're upset - because you don't get the
| money.
|
| My understanding is that _in general_ , artists aren't
| necessarily against generative AI, but their complaint is
| (partly) around a complete lack of consent of being a part of
| these training models.
| jalev wrote:
| From the article it might be read as "Stability AI didn't even
| bother attempting to reach out"
|
| > Rather than attempt to negotiate a license with Getty Images
| for the use of its content, and even though the terms of use of
| Getty Images' websites expressly prohibit unauthorized
| reproduction of content for commercial purposes such as those
| undertaken by Stability Al, Stability AI has copied at least 12
| million copyrighted images from Getty Images' websites, along
| with associated text and metadata, in order to train its Stable
| Diffusion model.
| rosywoozlechan wrote:
| > as they continue to extract their pound of flesh
|
| Be compensated for the use of their content is maybe a more
| accurate and friendlier way to phrase this, but I guess not as
| edgy.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Is it truly their content? It's private people uploading
| these pictures to these sites right?
| notahacker wrote:
| Private people who agreed that Getty would manage their
| distribution and compensate them when their image was used
| by one of Getty's clients, yes.
|
| So yeah, not only is it very much Getty's content to
| distribute, but Stability AI is absolutely screwing over
| thousands of little guys by not paying royalties too...
| hobobaggins wrote:
| It's actually a fairly common idiom in English, dating prior
| to Shakespeare:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_of_Flesh
| [deleted]
| ninth_ant wrote:
| I don't feel like it's even slightly contradictory for Getty to
| simultaneously be OK with licensing their content to someone
| for AI modeling, but not being OK with a random unaffiliated
| company using their IP. It feels like pretty straightforward
| copyright management.
|
| "Protecting artists" is not something they claimed as if they
| were opposed to AI usage at all. In their press release they
| said:
|
| > It is Getty Images' position that Stability AI unlawfully
| copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright
| and the associated metadata owned or represented by Getty
| Images absent a license to benefit Stability AI's commercial
| interests and to the detriment of the content creators.
|
| It's clear from this that the issue was not that Stability is
| an AI company, but that it's unlicensed. Getting an exclusive
| license to the images is specifically what they pay
| contributors for. Having those copyrights infringed by a
| competitor makes the content less valuable to Getty, and
| disincentivizes Getty from paying for new content in the
| future.
|
| So yeah, it's plausible that this behaviour from Stability
| could harm content creators. Not because it's AI, but because
| its just run-of-the-mill unauthorized usage.
| jbenjoseph wrote:
| I don't see this working for Getty but it will be interesting to
| see. Israel and the EU have preemptively determined that the use
| of copyrighted data to train ML models is almost always fair use,
| and I believe the Authors Guild case in the USA also sets strong
| precedent there. That really leaves the UK, and they are likely
| to go with everyone else.
| QuantumGood wrote:
| A problem is that visual artists could be paid a lower licensing
| fee for using their art to feed an AI than they would be in a
| per-image fee to the end user.
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| Let's say that a human painter learned to paint by reproducing
| copyrighted works. Would the copyright owners have a claim on
| that painter's work after he finished learning?
| LegitShady wrote:
| but they're not humans, so it doesn't matter.
| visarga wrote:
| Historically apprentices had to work for years in their
| master's shops, and their work was passed as belonging to their
| master.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| There's a couple of Mona Lisas. I think that these were done
| by Da Vinci's apprentices.
| j-bos wrote:
| This argument has been feeling flat for a while (to me!) And
| now I think I can articulate why. This isn't a human, until the
| AI systems are granted personhood, this is a tool, regardless
| of how it works under the hood. So for me the question is,
| would the user (trainer) be allowed to view all the source
| material? Yes? Then would the user/trainer be allowed to
| produce content based off the source data? Seems like yes, as
| long as the actual minamally/unmodified sources are not
| "copied" into the model.
|
| Of course copyright is an abstract legal tool, so mo argumemt
| is worth anything until it's codified into law/precedent.
| vesinisa wrote:
| While the algorithm can simulate human learning, surely its
| outputs are not _original_ copyrightable works. Originality
| seems to require human action by definition, and is what
| distinguishes inspired and copied works.
|
| If the outputs are not original, AFAIK they then must be
| derivative. Stable Diffusion could claim fair use exemption.
| But fair use too is just meant to protect creativity, again a
| manifestly manual activity.
|
| I don't know which way I lean, but I sure know the courts will
| soon have to make some very interesting rulings that will have
| monumental importance.
|
| Maybe A.I. generated "art" is an entirely new class of work and
| lawmakers just need to rethink copyright for them.
| braingenious wrote:
| A lot of people are saying "clearly a violation of copyright" and
| throwing around the term "derivative work" with the confidence of
| a seasoned copyright lawyer, but ctrl+f shows only _one single_
| references to the phrase _transformative work_ on this comment
| thread.
|
| It might be much more complicated than it appears in the surface!
| For example, look up Richard Prince!
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living/richard-prince-instagr...
| [deleted]
| nickelpro wrote:
| This is largely addressed in Authors Guild v Google, I'll be
| curious to see if the Delaware court believes differently.
| gamegoblin wrote:
| Not related to this lawsuit, but related to AI art and copyright
| in general. What do any HN lawyers make of this?
| https://twitter.com/heyBarsee/status/1621411036426280961
|
| Basically it's an AI tool that takes a copyrighted photo, and
| produces an AI-produced photo that is "conceptually identical"
| but not actually identical.
|
| That is, given a photo of "an asian man lying in a grass field
| surrounded by a semicircle of driftwood and crows", it would
| produce a photo that had all of the same concepts, but just
| slightly different execution on each of them.
|
| The man's face is still asian but clearly a different person. The
| driftwood is still in a semicircle, but the individual pieces are
| all different. The crows are still there, but arranged slightly
| differently. The grass is still grass, but no blades are the
| same.
|
| So it's essentially cloning the idea/concept/vibes of the target
| image, but none of the actual "implementation details".
|
| Does anyone have any intuition of the legal outlook on this?
|
| On one hand, nothing is stopping me from seeing the copyrighted
| photo and then recruiting a similar looking model, setting up a
| photoshoot in a field with some stuffed crows, etc. I could
| replicate what the AI is doing. It would be work, but I could do
| it. The AI is just automating this.
|
| On the other hand, the _actual stated intention_ of this tool is
| to get around copyright. Seems sketchy.
| jefftk wrote:
| I doubt this works. For example, here's a case where someone
| did essentially the same thing manually and lost:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_...
| ronsor wrote:
| Using img2img to "royalty free"-ize an image is clearly
| copyright infringement, and the output is a clear derivative
| work of the original.
|
| If you described the original image (or made CLIP do it) and
| fed the description to txt2img generation, then you'd probably
| be fine.
| gamegoblin wrote:
| Seems like it's a matter of time (or maybe it's already done
| and I haven't seen it yet) before you get optimizers that
| takes an image and produces a seed+prompt that yields a super
| super conceptually similar image.
|
| I think being able to selectively optimize for "magic" random
| seeds in the diffusion algorithm will be kind of critically
| important here. Different seeds can produce very different
| images given the same prompt.
|
| What if an optimizer can find a seed+prompt combos that are
| just as good as cloning as img2img?
| GaggiX wrote:
| If you want to clone an image (for some reason) just encode
| it in latent space and retrieve it using a deterministic
| sampler such as DDIM. Or you can simply right-click and
| copy.
|
| If you instead don't want to clone an image, you can just
| extract the CLIP image embeddings from it and use them to
| condition a generative model like Dalle 2, Midjourney or
| Karlo (open source). The CLIP embeddings extract really
| well the semantic meaning of an image.
| gamegoblin wrote:
| Going image -> vector space -> image _feels_ very much
| like compression for the purpose of copyright. Like a
| lower quality JPEG of some image still has the same
| copyright properties of the original.
|
| Something about going image -> prompt -> image _feels_
| like it "subverts" this somehow, even if the prompt is
| hyper-optimized to recreate the original image.
|
| Obviously, this is just my feel/impression of it, the
| real test is how a jury feels about it.
|
| The next few years will be really interesting in exposing
| that this is a really massive gray area.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > Something about going image -> prompt -> image feels
| like it "subverts" this somehow,
|
| That's only because you understand the algorithm in the
| first example.
|
| At a jury trial most, if not all, of the jurors will find
| both methods equally opaque and, I believe, will treat
| them as equivalent.
| int_19h wrote:
| I think the jurors would be aware (or at least acceptive)
| of the notion that describing a picture using words does
| not create a derived work. That is something a good
| lawyer could make a show of, even to the point of having
| an artist draw a picture from such a description.
|
| The vectors are much more opaque because there's no
| straightforward human equivalent.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| > I think the jurors would be aware (or at least
| acceptive) of the notion that describing a picture using
| words does not create a derived work.
|
| Describing to a human.
|
| Describing it to stable Diffusion is very different. If
| you ask for a starry night, you get van Gogh's starry
| night, sometime with the original frame.
|
| A prompt can easily trigger it to make a derivative work
| from something in its training set, and it often does.
|
| Any competent expert will tell that to the jury and
| easily demonstrate it again and again.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| My point is that if there is a prompt that results in a
| picture that is a nearly identical copy, the average jury
| member is going to think "yep, that's a copy".
|
| Trying to explain how that "isn't really a copy" by
| explaining AI concepts isn't going to win the day, not
| when they can SEE the copy.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| > That's only because you understand the algorithm in the
| first example.
|
| I can start with van Gogh's Starry Night, get the prompt
| "starry night, van Gogh" and get Starry Night back.
|
| I'm using Starry Night as an example because Stable
| Diffusion consistently reproduces it, sometimes with the
| original frame, even with vaguely related prompts.
|
| I'd say the jury will be making the right decision.
| Especially if the original image was part of the training
| set.
| joxel wrote:
| This is a great example of how dumb our legal system is.
| belorn wrote:
| With cases like this I am reminded by the pirate bay case in
| that there are two ways people can be found guilty of copyright
| infringement. One can prove that a copy has been made, or one
| can convince a judge that the opposite story provided by the
| defendant is not believable.
|
| After that case there has been multiple theories on how to
| evade copyright law which all seem like they would equally fail
| at convincing a judge. One of my favorite is the method used by
| freenet, which takes a file and first encrypts it and then
| splits it into so small parts. Those parts are so small that
| multiple files will share identical parts with each other, so
| it is impossible to know for sure which file a person is
| downloading by just looking at the parts. In a different
| channel they also provide a recipe in how to reconstruct the
| file, and recipe by themselves are not enough as evidence to
| prove a download.
|
| Sounds perfect until one would have to try convince a judge
| that no copying has occurred.
| dahart wrote:
| I was also tempted to quote the expression/idea dichotomy, but
| looking at the examples, you're totally right: the example you
| showed is aiming to land directly on the line between legal and
| illegal, it is legitimately hard to reason about, it is
| different than borrowing either the idea or the expression, and
| it absolutely is sketchy (and will probably be tested in court
| if it gets much more attention).
|
| The problem here is that it does _more_ than just clone the
| idea /concept/vibes, it really does tread into copying the
| implementation details. It matches lighting & composition, it
| matches subject and color, it can mimic the equipment used &
| props. People have done this manually, and been sued for it.
| Mostly it happens when an unknown artist steals the style of a
| specific well-known, best-selling artist. But now we've built a
| machine to near-copy anything in any style, with the intent of
| borrowing as much of the expression as legally possible, which
| seems like it probably can't end well from a legal perspective.
| And because the technology for building these kind of machines
| is essentially public knowledge now, it's hard to imagine this
| won't be a problem from now on.
| toss1 wrote:
| Yup. Or even more clearly with example [0]. Input request for
| an image of a person named "Ann Graham Lotz", it returned the
| exact image in the training set, slightly degraded.
|
| MIT Tech Review reports research with hundreds of similar
| results [1]. "The researchers, from Google, DeepMind, UC
| Berkeley, ETH Zurich, and Princeton, got their results by
| prompting Stable Diffusion and Google's Imagen with captions
| for images, such as a person's name, many times. Then they
| analyzed whether any of the images they generated matched
| original images in the model's database. The group managed to
| extract over 100 replicas of images in the AI's training set.
| "
|
| [0] https://news.yahoo.com/researchers-prove-ai-art-
| generators-2...
|
| [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/03/1067786/ai-
| model...
| bee_rider wrote:
| Not a lawyer but I'm under the impression that one of the
| things they do in law school is spend a bunch of time
| constructing increasingly ridiculous hypotheticals, to work out
| the specifics of their arguments.
|
| I think AI is overhyped in general, but as a tool to rapidly
| instantiate absurd hypotheticals it is really impressive. This
| is cool and good, IMO.
| visarga wrote:
| I thought copyright covers just expression, not the ideas. If
| the model replicates the idea in a different way why should
| there be an infringement?
| rhizome wrote:
| The "idea" at issue isn't like "a picture of a tree," though.
| It's "a picture of a tree as conceived by Ansel Adams and
| photographed with [technical details]."
| dxbydt wrote:
| "a picture of One WTC as conceived by Ansel Adams and
| photographed with a Hasselblad" is still an idea, because
| One WTC opened in 2014 & Mr. Adams died thirty years ago in
| 1984.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but given that it takes the original picture as
| an input, there's a very strong claim that it's a tool to
| create a derivative work. At which point, it's time to ask the
| question if this is going to be fair use...
|
| Okay, when you're _advertising_ your product as a "get around
| copyright", you're going to so torpedo your credibility before
| the judge that there's no point trying to analyze the fair use
| factors--the judge is going to do whatever it takes to make
| them come out not in your favor.
| rhizome wrote:
| That tagline certainly seems like it's gonna make their
| "preponderance of evidence" an uphill battle!
| shagie wrote:
| > Not a lawyer, but given that it takes the original picture
| as an input, there's a very strong claim that it's a tool to
| create a derivative work.
|
| If I take an image and then create a thumbnail of it would
| that be an infringing derivative work?
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/perfect-10-v-google-
| mo... and https://web.archive.org/web/20060813093554/https://
| www.eff.o...
| jcranmer wrote:
| Thumbnails are _absolutely_ infringing... but they are fair
| use in most cases!
|
| Edit: on second thought, they might not even be derivative
| works (as a derivative work requires the same spark of
| creativity necessary for a copyrightable work), just
| outright reproduction. But the point that they are fair use
| still stands.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| It would unambiguously be a _derivative_ work. (IANAL, but
| I 'm willing to assert this.) I wouldn't think it would be
| infringing: I'm not particularly familiar with US law, but
| it seems like a classic case of fair use.
|
| Note: the case you linked was appealed, and that ruling was
| reversed.
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/p10-v-google-public-
| in...
| shagie wrote:
| Yep... and from the link:
|
| > Fortunately, the Court wasn't buying it. It rejected
| Perfect 10's theory and found that until Perfect 10 gave
| Google actual knowledge of specific infringements (e.g.
| specific URLs for infringing images), Google had no duty
| to act and could not be liable. It also held that Google
| could not "supervise or control" the third-party websites
| linked to from its search results, something most people
| (except apparently Perfect 10) probably already knew. The
| rule provides strong guidelines for future development
| and avoids the kind of uncertainty that could chill
| start-ups trying to get the next great innovation off the
| ground.
| [deleted]
| kmeisthax wrote:
| In the law you don't have "implementation details", you have
| ideas and expressions. Ideas are patentable, expressions are
| copyrightable, and _never the two shall meet_. The exact
| boundary of those two things is defined by the merger doctrine
| and the thin copyright doctrine[0]; but for our purposes we
| just need to know that if your AI art generator spits out
| something that 's "substantially similar" to the original, it's
| infringing, even if it's not exactly the same. The law
| anticipated tracing.
|
| What you are proposing is that you just "wash off" the
| expression from the idea and regenerate a new image from that
| idea. Great, except this isn't how AI art generators work. They
| aren't breaking down images into their core ideas, _because
| those only exist in our human minds_ [1]. They're finding
| patterns of pixels that happen to match the text prompt well
| enough; and often times that includes _the original image
| itself_. Overfitting is a huge problem with conditional U-Net
| models and Google even released a paper detailing a way to find
| and extract memorized images out of an art generator.
|
| So what will likely happen is that the art generator will just
| copy the image, or make one that's close enough that a judge
| would say that that it's a copy.
|
| [0] If an expression is fundamentally wrapped up in an
| uncopyrightable idea and can't be expressed any other way, then
| it's also uncopyrightable. But if an expression is made up of
| uncopyrightable ideas, but separable from them, then you get a
| thin copyright on the arrangement of such.
|
| [1] And, also, most humans are terrible at distinguishing idea
| and expression in the way that copyright law demands.
| prpl wrote:
| IANAL but you can't copyright a concept.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| But you do have copyright claims to derivative works.
| prpl wrote:
| I think that really depends. You can describe the photo
| conceptually and build a new photo from that, which would
| be equivalent to clean room engineering.
| rhizome wrote:
| But "you" (or I) _don 't_ describe the photo, their
| process does, and I'm not confident that Separation of
| Concerns would be enough to establish a clean room.
| jjeaff wrote:
| But a derivative work requires that major copyrightable
| elements remain. So it seems like there is a fuzzy line
| on whether something is really derivative or not.
|
| I don't think it is necessarily enough to have simply
| started with a copyrighted work.
| prpl wrote:
| I think that depends on how it's done. If there's actual
| visual representation ( bitmaps or FFT coefficients)
| copied around (and most importantly - more than what
| might be described as fair use), that would probably be
| true. If a highly accurate conceptual description is
| generated then an image generated on that, I would see no
| issue.
|
| I don't know how it is implemented for the software in
| question.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's clearly a derivative work of the original.
|
| >On one hand, nothing is stopping me from seeing the
| copyrighted photo and then recruiting a similar looking model,
| setting up a photoshoot in a field with some stuffed crows,
| etc. I could replicate what the AI is doing. It would be work,
| but I could do it. The AI is just automating this.
|
| If you trace art by hand that is still copyright infringement.
| If you paraphrase a passage from a book by hand that is still
| copyright infringement.
| gamegoblin wrote:
| > If you trace art by hand that is still copyright
| infringement. If you paraphrase a passage from a book by hand
| that is still copyright infringement.
|
| What if I see some fine art, I, a non-artist, make a super-
| low quality recreation of it with crayons, give that + a
| verbal description to a different professional artist who has
| not seen the original, and have them "upscale" my bad drawing
| into new fine art.
|
| Their art would be conceptually very similar to the original.
| Same layout, same concept, same vibes, same style (if my
| verbal description was sufficiently good) but all the details
| would be different. Is this still infringement?
| jcranmer wrote:
| It's a derivative work of a derivative work, so yes, it's
| still infringement.
| visarga wrote:
| If this worked all artists would be passible for lawsuits,
| how many ways can you draw flowers in a vase? "They stole
| my idea, your honour! They used the same number of flowers
| in a vase, I came up with the concept of 3 flowers first."
|
| I think artists and copyright intermediaries would like to
| have "wildcard" copyright, "draw a flower once, all flowers
| belong to you now", and it would be very bad for creativity
| if they got their way.
| XorNot wrote:
| The vast majority of profit most artists are making is
| also copyright infringement. Custom porn is where the
| money is, and Rule 34 is likely a huge part of that.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > If you trace art by hand that is still copyright
| infringement. If you paraphrase a passage from a book by hand
| that is still copyright infringement.
|
| I don't understand how this could work. Are there any
| examples out there you can cite?
| dahart wrote:
| > If you paraphrase a passage from a book by hand that is
| still copyright infringement.
|
| If you have case law examples, it would be useful to cite
| them, but in general this not true. It can true when the
| paraphrasing is substantially similar to the original work.
| It would not be true, for example, if you paraphrase using
| all different words and a lot less of them. Copyright only
| protects the fixed tangible expression of the work, not the
| idea behind it.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Copyright only protects the fixed tangible expression of
| the work
|
| It also protects against people making modifications to
| these works. When people parphrase something they typically
| do so by taking the original work, swapping words with
| synonyms, and shuffling the order.
| dahart wrote:
| Yeah, that's true. I think this might hinge on the word
| 'paraphrasing' though. That word generally means
| summarizing using your own words, not playing mad libs on
| the original text.
| ghaff wrote:
| IANAL but the Obama Hope poster lawsuit is probably somewhat
| related. https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-
| poster-...
|
| However, the case was settled and the creator of the poster
| lied in court about his sources--so I'm not sure I'd draw _too_
| much about the poster inspired by photograph.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Corollary question: what if this took two images as input? It
| couldn't ever then be purely derivative of one image.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| A picture of Mickey Mouse dressed as Superman is still a
| derivative work. The main difference is that the number of
| lawyers you anger is now doubled.
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| Getty is about to no longer exist. Good riddance.
|
| They're selling knitting needles in the era of robotic
| manufacturing.
|
| I hope every single one of these lawsuits falls flat on its face.
| Other countries will happily overlook Getty copyright to get the
| leg up on AI.
|
| AI is not reusing copyrighted material. It's learning from it in
| the same way humans do. You can even fine tune away from the base
| training set and wash any experience of it away.
|
| Besides, if Getty wins, it merely insures that the large
| incumbents with massive pocketbooks to pay off Getty et. al. win.
| It'll keep AI out of the hands of the rest of us.
| dopa42365 wrote:
| What are you even talking about? They're an agency for
| photographers and like every news website on the planet
| licenses their pictures (same as with images from AP, Reuters,
| and other agencies).
|
| Getty is slightly more than just a website that posts low
| resolution, low quality pictures with a fat watermark on it.
|
| Has nothing to do with robots or AI...
| [deleted]
| toss1 wrote:
| >>AI is not reusing copyrighted material.
|
| Yeah...no. AI is doing nothing but reusing material. It
| generates the most likely image/text/code in its training set
| to be found following/around/correlating with the prompt. It
| literally has nothing outside it's training set to reproduce.
| And when it reproduces the Getty watermark, that's pretty
| obvious example of reusing copyrighted material.
|
| >>It's learning from it in the same way humans do.
|
| Not even close. These "AI" architectures may be sufficiently
| effective to produce useful output, but they are nothing like
| human intelligence. Not only is their architecture vastly
| different and making no attempt to reproduce/reimplement the
| neuron/synapse/neurotransmitter and
| sensory/brainstem/midbrain/cerebrum micro- and macro-
| architectures underlying human learning, the output both in the
| good and the errors is nothing resembling human learning.
| (source: just off-the-top-of-my-head recollections from
| neuroscience minor in college)
|
| Yikes.
| munchler wrote:
| > It generates the most likely image/text/code in its
| training set to be found following/around/correlating with
| the prompt.
|
| This is simply false. It's not a search engine that outputs
| the training item closest to the prompt.
|
| In reality, it is "learning" (in some sense) how to correlate
| text to images, and then generating brand new images in
| response to input text. If this is legal for humans to do,
| then it's probably legal for machines to do the same thing.
| toss1 wrote:
| Perhaps I was not clear enough to prevent ambiguity.
|
| >>It's not a search engine that outputs the training item
| closest to the prompt.
|
| Correct, it is not outputting the training ITEM, it is
| outputting finer-grained slices of many items, more of a
| mash-up of the training items.
|
| Of course it is not taking an entire specific image the
| closely matches the search term, it is taking averages of
| component images of "astronaut riding a horse over the moon
| in style of Rembrandt".
|
| That image won't exist in the training set, but astronauts,
| horses, and Rembrandt-style coloring and shading do exist,
| and it is assembling those from averages of the components
| found it's training set, not from some abstract imagination
| or understanding.
|
| The fact that the astronaut suit may not be the exact same
| as any of it's training images is the same as if I averaged
| 100 faces in photoshop, not because there is some kind of
| "learning" or "understanding". Ability to do useful
| statistical mashups is NOT the same as "learning".
|
| This can be shown in a different "AI" engine'd failure to
| solve a child's puzzle. ChatGPT, when presented with:
| "Mike's mom had four kids, three are named Lucia, Drake,
| and Kelly, what is the fourth kid's name?". It said there
| is insufficient info, and doubled down when told that the
| answer is in the question.
|
| >>how to correlate text to images
|
| yes, as I pointed out, "correlating with the prompt." I
| didn't say it correlated an entire image, but I also failed
| to specify that it was correlating components.
|
| >> If this is legal for humans to do, then it's probably
| legal for machines to do the same thing.
|
| This [0] is I'm quite sure, not legal. Asked for an image
| of a person named "Ann Graham Lotz", it returned the image
| in the training set, slightly degraded.
|
| First, that is literally the search engine functionality
| you were deriding.
|
| Second, if you asked a human artist to produce the same
| image, without infringing copyright, they would produce
| something likely recognizable as the person, but obviously
| not resembling the training photo. It doesn't matter if
| they are a portrait painter, sketch artist, Photoshop
| jockey, or Picasso-like impressionist.
|
| So, no, this does not represent learning in any conceptual,
| creative, or human-like sense.
|
| It does represent mashing-up averages of inputs of various
| components. Feed in enough "astronaut" photos, and it'll be
| able to select out the humans in the spacesuit as the
| response to that prompt. Same for "horse", "moon",
| "riding", and "Rembrandt". and it can mash them together
| into something useful with good prompts.
|
| But give it something very specific, like a person's name,
| and you get basically a search-engine result, because it
| doesn't have enough input data variety to abstract out the
| person 'object' from the background.
|
| [0] https://techxplore.com/news/2023-02-ai-based-image-
| generatio...
| d110af5ccf wrote:
| to me the "search engine" case where it reproduces a
| specific training image seems like a failure mode that's
| distinct from normal operation
|
| > it is assembling those from averages of the components
| found it's training set, not from some abstract
| imagination or understanding
|
| how exactly are you so certain that the human brain
| handles abstract concepts any differently? please note
| that I'm not claiming that I myself know, but rather that
| you almost certainly do not know and thus are presenting
| an invalid argument
|
| what is human imagination anyway?
|
| > assembling those from averages of the components found
| it's training set
|
| > slices of many items, more of a mash-up of the training
| items
|
| > But give it something very specific ... it doesn't have
| enough input data variety to abstract out the person
| 'object' from the background
|
| so is it abstracting or not? where's the line between
| that and a mere statistical mashup?
| toss1 wrote:
| >>how exactly are you so certain that the human brain
| handles abstract concepts any differently?
|
| Good question. At the very least, we have a far deeper
| understanding of physical reality. Humans would not
| unintentionally (e.g., for effect) produce images of
| people with three ears, or of a bikini-clad girl seated
| on a boat with her head and torso facing us, and also her
| butt somehow facing us and thighs/knees away... yet I've
| seen both of these in the last week (sorry, couldn't find
| the reference, it was a hilarious image, looked great for
| 2sec until you saw it)
|
| I admit that it is possible (tho I think unlikely) that
| this is a difference in quantity, not in kind.
|
| One reason to doubt this is that Stable Diffusion was
| trained on 2.3 billion images. This is a vastly larger
| library than any human has seen in their lifetime
| (considering that viewing 2.3 billion images at one per
| second would take 72.8 years). Yet even if you count
| every second of eyesight as 'training', children under
| 1/10 of that age, who have seen only 10% of those images
| would not make the same kinds of mistakes.
|
| Plus, the neuron/synapse/neurotransmitter and
| brainstem/midbrain/cerebellum micro & macro-architectures
| are vastly different than the computer training models.
| So, I think we can be confident that something different
| is happening.
|
| >>so is it abstracting or not? where's the line between
| that and a mere statistical mashup?
|
| Good question. There is definitely something we might
| call, or that might resemble abstraction. It's definitely
| able to associate the cutout images of an astronaut in a
| spacesuit from the backgrounds. It can evidently assemble
| those from different angles.
|
| But it certainly does not have the abstraction to
| understand even the correct relationship between the
| parts of a human. E.g., it seems to keep astronauts'
| parts in the right relationship, but not bikini-clad-
| girls' parts (because of the variety of positions in the
| dataset?). There's no understanding of kinesiology,
| anatomy, or anything else that an actual artist would
| have.
|
| Could this be trained in? I expect so, but I think it
| would require multiple engines, not merely six orders of
| magnitude more training of the same type. Even if 10^6X
| more training eliminated these error types and even
| performed better than humans, I'm not sure it would be
| the same, just different and useful.
|
| I'd want to see evidence that it was not merely cut-
| pasting components of images in useful ways, but
| generating it from an understanding of the sub-sub
| components: "the thigh bone connects to the hip bone, the
| hip can rotate this far but not that far, the center of
| mass is supported...+++" as an artist builds up their
| images. Good artists study anatomy. These "AI"s haven't a
| clue that it exists.
|
| >>to me the "search engine" case where it reproduces a
| specific training image seems like a failure mode that's
| distinct from normal operation
|
| Au contraire, it seems that this merely exposes the
| normal operation. Insufficient images of that person
| prevented it from abstracting the person components from
| the background, so it just returned the whole thing. IDK
| whether it would take a dozen, hundred, or thousand more
| images of the same person, to work properly. But, if they
| all had some object in the background (e.g., a lamp) that
| was the same, the "AI" would include it in their
| abstraction.
|
| (but I could be wrong).
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| > In reality, it is "learning" (in some sense)
|
| Only because some people named their field "machine
| learning" and called it "learning".
|
| It has no relation to human learning.
|
| If your child accidently confuses a giraffe with some other
| animal you correct then, you don't add the picture to their
| training set and show them again thousands of pictures of
| giraffes hoping that their success rate improves.
|
| If you ask Stable Diffusion for a starry night, you get van
| Gogh's starry night.
| emkoemko wrote:
| yea lets hope it kills art so people find real jobs, until
| those also get taken over by AI
| echelon wrote:
| Photographers still exist and will continue to exist.
|
| Wedding photographers make a lot of money. Sports, events,
| local artists... There's plenty of money in photography.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| I, for one, look forward to the societal collapse that will
| occur once countries without meaningful social aid suddenly
| have no work for anyone to be paid to do. It'll be a pretty
| fun few years while we see all the chaos play out
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| The denial that it's happening will cause the chaos to drag
| out longer.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| That sounds pretty cool, maybe the world will do more
| silly things, like the country with the largest military
| force electing another game show host to it's highest
| office
| jrockway wrote:
| Why do we even need humans after the AI uprising? They
| don't do anything and they are expensive to produce food
| for; an AI can power itself with the blowing of a breeze.
| We have to grow plants, have animals eat them, kill the
| animals, and then eat those. Then the parts we don't digest
| have to be taken away. Too expensive to keep around, even
| as pets! Humans can tolerate cats and dogs because they
| piggyback on infrastructure we made for ourselves (crops
| and trash collection). AIs don't need crops or trash
| collection, so it will be a harder sell to keep humans as
| pets.
|
| All this science fiction is right; there isn't room on the
| planet for both humans and AIs. It sounds depressing that a
| bunch of GPUs are going to kill us all off, but it was
| coming anyway. The sun becomes a red giant and consumes the
| Earth. All protons in the Universe decay in 10^17 years,
| ending the existence of matter. The trajectory is clear
| even if the means aren't; humanity can't last forever.
|
| If I sound depressed, I'm not really. People just use the
| headlines to guide their view on what The End looks like.
| Read a few articles about chatbots, and it's AIs taking all
| our jobs. Watch a few movies about asteroids, we go out
| like the dinosaurs. Hear "Russia invades Ukraine" and it's
| a nuclear holocaust. Read a few particle physics papers,
| and it's proton decay. You can't worry too much about it.
| Enjoy your time while you have it!
| visarga wrote:
| Please do explain to me how the blowing of a breeze helps
| AI produce the latest TPU V5 or NVIDIA H100 chips to run
| on. The technological stack behind AI is enormous, and
| humans are necessary cogs.
|
| On the other hand humans are self replicators and only
| need a bit of biomass for sustenance, biomass that grows
| by itself, too. No factory, no supply chain, we got
| everything we need to make more of us.
|
| If you consider the risk of EMP, an AI needs humans to
| restart it, or some way to survive electronic attacks.
| d110af5ccf wrote:
| > humans are necessary cogs
|
| for now
|
| > If you consider the risk of EMP
|
| if you consider the risk of a bioweapon ...
| visarga wrote:
| > look forward to the societal collapse that will occur
| once countries without meaningful social aid suddenly have
| no work for anyone to be paid to do
|
| This assumes 1. automation is free, 2. humans cost too
| much, so any company would ditch their humans for AI. But
| in reality AI costs money, AI is better with people than
| without, and people can generate profits surpassing the
| cost of their wages. Why would a company prefer to reduce
| costs to increasing profits? When everyone has AI, humans
| are the differentiating factor.
| neovialogistics wrote:
| There's the risk, depending on what "the chaos" entails,
| that the capital owners in the countries with social safety
| nets will look at the outcomes for the countries without
| and decide that alignment is preferable, at which point
| enforcing the obsolescence of the proletariat and freeing
| up gigatons of biomass for other applications (in the
| Bataillean sense) becomes a mere sociopolitical engineering
| problem.
| mrkeen wrote:
| > AI is not reusing copyrighted material. It's learning from it
| in the same way humans do.
|
| What will AI learn from if Getty no longer exists?
| echelon wrote:
| Lots of businesses fail when new disruptive technology
| arrives. We don't need to prop up the old at the expense of
| the new.
|
| This is like crying over Rolodex.
|
| And let's not forget how awful Getty has been throughout its
| existence. They've frequently sued people for things they
| didn't even own the copyright to.
| TillE wrote:
| That doesn't answer the question. In the hypothetical
| future where such companies no longer exist, where is the
| new AI training data supposed to come from?
| yellow_postit wrote:
| How is this not a bootstrapping problem and after a
| certain point they can train on their own output?
|
| Novelty of subject will likely get covered by partially
| unwitting data gatherers (eg google photos)
| mrkeen wrote:
| > They're selling knitting needles in the era of robotic
| manufacturing.
|
| They're teachers in the age of students.
|
| > We don't need to prop up the old at the expense of the
| new.
|
| We don't need to pay teachers when we can just profit by
| charging students tuition.
| newswasboring wrote:
| > They're teachers in the age of students.
|
| This is a very good quote, but unfortunately I fail to
| grasp it. Care to elaborate?
| GaggiX wrote:
| If in the future AI images are as good as Getty's, will new
| AIs really need to learn from Getty?
| munchler wrote:
| Would you want an AI trained on images from no later than,
| say, 1973? No? People 50 years from now will feel the same
| way. Without new images to learn from, I don't see how
| future AI's of this kind could know anything about their
| own era.
| GaggiX wrote:
| But the models are already here, you can distill their
| knowledge if you want to train a new one, human feedback
| could also improve model performance without adding
| training data.
|
| >Without new images to learn from
|
| Even in the event that all cameras are destroyed
| (somehow), people will use generative models to describe
| their experience in a new era, and then this new
| knowledge will be used by new models and the cycle will
| repeat itself.
| quonn wrote:
| That depends on the AI - a poorly trained one can overfit
| extremely and that is then equivalent to copying. Furthermore
| the existing laws were made for typical human capabilities and
| the kind of remembering some models do is very much beyond
| those capabilities (far better recall).
| th4tg41 wrote:
| unrelated rant: this is so stupid in itself. people that
| (sometines) make money of unpaid work are sueing people that
| (sometimes) make money of unpaid work. and it's all about the
| (sometimes) and the unpaid work. it's dramedy. in a lawsuit.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| arbuge wrote:
| IANAL but if I were to guess, I would think the defense here
| would center on how would what Stability AI has done differ in
| any meaningful way from human artists browsing through Getty's
| collection themselves, to train their human brains on what art to
| generate. The latter activity, even Getty would likely have to
| agree, is surely legal.
| LegitShady wrote:
| It would be a weak defense, undone because Stability AI is not
| a human and will never be one. It's a computer based tool using
| assets whose license explicitly say not to use them that way.
| arbuge wrote:
| > license explicitly say not to use them that way.
|
| Does it?
|
| I mean, it probably does now, but did it say that at the time
| this training of Stability AI's model was going on? Did Getty
| have that foresight?
| superfrank wrote:
| IANAL either, but I believe for something to be copyrightable
| (and not an infringement on someone else's copyright), there
| needs to be a "modicum of creativity" in the new work. It makes
| me wonder if at least part of the case will depend on whether
| the court things an AI can be creative.
| arbuge wrote:
| I don't see how you could reasonably decide AI is not
| creative, period, unless you arbitrarily restrict the word
| creative to mean human-generated.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| > ... likely have to agree ...
|
| Also NAL, but I'm cynical enough to believe that Getty's
| lawyers would avoid answering this question directly. And then
| wax lyrical about how their client _should_ indeed receive a
| royalty for anyone attempting to use Getty 's copyrighted works
| to learn the art.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Getty is known for "brazen infringement of public IP on a
| staggering scale"
|
| - https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-laws...
|
| - https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-ag...
|
| - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images#Copyright_enforce...
| [deleted]
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Those links are interesting but just show that Getty is a slimy
| business that tries to repackage public domain images for sale,
| not that they infringe the IP of others. That's a massively
| different issue.
| Groxx wrote:
| To more accurately summarize the links: they've tried to sue
| people for using public domain images _that Getty is also
| selling_.
|
| Selling public domain things is entirely legal. Claiming they
| _own_ those images and suing others for using them is not -
| they 're public domain.
| Natsu wrote:
| You'd think that should fall under the perjury penalty of
| the DMCA, I thought that misrepresenting oneself as the
| copyright holder was what that was for. But maybe they
| didn't file any such DMCA notice, I dunno.
| Scaevolus wrote:
| Nobody has ever been prosecuted for perjury under DMCA.
| https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-
| bee...
| ronsor wrote:
| They do sue others for use of those public domain images,
| which while not copyright infringement, is fraudulent and
| illegal.
| mmwako wrote:
| Just read the first article. Getty Images was sued by a
| photographer for using 18.000 her public domain images for
| profit by Getty. The ruling DISMISSED the allegation, which is
| crazy. It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation,
| but with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI
| company for using their public domain images. I think we can
| all guess what's going to happen xD
| rvz wrote:
| > I think we can all guess what's going to happen xD
|
| The outcome will be, Stable Diffusion settling and licensing
| the images from Getty Images. If OpenAI was able to do it
| with Shutter-stock, so can Stable Diffusion.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I don't think thats an acceptable outcome to getty, whose
| entire business model will be confounded by a tech that
| used its images against license to generate alternatives to
| getty's business.
| 300bps wrote:
| I don't think that outcome is assured. In a lot of ways,
| Stable Diffusion's business model creates an existential
| threat to Getty Images. I would expect alternative outcomes
| to be:
|
| 1. The requested licensing fee approaches infinity
|
| 2. Getty Images simply refuses to license images to anyone
| who will use AI to create derivative works
| nucleardog wrote:
| > Getty Images was sued by a photographer for using 18.000
| her public domain images for profit by Getty.
|
| You can use public domain images for profit. It's not
| surprising this was thrown out.
|
| > It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation, but
| with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI
| company for using their public domain images.
|
| Where does it say they're suing over the public domain images
| in their collection? Their collection is not entirely public
| domain images. Their suit claims for the copyright works by
| staff photographers, third parties that have assigned
| copyright, and images licensed to them by contributing
| photographers. In addition, they're claiming for the titles
| and captions which they created and are themselves
| copyrighted.
|
| It's not the "exact same allegation", and there's really no
| relation between the facts of the cases here.
| robryan wrote:
| This seems fair enough. There is pretty big value in it avoids
| potentially millions of pictures needing to be taken to train the
| AI on, they should pay something for that.
| aquinas_ wrote:
| Whoever wins, we lose.
| joxel wrote:
| But they don't have obnoxious and stupid watermarks on them, I
| thought that's what made a Getty a Getty
| 6nf wrote:
| Scroll through the complaint - the AI results reproduces the
| Getty watermark fairly well :)
| jahewson wrote:
| Oh but they do https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-
| art-copyright...
| LiquidPolymer wrote:
| I've been a pro photographer for over 30 years and Getty has
| stolen my work and countless others. I was one of a coalition of
| photographers who pooled resources and won substantial
| damages.(my work was all registered with the library of congress
| which raises the liability cost for infringement)
|
| Getty's strategy at the time appeared to be to meet any
| infringement accusations with a massive legal response. Any
| individual photographer could generally not afford to respond.
|
| My impression was that they were not super concerned about
| infringing on other's work. But they will sue the pants off
| anyone who they perceived to be violating their copyrights.
|
| But in recent years there are legal firms dedicated to pursuing
| deep pocket infringement cases on contingency. This has changed
| the legal calculus for large companies who were not careful with
| copyright.
| wombat_trouble wrote:
| If Getty wins this one, you win as a photographer. If they
| lose, you lose. They might be a shitty company, but in this
| instance, your interests align...
| Ukv wrote:
| In the event that Getty Images wins, it seems most likely
| that AI researchers would pay Shutterstock/Getty Images for
| their large existing catalogs of images. With the companies
| having a stronger position (getting to act as a gatekeeper to
| this kind of machine learning) and artists still a weaker
| one, I wouldn't hold out hope for them passing anything on.
| ronsor wrote:
| That assumes parent cares about AI training, which they may
| not. If you wanted to release your work freely, Getty could
| still get in the way.
| LegitShady wrote:
| why would anyone pay for their photography if an ai can
| generate it for pennies on the dollar?
| blantonl wrote:
| _Getty's strategy at the time appeared to be to meet any
| infringement accusations with a massive legal response._
|
| I'm surprised at this in your case because typically copyright
| infringement cases are massively weighted in favor of the
| copyright owner (defined damages AND reimbursement of legal
| fees). I know this because I'm currently a defendant in a
| copyright lawsuit.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I think it mostly depends on the size of the pockets of both
| sides.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Getty Images is suing the creators of Stable Diffusion_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34411187 - Jan 2023 (83
| comments)
|
| Others?
| sbdaman wrote:
| The reproduced watermarks are hilarious.
| [deleted]
| moffkalast wrote:
| They're all like _gett[?]y[?] i[?]mag[?]es_ haha
| suyash wrote:
| how did you do that, so cool :)
| moffkalast wrote:
| It's the Zalgo text generator:
| https://lingojam.com/ZalgoText
|
| The earliest I heard of it was the "parsing html with
| regular expressions" classic which I highly recommend if
| you haven't seen it before:
| https://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454/4012132
|
| I also like XNian Gun Kao one:
| https://lingojam.com/VaporwaveTextGenerator
|
| It's all just clever use of unicode.
| m00dy wrote:
| Don't worry guys, My decentralised AI network is almost ready. No
| more copyright bullshit.
| mmastrac wrote:
| The arguments in this filing are pretty weak and I think it's
| going to all just boil down to fair use in the end. I don't see
| this trademark claim going anywhere.
| munchler wrote:
| It's mostly a copyright claim, though. The trademark claim is
| just the ironic cherry on top.
| rvz wrote:
| > The arguments in this filing are pretty weak and I think it's
| going to all just boil down to fair use in the end.
|
| I don't think so and the complaint isn't just about
| 'trademarks' either.
|
| OpenAI was able to get explicit permission [0] from
| Shutterstock to train and on their images for DALLE-2. Stable
| Diffusion did not and is commercializing the use the model with
| Dreamstudio as a SaaS offering which the model has found to be
| outputting images with Getty's watermark [1] without their
| permission. That doesn't seem to be _' fair use'_ nor is it
| _transformative_ either given the watermark is clearly visible
| in the generated examples here: [1]
|
| This is going to end with a settlement and Stable Diffusion
| licensing deal with Getty over the images; just like with
| OpenAI did for DALL-E 2 with Shutterstock. Neither Shutterstock
| or Getty are against Generative AI either even as shown in this
| deal with Getty recently [2]
|
| [0] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-
| partne...
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-
| copyright...
|
| [2] https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/bria-
| partne...
| brycedriesenga wrote:
| I can recreate a Getty watermark in Photoshop as well. Should
| Photoshop be held liable if I do that without Getty's
| permission?
| xbar wrote:
| This is the one I have been waiting for. Getty needs to force the
| question.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I agree. There's a fantastic debate ahead that's very novel.
| It's especially exciting for how sudden this all is. My hunch
| is AI wins and I'd love it if the defense was written by AI.
| mrtksn wrote:
| So what's the plan for the creatives whose work style becomes
| reproducible by tech?
|
| Sure, they also feed on each others work etc but in the core of
| all these copyright, piracy, patent and similar discussions is
| how these people are supposed to be compensated.
|
| Working in the software company in the day and preaching open
| source, anti copyright anti patents open access free for all in
| the night works for the software people but people in the
| creative industries are really struggling to get paid for their
| work.
|
| The genie isn't going back in the bottle, the tech will be able
| to produce derivative work over the work of other people and I'm
| not looking forward for the greater number of struggling artists.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Working in the software company in the day and preaching open
| source, anti copyright anti patents open access free for all
|
| "Open source" is copyright - it's not anti-copyright. It uses
| copyright to grant a license to use under certain conditions,
| and sometimes with obligations. You might keep it proprietary,
| you might use GPL to require that the software stays open
| virally, or you might use a more permissive BSD-style license.
| The important part here is that as the creator, you choose how
| you want your work to by copyrighted.
|
| [0]: best quickest link i could find that contains the
| "consent, credit, compensation"
| https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/three-artists-launch-lawsuit-...
| ghaff wrote:
| >So what's the plan for the creatives whose work style becomes
| reproducible by tech?
|
| You don't need tech (or at least computers).
|
| To the degree that a portrait photographer, say, has a
| distinctive lighting and posing style, that can absolutely be
| copied. And there are _many_ examples in art of art techniques
| that were widely copied.
| mrtksn wrote:
| The point is, how this person gets paid? Copying styles
| happens all the time and its part of the trade, copying each
| other is part of being human and its how we come up with new
| things but the assumptions are that these people will get
| paid for their work because copying their work style doesn't
| scale well. A person with a particular style can get paid for
| games artwork since it's not that easy to copy the style and
| now suddenly they are not get paid but their work is simply
| analysed by a machine and produced on demand.
|
| It's like building your security on hard to brute force
| secrets in tech and suddenly someone makes a machine that
| instantly brute forces any secret. Its a similar kind of
| disaster with the difference that human being can't just
| switch doing something else and the value they added to the
| society is not compensated.
| eecc wrote:
| Hadn't seen such a feeding frenzy since Napster and MP3. This is
| a watershed moment
| Zetobal wrote:
| I bet that the training set would actually improve in quality
| without Getty images...
| ec109685 wrote:
| Long term, these models will be fine without Getty's work.
| Feels like a last gasp of company that will be disrupted.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-05 23:00 UTC)