10 ms·

Email this morning: AI Generated Content Effective immediately, Getty Images will cease to accept all submissions created using AI generative models (e.g., St

Email this morning: AI Generated Content Effective immediately, Getty Images will cease to accept all submissions created using AI generative models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall‑E 2, MidJourney, etc.) and prior submissions utilizing such models will be removed. There are open questions with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and there are unaddressed rights issues with respect to the underlying imagery and metadata used to train these models. These changes do not prevent the submission of 3D renders and do not impact the use of digital editing tools (e.g., Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) with respect to modifying and creating imagery. Best wishes, Getty Images | iStock

biggerChris 4y ago
biggerChris 4y ago
It’s funny because, I can make an image and they wouldn’t know it’s A.i generated.
- contravariant 4y ago
  Doesn't matter, as far as they are concerned that's on you for breaking the terms and conditions. They're just 'making an effort' for legal reasons.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  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.
  - GameOfFrowns 4y ago
    >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...
    - j-bos 4y ago
      Getty's way ahead of you: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license-public-domain-images/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-ag...
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      That's Getty's business model.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  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 of redundancy. And what does this mean for every other human occupation? The AI may be primitive now, but it's still the beginning and it it is certainly possible for us to be approaching a future where it produces things BETTER then what a human produces.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >Why is this voted down? It's true. How can this be in actuality prevented? It's no different than submitting a plagiarized essay to a teacher. Yeah, it's often hard to detect/prevent such submissions and you could even get away with it. But if you get caught, you'll still get in trouble and it will be removed.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      This is different from plagiarism. Because in plagiarism there is an original that can be compared against. There is a specific work/person where a infraction was commit-ed against. In AI produced artwork, the artwork is genuinely original and possibly better then what other humans can produce. No one was actually harmed. Thus in actuality it offers true value if not better value then what a human can produce. It displaces humanity and that is horrifying, but technically no crime was committed, and nothing was plagiarized.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        You asked why someone was downvoted for laughing about how AI-generated content is hard to detect/can still be submitted, and then asked, "How can this be in actuality prevented?". The comparison I was making was the comparison to the process of submitting plagiarized content, not whether or not AI-generated content and plagiarized works are the same thing.
- ISL 4y ago
  They can ask that you assert, under substantial penalty of assuming Getty's potential liabilities, that it was not AI generated.
  - unstatusthequo 4y ago
    And force them to prove that you lied AND that it actually infringes copyright AND there are actual damages. GL, brah. Or we can just not use Getty anymore. GANNY Images is born. Only AI, no artists, and have that entity sue Getty for anything similar under same theory. There is always a counter-play,
- paxys 4y ago
  You can make an image and have it be AI generated (say using Photoshop's content aware fill), and it will be allowed. They are drawing a pretty arbitrary line.
hedora 4y ago
What if someone uses the Stable Diffusion editor plugin for photoshop, etc?
- toomanydoubts 4y ago
  I don't see how that's an issue. Using photoshop doesn't automatically allow you to post the images. You can post the images IF it was not made/edited by an AI model, regardless of if photoshop was used. If you use the Stable Diffusion plugin, then you're using stable diffusion, and therefore can't post the image. It doesn't matter at all that you used the photoshop plugin.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    LOL how will they even know? Are they going to ask for every .psd and read the entire edit history? what's to stop you making images all day in SD, and when you find one you like, just tracing over it in a new layer?
  - hedora 4y ago
    Ignoring the philosophical ambiguity, their announcement specifically says this policy change doesn't apply to pictures made with Photoshop.
  - cheald 4y ago
    A lot of Photoshop's built-in tools could arguably qualify as "AI models" (think things like content-aware fill!) - I don't think Getty would say that using them would disqualify your image, but isn't that essentially the same thing, except that this version is ultra high-powered version?
    - Xelynega 4y ago
      Except they're not. Content aware fill uses only your image as the input and runs space-time video completion. Since it doesn't have to train on datasets, it's not part of the conversation.

biggerChris 4y ago

It’s funny because, I can make an image and they wouldn’t know it’s A.i generated.

contravariant 4y ago
Doesn't matter, as far as they are concerned that's on you for breaking the terms and conditions. They're just 'making an effort' for legal reasons.
karaterobot 4y ago
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.
- GameOfFrowns 4y ago
  >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...
  - j-bos 4y ago
    Getty's way ahead of you: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license-public-domain-images/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-ag...
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    That's Getty's business model.
deltasevennine 4y ago
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 of redundancy. And what does this mean for every other human occupation? The AI may be primitive now, but it's still the beginning and it it is certainly possible for us to be approaching a future where it produces things BETTER then what a human produces.
- jjulius 4y ago
  >Why is this voted down? It's true. How can this be in actuality prevented? It's no different than submitting a plagiarized essay to a teacher. Yeah, it's often hard to detect/prevent such submissions and you could even get away with it. But if you get caught, you'll still get in trouble and it will be removed.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    This is different from plagiarism. Because in plagiarism there is an original that can be compared against. There is a specific work/person where a infraction was commit-ed against. In AI produced artwork, the artwork is genuinely original and possibly better then what other humans can produce. No one was actually harmed. Thus in actuality it offers true value if not better value then what a human can produce. It displaces humanity and that is horrifying, but technically no crime was committed, and nothing was plagiarized.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      You asked why someone was downvoted for laughing about how AI-generated content is hard to detect/can still be submitted, and then asked, "How can this be in actuality prevented?". The comparison I was making was the comparison to the process of submitting plagiarized content, not whether or not AI-generated content and plagiarized works are the same thing.
ISL 4y ago
They can ask that you assert, under substantial penalty of assuming Getty's potential liabilities, that it was not AI generated.
- unstatusthequo 4y ago
  And force them to prove that you lied AND that it actually infringes copyright AND there are actual damages. GL, brah. Or we can just not use Getty anymore. GANNY Images is born. Only AI, no artists, and have that entity sue Getty for anything similar under same theory. There is always a counter-play,
paxys 4y ago
You can make an image and have it be AI generated (say using Photoshop's content aware fill), and it will be allowed. They are drawing a pretty arbitrary line.

hedora 4y ago

What if someone uses the Stable Diffusion editor plugin for photoshop, etc?

toomanydoubts 4y ago
I don't see how that's an issue. Using photoshop doesn't automatically allow you to post the images. You can post the images IF it was not made/edited by an AI model, regardless of if photoshop was used. If you use the Stable Diffusion plugin, then you're using stable diffusion, and therefore can't post the image. It doesn't matter at all that you used the photoshop plugin.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  LOL how will they even know? Are they going to ask for every .psd and read the entire edit history? what's to stop you making images all day in SD, and when you find one you like, just tracing over it in a new layer?
- hedora 4y ago
  Ignoring the philosophical ambiguity, their announcement specifically says this policy change doesn't apply to pictures made with Photoshop.
- cheald 4y ago
  A lot of Photoshop's built-in tools could arguably qualify as "AI models" (think things like content-aware fill!) - I don't think Getty would say that using them would disqualify your image, but isn't that essentially the same thing, except that this version is ultra high-powered version?
  - Xelynega 4y ago
    Except they're not. Content aware fill uses only your image as the input and runs space-time video completion. Since it doesn't have to train on datasets, it's not part of the conversation.