5 ms·

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.
    - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
      >No one was actually harmed. // In a couple of years, unchecked, many artists will be out of work and companies like Getty will be making a lot less revenue. That's "harm" in legal terms. On a previous SD story someone noted they create recipe pictures using an AI instead of using a stock service. These sorts of developments are great, IMO, but we have to democratise the benefits.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago
        That's like me creating a car that's faster and better then other cars and more energy efficient. Would it be legal to ban Tesla because it harms the car industry through disruption? AI generated art is disrupting the art industry by creating original art that's cheaper and in the future possibly better. Why should we ban that. By harm I mean direct harm. Theft of ideas and direct copying. But harm through creating a better product. Morally I think there is nothing wrong with this. Practically we may have to do it, but this is like banning marijuana.
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.

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.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    >No one was actually harmed. // In a couple of years, unchecked, many artists will be out of work and companies like Getty will be making a lot less revenue. That's "harm" in legal terms. On a previous SD story someone noted they create recipe pictures using an AI instead of using a stock service. These sorts of developments are great, IMO, but we have to democratise the benefits.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      That's like me creating a car that's faster and better then other cars and more energy efficient. Would it be legal to ban Tesla because it harms the car industry through disruption? AI generated art is disrupting the art industry by creating original art that's cheaper and in the future possibly better. Why should we ban that. By harm I mean direct harm. Theft of ideas and direct copying. But harm through creating a better product. Morally I think there is nothing wrong with this. Practically we may have to do it, but this is like banning marijuana.

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.