5 ms·

It does seem like much of Getty's business is redundant if you can trivially generate "photograph of person laughing while eating a bowl of salad" Maybe the ne

It does seem like much of Getty's business is redundant if you can trivially generate "photograph of person laughing while eating a bowl of salad" Maybe the new business is "reasonably high degree of trust that if it's a Getty image it's not an AI fake" for news outlets and the like who want to sell trustworthiness

spoonjim 4y ago
But if OpenAI's ability to create a photograph of a person laughing while eating a bowl of salad is due to mashing up these photos that were mainly from Getty Images, then Getty and its photographers would have a reasonable claim.
- thereisnospork 4y ago
  How different[0] is that from a painter viewing ~half a dozen Getty images, then repainting in combination to not pixel-perfect, but near, detail? Afaik[1] the hypothetical painter has neither committed infringement on the source works and has input sufficient creative effort into the new that it would be copywritable. [0]Granted it differs a little, but not by that much either. [1]IANAL
  - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
    Morally it seems to basically be the same to me, but in practice it's different. The AI training is done by big corporations that are traceable and have big pockets that can be sued whereas "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from. Never doubt the ability of people's greed to force someone else into a court room. Just look at the 'blurred lines' case where someone was inspired by a musical genre to write a song that didn't copy anyone's music but was still ordered to pay millions because he copied the general "feel" or "vibe" of someone else's work. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...) I imagine a lot of AI generated images might copy the "feel" or "vibe" of something in its training data.
      - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
        Ohhh good callout. I also wonder if getty wins this will spur the creation of a new army of artists to manually create facsimiles of existing art expressly for the purpose of AI training.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
    The difference is that it's mechanical. Copyright is intended to protect creators, and it's unclear whether this type of fair use properly balances the original creators' needs against the ML-based creators' needs.
  - spoonjim 4y ago
    The history of law and courts have decided that "different things can be treated differently."
  - lbotos 4y ago
    Your argument that "painting is transformative enough" and I suspect that wouldn't hold up in court. If you want an example of a painting that might be transformative enough, here is Ryder Ripps https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 who referenced copyrighted photos and recreated them in this "wavy style".
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  No they wouldn't. Getty and its ilk would go to court and try to argue that they owned the concept of a portrait photograph if they could get away with it. They won't be able to produce specific images that match generated ones well enough to impress a jury at the emotional level. their abstract arguments about mdel constructions won't land because they're too abstract and frankly, boring; the defense will just bore a jury slightly less by putting some neural network nerd on the stand to say the opposite and the jury will shrug and go with its gut.
- drusepth 4y ago
  There are a lot of things (animals, buildings, locations, etc) that I'd bet I've only ever seen in (copyrighted) Getty images, but I could probably also paint new representations of from memory. Would Getty also have a claim against me?

spoonjim 4y ago

But if OpenAI's ability to create a photograph of a person laughing while eating a bowl of salad is due to mashing up these photos that were mainly from Getty Images, then Getty and its photographers would have a reasonable claim.

thereisnospork 4y ago
How different[0] is that from a painter viewing ~half a dozen Getty images, then repainting in combination to not pixel-perfect, but near, detail? Afaik[1] the hypothetical painter has neither committed infringement on the source works and has input sufficient creative effort into the new that it would be copywritable. [0]Granted it differs a little, but not by that much either. [1]IANAL
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  Morally it seems to basically be the same to me, but in practice it's different. The AI training is done by big corporations that are traceable and have big pockets that can be sued whereas "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from. Never doubt the ability of people's greed to force someone else into a court room. Just look at the 'blurred lines' case where someone was inspired by a musical genre to write a song that didn't copy anyone's music but was still ordered to pay millions because he copied the general "feel" or "vibe" of someone else's work. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...) I imagine a lot of AI generated images might copy the "feel" or "vibe" of something in its training data.
    - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
      Ohhh good callout. I also wonder if getty wins this will spur the creation of a new army of artists to manually create facsimiles of existing art expressly for the purpose of AI training.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
  The difference is that it's mechanical. Copyright is intended to protect creators, and it's unclear whether this type of fair use properly balances the original creators' needs against the ML-based creators' needs.
- spoonjim 4y ago
  The history of law and courts have decided that "different things can be treated differently."
- lbotos 4y ago
  Your argument that "painting is transformative enough" and I suspect that wouldn't hold up in court. If you want an example of a painting that might be transformative enough, here is Ryder Ripps https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 who referenced copyrighted photos and recreated them in this "wavy style".
anigbrowl 4y ago
No they wouldn't. Getty and its ilk would go to court and try to argue that they owned the concept of a portrait photograph if they could get away with it. They won't be able to produce specific images that match generated ones well enough to impress a jury at the emotional level. their abstract arguments about mdel constructions won't land because they're too abstract and frankly, boring; the defense will just bore a jury slightly less by putting some neural network nerd on the stand to say the opposite and the jury will shrug and go with its gut.
drusepth 4y ago
There are a lot of things (animals, buildings, locations, etc) that I'd bet I've only ever seen in (copyrighted) Getty images, but I could probably also paint new representations of from memory. Would Getty also have a claim against me?