4 ms·

You won't get the exact image, because the model doesn't perfectly memorize all inputs, but you'll likely get something so close that everyone would consider it

by not2b 4y ago

You won't get the exact image, because the model doesn't perfectly memorize all inputs, but you'll likely get something so close that everyone would consider it a derivative work. This is very similar to getting Copilot to spit out Carnack's fast inverse square root code with the right prompt.

andybak 4y ago
There's some interesting thought experiments around this: 1. You do the same thing but don't use "getty" in the prompt. 2. You do the same thing with "getty" in the prompt on a model NOT trained with Getty images 3. You ask a human photographer to do the same thing and you show him a Getty image 4. You ask a human photographer to do the same thing but without showing him a Getty image (but he's presumably seen many in the past). If 1 and 2 produce images that are also similar to a Getty image, where do we stand? I imagine it's likely that a trained model can learn "getty-like" without any actual Getty images to make 2 happen. And currently IP law treats humans and AIs the same (in the sense that infringment rules don't distinguish between them) so would you consider 3 and 4 to be similar to 1 and 2?
- not2b 4y ago
  For 1, there's probably a case where a picture that exactly matches the prompt is very famous, so maybe the right prompt would manage to effectively select an image licensed by Getty. The GPLed fast inverse square root routine was an example of this kind of thing: one good match and the model finds it. Finding such a case might or might not be possible. For 2, you can't find what isn't there, so something random would come out. For 3 or 4, I suppose you could pay paparazzi to stalk the celebrity and try to produce a similar original shot, and this might be impossible depending on the prompt (for example, photo of [person] at [event] on [date]"), but if it's possible it has absolutely no resemblance to 1 or 2. The photographer would produce an original work, unless your #3 contractor tries to remove the watermark and pass off the Getty image as their own, which would be idiotic. There is no particular "Getty Images" style, other than their quality requirements, they are a huge company that acquires and licenses a ton of pro photography. There's no such thing as "getty-like". So, no, only option 1 might possibly produce a problematic derivative work.
  - andybak 4y ago
    > For 2, you can't find what isn't there, so something random would come out. It's not a search engine. It can synthesise things that it hasn't seen to some degree (assuming it knows the elements that make up the request. The tricky bit would to teach it "Gettyness" without showing it Getty images but I think that's entirely possible. Getty images aren't astonishing examples of unprecedented originality. So it just needs to know a) the celebrity b) the action and c) what people mean when they ask for something that looks like a Getty image. EDIT - I answered in a rush and realise you made a similar point to me about "Gettyness" - which makes it even harder for me to understand why you think it would be a violation. How many different ways can George Clooney eat a burrito in Times Square?
    - not2b 4y ago
      Suppose that there's a really iconic pic of George Clooney eating a burrito in Times Square, with a "Getty Images" watermark on it, in the training set. It's perfectly framed, has a somewhat comic expression, and a bit of the contents spilled on his shirt. It seems quite possible that the model could produce an image that isn't identical to this but so much so that people assume it's a copy, maybe produced by an artist based on the picture. Worse, it will have most of the "Getty Images" watermark right on the image. If that doesn't convince you that there might be an issue I'll just stop here.

by not2b 4y ago

andybak 4y ago

There's some interesting thought experiments around this: 1. You do the same thing but don't use "getty" in the prompt. 2. You do the same thing with "getty" in the prompt on a model NOT trained with Getty images 3. You ask a human photographer to do the same thing and you show him a Getty image 4. You ask a human photographer to do the same thing but without showing him a Getty image (but he's presumably seen many in the past). If 1 and 2 produce images that are also similar to a Getty image, where do we stand? I imagine it's likely that a trained model can learn "getty-like" without any actual Getty images to make 2 happen. And currently IP law treats humans and AIs the same (in the sense that infringment rules don't distinguish between them) so would you consider 3 and 4 to be similar to 1 and 2?

not2b 4y ago
For 1, there's probably a case where a picture that exactly matches the prompt is very famous, so maybe the right prompt would manage to effectively select an image licensed by Getty. The GPLed fast inverse square root routine was an example of this kind of thing: one good match and the model finds it. Finding such a case might or might not be possible. For 2, you can't find what isn't there, so something random would come out. For 3 or 4, I suppose you could pay paparazzi to stalk the celebrity and try to produce a similar original shot, and this might be impossible depending on the prompt (for example, photo of [person] at [event] on [date]"), but if it's possible it has absolutely no resemblance to 1 or 2. The photographer would produce an original work, unless your #3 contractor tries to remove the watermark and pass off the Getty image as their own, which would be idiotic. There is no particular "Getty Images" style, other than their quality requirements, they are a huge company that acquires and licenses a ton of pro photography. There's no such thing as "getty-like". So, no, only option 1 might possibly produce a problematic derivative work.
- andybak 4y ago
  > For 2, you can't find what isn't there, so something random would come out. It's not a search engine. It can synthesise things that it hasn't seen to some degree (assuming it knows the elements that make up the request. The tricky bit would to teach it "Gettyness" without showing it Getty images but I think that's entirely possible. Getty images aren't astonishing examples of unprecedented originality. So it just needs to know a) the celebrity b) the action and c) what people mean when they ask for something that looks like a Getty image. EDIT - I answered in a rush and realise you made a similar point to me about "Gettyness" - which makes it even harder for me to understand why you think it would be a violation. How many different ways can George Clooney eat a burrito in Times Square?
  - not2b 4y ago
    Suppose that there's a really iconic pic of George Clooney eating a burrito in Times Square, with a "Getty Images" watermark on it, in the training set. It's perfectly framed, has a somewhat comic expression, and a bit of the contents spilled on his shirt. It seems quite possible that the model could produce an image that isn't identical to this but so much so that people assume it's a copy, maybe produced by an artist based on the picture. Worse, it will have most of the "Getty Images" watermark right on the image. If that doesn't convince you that there might be an issue I'll just stop here.