4 ms·

It’ll be derivative fair use.

colesantiago 4y ago
Not really, kind of clear the watermark is from Getty Images with no licence, no partnership, not even removing it from the training data and with no permission, all the while making money from the hosted service (with the trained model) with Dreamstudio. Just because it's a scrambled watermark doesn't mean it's transformative. Also, these images are copyrighted and it being generated by an AI (supposedly) turns it into a public domain image, which is incompatible with fair use.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  It’s not a copy so…. Let me ask this, if you paint a realistic copy of a photo is that copyright infringement? And where do you draw the line: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-andy-warhol-found-for-the-visual-arts-inc-v-goldsmith#:~:text=Conclusion%3A,establish%20infringement%20of%20her%20photographs https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-a....
  - colesantiago 4y ago
    > It’s not a copy so…. You're saying it can't be a 1:1 Getty Images watermark but it also can't be generated in a vacuum, so how did that 'recognisable watermark that apparently for some reason resembles a Getty Images watermark but it isn't' get in there? Either way, under the law, derivative works are still under the copyright holder. > Copyright protection for the owner of the original copyright extends to derivative works. This means that the copyright owner of the original work also owns the rights to derivative works. Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works... But here is the kicker, it all comes down to, permission. https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula > No Machine Learning, AI, or Biometric Technology Use. Unless explicitly authorised in a Getty Images invoice, sales order confirmation or licence agreement, you may not use content (including any caption information, keywords or other metadata associated with content) for any machine learning and/or artificial intelligence purposes, or for any technologies designed or intended for the identification of natural persons. Additionally, Getty Images does not represent or warrant that consent has been obtained for such uses with respect to model-released content.
  - Logans_Run 4y ago
    Taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night is a copyright breach [1] as are pictures of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles, Radio City Music Hall in New York City, and St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (all of which except the Eiffel Tower I didn’t know about until looking up the provided reference) and all of them seem to me to be ludicrous but they ya go - I don't make the rules, only break them. [1] https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/ https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/
  - freejazz 4y ago
    No, that's transformative because you painted it. Transforming it into data bits, on its own, isn't considered transformative from a fair use perspective.
hnfong 4y ago
There's no "fair use" in UK law (where the lawsuit is happening). The corresponding "fair dealing" concept is much more narrow in scope.

Not really, kind of clear the watermark is from Getty Images with no licence, no partnership, not even removing it from the training data and with no permission, all the while making money from the hosted service (with the trained model) with Dreamstudio. Just because it's a scrambled watermark doesn't mean it's transformative. Also, these images are copyrighted and it being generated by an AI (supposedly) turns it into a public domain image, which is incompatible with fair use.

theGnuMe 4y ago
It’s not a copy so…. Let me ask this, if you paint a realistic copy of a photo is that copyright infringement? And where do you draw the line: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-andy-warhol-found-for-the-visual-arts-inc-v-goldsmith#:~:text=Conclusion%3A,establish%20infringement%20of%20her%20photographs https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-a....
- colesantiago 4y ago
  > It’s not a copy so…. You're saying it can't be a 1:1 Getty Images watermark but it also can't be generated in a vacuum, so how did that 'recognisable watermark that apparently for some reason resembles a Getty Images watermark but it isn't' get in there? Either way, under the law, derivative works are still under the copyright holder. > Copyright protection for the owner of the original copyright extends to derivative works. This means that the copyright owner of the original work also owns the rights to derivative works. Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works... But here is the kicker, it all comes down to, permission. https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula > No Machine Learning, AI, or Biometric Technology Use. Unless explicitly authorised in a Getty Images invoice, sales order confirmation or licence agreement, you may not use content (including any caption information, keywords or other metadata associated with content) for any machine learning and/or artificial intelligence purposes, or for any technologies designed or intended for the identification of natural persons. Additionally, Getty Images does not represent or warrant that consent has been obtained for such uses with respect to model-released content.
- Logans_Run 4y ago
  Taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night is a copyright breach [1] as are pictures of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles, Radio City Music Hall in New York City, and St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (all of which except the Eiffel Tower I didn’t know about until looking up the provided reference) and all of them seem to me to be ludicrous but they ya go - I don't make the rules, only break them. [1] https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/ https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/
- freejazz 4y ago
  No, that's transformative because you painted it. Transforming it into data bits, on its own, isn't considered transformative from a fair use perspective.

hnfong 4y ago

There's no "fair use" in UK law (where the lawsuit is happening). The corresponding "fair dealing" concept is much more narrow in scope.