3 ms·

> removing watermarks to steal photos is illegal How quaint. From the "you wouldn't steal a car" Napster era. "AI" is imagining what the image looks like with

> removing watermarks to steal photos is illegal How quaint. From the "you wouldn't steal a car" Napster era. "AI" is imagining what the image looks like without a watermark. It's not hacking the photographer's computer and "stealing" the pixels he didn't want to share. This kind of technology is great because it lays bare how silly something was in the first place.

sfifs 4y ago
It's always easy to criticize something as silly if one is not dependent on it for one's livelihood. As the concept of patronage by royalty has gone away, our societies have decided to reward creative arts with copyright instead. This has arguably allowed art to be broadly enjoyed by public Vs being restricted to high society patrons as it was in the past and so is a social good in the economic sense. You may disagree but the route is to convince enough co-citizens in your nation to get the law changed. This kind of technology is dangerous to the ignorant user because use of this kind of watermark removal just demonstrates intent to violate copyright by the user.
- musicale 4y ago
  > our societies have decided to reward creative arts with copyright instead In the US, the constitutional purpose of copyright is not to reward creative arts, but "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The (ostensibly) limited monopoly of copyright is intended to provide an incentive for promoting progress of science and "useful" arts. But I think you're right - in practice US copyright law has expanded beyond its constitutional scope (and arguably beyond the authority granted to congress) into a reward system for (some) copyright holders.
motoxpro 4y ago
Why is it silly to want to sell a photo?
- musicale 4y ago
  I assume PP would have no problem with selling prints. The point seems to be that the new bits in question (that replace the watermark) aren't actually transferred but are created anew by the AI system, so it isn't sensible to claim that they are somehow being acquired illicitly, and the other bits were presumably acquired legitimately as well. I expect the 'silly' part is equating copying, or creating unauthorized derivative works, with theft. Although there is some confusion in the law about this (such as the title of the No Electronic Theft [NET] act), copyright infringement and theft are different from each other in important ways.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    > and the other bits were presumably acquired legitimately as well They weren't, that's the point. The watermarked image is provided for the purpose of showing you what the full image looks like. Not to be used. So it's illicit either way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- version_five 4y ago
  Same reason it's silly to sell a digital song by trying to make the government enforce artificial scarcity. Contrast the artificial scarcity model with e.g. spotify that provides values by giving access to a centralized catalog. An example in the image space is Noun Project, which I subscribe to. They have a great model, where they provide everything free on an honor system asking for attribution, and for a subscription they give unencumbered higher quality images, and don't require attribution. But importantly, the value they provide is the central repository of icons, not that they "sell" me a given one.
  - motoxpro 4y ago
    So I have to put my images/songs on a large aggregator that has a subscription business model that forces me to charge all my customers the same amount and forces me to have no relationship with my customer? I mean fair I guess. Seems strange to punish someone who makes a squarespace and wants to sell a photo or a site like https://www.rootsandrain.com/photos/ https://www.rootsandrain.com/photos/ that is small and sells event photos. I don't want ALL photos. I just one ONE of me. You're saying because you don't have this business model I have the right to steal your photos. Edit: Also, I always laugh with attribution. At some point you have to monetize that attribution or else it is meaningless. If you knowing my "name" or "photos" doesn't allow me to charge more (come to more concerts, sell more photos, do a speaking gig) then I don't make money off of it. By removing watermarks, you're just taking away one of the ways I would monetize that attribution that no one does anyway.

sfifs 4y ago

It's always easy to criticize something as silly if one is not dependent on it for one's livelihood. As the concept of patronage by royalty has gone away, our societies have decided to reward creative arts with copyright instead. This has arguably allowed art to be broadly enjoyed by public Vs being restricted to high society patrons as it was in the past and so is a social good in the economic sense. You may disagree but the route is to convince enough co-citizens in your nation to get the law changed. This kind of technology is dangerous to the ignorant user because use of this kind of watermark removal just demonstrates intent to violate copyright by the user.

musicale 4y ago
> our societies have decided to reward creative arts with copyright instead In the US, the constitutional purpose of copyright is not to reward creative arts, but "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The (ostensibly) limited monopoly of copyright is intended to provide an incentive for promoting progress of science and "useful" arts. But I think you're right - in practice US copyright law has expanded beyond its constitutional scope (and arguably beyond the authority granted to congress) into a reward system for (some) copyright holders.

motoxpro 4y ago

Why is it silly to want to sell a photo?

musicale 4y ago
I assume PP would have no problem with selling prints. The point seems to be that the new bits in question (that replace the watermark) aren't actually transferred but are created anew by the AI system, so it isn't sensible to claim that they are somehow being acquired illicitly, and the other bits were presumably acquired legitimately as well. I expect the 'silly' part is equating copying, or creating unauthorized derivative works, with theft. Although there is some confusion in the law about this (such as the title of the No Electronic Theft [NET] act), copyright infringement and theft are different from each other in important ways.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  > and the other bits were presumably acquired legitimately as well They weren't, that's the point. The watermarked image is provided for the purpose of showing you what the full image looks like. Not to be used. So it's illicit either way.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
version_five 4y ago
Same reason it's silly to sell a digital song by trying to make the government enforce artificial scarcity. Contrast the artificial scarcity model with e.g. spotify that provides values by giving access to a centralized catalog. An example in the image space is Noun Project, which I subscribe to. They have a great model, where they provide everything free on an honor system asking for attribution, and for a subscription they give unencumbered higher quality images, and don't require attribution. But importantly, the value they provide is the central repository of icons, not that they "sell" me a given one.
- motoxpro 4y ago
  So I have to put my images/songs on a large aggregator that has a subscription business model that forces me to charge all my customers the same amount and forces me to have no relationship with my customer? I mean fair I guess. Seems strange to punish someone who makes a squarespace and wants to sell a photo or a site like https://www.rootsandrain.com/photos/ https://www.rootsandrain.com/photos/ that is small and sells event photos. I don't want ALL photos. I just one ONE of me. You're saying because you don't have this business model I have the right to steal your photos. Edit: Also, I always laugh with attribution. At some point you have to monetize that attribution or else it is meaningless. If you knowing my "name" or "photos" doesn't allow me to charge more (come to more concerts, sell more photos, do a speaking gig) then I don't make money off of it. By removing watermarks, you're just taking away one of the ways I would monetize that attribution that no one does anyway.