10 ms·

I wonder if Getty and Stability AI were ever in negotiation for licensing their work and this lawsuit is fallout. Getty announced in Oct they partnered with BR

I wonder if Getty and Stability AI were ever in negotiation for licensing their work and this lawsuit is fallout. Getty announced in Oct they partnered with BRIA (?) to provide generative AI tools using their licensed images [1], and Shutterstock announced a partnership with OpenAI [2]. So it's clear these rights holders are OK with generative AI, as long as they continue to extract their pound of flesh. The language around "protecting artists" is horseshit - if you're a creative and you see Disney, Getty, etc getting behind your cause, you should look _very_ carefully around and make sure you're not the one being screwed. 1 - https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/bria-partners-with-getty-images-to-transform-visual-content-through-responsible-ai https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/bria-partne... 2 - https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/25/23422359/shutterstock-ai-generated-art-openai-dall-e-partnership-contributors-fund-reimbursement https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/25/23422359/shutterstock-ai...

jalev 4y ago
From the article it might be read as "Stability AI didn't even bother attempting to reach out" > Rather than attempt to negotiate a license with Getty Images for the use of its content, and even though the terms of use of Getty Images' websites expressly prohibit unauthorized reproduction of content for commercial purposes such as those undertaken by Stability Al, Stability AI has copied at least 12 million copyrighted images from Getty Images' websites, along with associated text and metadata, in order to train its Stable Diffusion model.
rosywoozlechan 4y ago
> as they continue to extract their pound of flesh Be compensated for the use of their content is maybe a more accurate and friendlier way to phrase this, but I guess not as edgy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Is it truly their content? It’s private people uploading these pictures to these sites right?
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Private people who agreed that Getty would manage their distribution and compensate them when their image was used by one of Getty's clients, yes. So yeah, not only is it very much Getty's content to distribute, but Stability AI is absolutely screwing over thousands of little guys by not paying royalties too...
    - tyingq 4y ago
      Some of that, but Getty also repackages images with licenses that allow it. And sometimes then acts like it "owns" those images by harassing others that use the same original source, including the original copyright owner. That's not especially relevant to the article, but helpful to understand a lot of what's there isn't their IP to manage.
      - VanTheBrand 4y ago
        That’s the minority of their images and also if it’s the version from their server with their watermark on it, it actually is their IP to manage. So as you said it’s not especially relevant and it’s very clear stability didn’t limit its scraping of Getty to these kinds of images. Getty in other instances being jerks doesn’t make them wrong here.
        tyingq 4y ago
        >That’s the minority of their images It's difficult to find any source that would prove or disprove that. I can find references that they changed 35 million images to "royalty free" in 2014. The examples I can find of those are things like this: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/73409000/jpg/_73409443_1e3b6fe6-c85b-4b52-96a9-3b7d6e547ef5.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/73409000/... Which appears to be a public domain image. Or this $499 image from Getty: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burroughs-sharecropper-by-walker-evans-news-photo/544162314 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burrough... Free from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ (including the 50MB tiff that appears to be the highest resolution avaialable)
- hobobaggins 4y ago
  It's actually a fairly common idiom in English, dating prior to Shakespeare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_of_Flesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_of_Flesh
  - rosywoozlechan 4y ago
    totally unnecessary explanation, don't know what in my comment led you to think I needed it. Do you regularly define words and etymology for people in comments?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
madeofpalk 4y ago
It's not hypocritical to be upset at someone else stealing your content to sell it, just because you sell it yourself. That's probably a part of why you're upset - because you don't get the money. My understanding is that in general, artists aren't necessarily against generative AI, but their complaint is (partly) around a complete lack of consent of being a part of these training models.
- odessacubbage 4y ago
  i think a big part of what has been lost on people is that for an illustrator in the computer age, copyright is quite literally your product.
ninth_ant 4y ago
I don't feel like it's even slightly contradictory for Getty to simultaneously be OK with licensing their content to someone for AI modeling, but not being OK with a random unaffiliated company using their IP. It feels like pretty straightforward copyright management. "Protecting artists" is not something they claimed as if they were opposed to AI usage at all. In their press release they said: > It is Getty Images’ position that Stability AI unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright and the associated metadata owned or represented by Getty Images absent a license to benefit Stability AI’s commercial interests and to the detriment of the content creators. It's clear from this that the issue was not that Stability is an AI company, but that it's unlicensed. Getting an exclusive license to the images is specifically what they pay contributors for. Having those copyrights infringed by a competitor makes the content less valuable to Getty, and disincentivizes Getty from paying for new content in the future. So yeah, it's plausible that this behaviour from Stability could harm content creators. Not because it's AI, but because its just run-of-the-mill unauthorized usage.
- eek2121 4y ago
  I do NOT require licensing to produce artwork, even if it may or may not be slightly/not so slightly inspired by so called 'copyrights'. Me thinks you are an industry guy. You should read about all of the failed/lost cases that get swept under the rug. I don't have a clue whether Stability AI will win this, it depends on their exact algorithm and how much they rely on source content, but if I draw something similar to the modern equivalent of the 'Mona Lisa', no, you don't have a right to it unless you can prove that in court. No, you can't copyright a painter painting a woman, either.
  - ninth_ant 4y ago
    I am not an industry guy, nor do I make any claims about how successful the lawsuit will be. I am simply arguing that Getty is not being hypocritical in their position. But now that you brought it up -- reproducing intact watermarks for Getty in multiple images as shown in the lawsuit feels like maybe your "slightly inspired" argument doesn't apply here.
  - 4y ago
chasing 4y ago
> So it's clear these rights holders are OK with generative AI, as long as they continue to extract their pound of flesh. They own the images.

jalev 4y ago

From the article it might be read as "Stability AI didn't even bother attempting to reach out" > Rather than attempt to negotiate a license with Getty Images for the use of its content, and even though the terms of use of Getty Images' websites expressly prohibit unauthorized reproduction of content for commercial purposes such as those undertaken by Stability Al, Stability AI has copied at least 12 million copyrighted images from Getty Images' websites, along with associated text and metadata, in order to train its Stable Diffusion model.

rosywoozlechan 4y ago

> as they continue to extract their pound of flesh Be compensated for the use of their content is maybe a more accurate and friendlier way to phrase this, but I guess not as edgy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 4y ago
Is it truly their content? It’s private people uploading these pictures to these sites right?
- notahacker 4y ago
  Private people who agreed that Getty would manage their distribution and compensate them when their image was used by one of Getty's clients, yes. So yeah, not only is it very much Getty's content to distribute, but Stability AI is absolutely screwing over thousands of little guys by not paying royalties too...
  - tyingq 4y ago
    Some of that, but Getty also repackages images with licenses that allow it. And sometimes then acts like it "owns" those images by harassing others that use the same original source, including the original copyright owner. That's not especially relevant to the article, but helpful to understand a lot of what's there isn't their IP to manage.
    - VanTheBrand 4y ago
      That’s the minority of their images and also if it’s the version from their server with their watermark on it, it actually is their IP to manage. So as you said it’s not especially relevant and it’s very clear stability didn’t limit its scraping of Getty to these kinds of images. Getty in other instances being jerks doesn’t make them wrong here.
      - tyingq 4y ago
        >That’s the minority of their images It's difficult to find any source that would prove or disprove that. I can find references that they changed 35 million images to "royalty free" in 2014. The examples I can find of those are things like this: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/73409000/jpg/_73409443_1e3b6fe6-c85b-4b52-96a9-3b7d6e547ef5.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/73409000/... Which appears to be a public domain image. Or this $499 image from Getty: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burroughs-sharecropper-by-walker-evans-news-photo/544162314 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burrough... Free from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ (including the 50MB tiff that appears to be the highest resolution avaialable)
hobobaggins 4y ago
It's actually a fairly common idiom in English, dating prior to Shakespeare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_of_Flesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_of_Flesh
- rosywoozlechan 4y ago
  totally unnecessary explanation, don't know what in my comment led you to think I needed it. Do you regularly define words and etymology for people in comments?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

madeofpalk 4y ago

It's not hypocritical to be upset at someone else stealing your content to sell it, just because you sell it yourself. That's probably a part of why you're upset - because you don't get the money. My understanding is that in general, artists aren't necessarily against generative AI, but their complaint is (partly) around a complete lack of consent of being a part of these training models.

odessacubbage 4y ago
i think a big part of what has been lost on people is that for an illustrator in the computer age, copyright is quite literally your product.

ninth_ant 4y ago

I don't feel like it's even slightly contradictory for Getty to simultaneously be OK with licensing their content to someone for AI modeling, but not being OK with a random unaffiliated company using their IP. It feels like pretty straightforward copyright management. "Protecting artists" is not something they claimed as if they were opposed to AI usage at all. In their press release they said: > It is Getty Images’ position that Stability AI unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright and the associated metadata owned or represented by Getty Images absent a license to benefit Stability AI’s commercial interests and to the detriment of the content creators. It's clear from this that the issue was not that Stability is an AI company, but that it's unlicensed. Getting an exclusive license to the images is specifically what they pay contributors for. Having those copyrights infringed by a competitor makes the content less valuable to Getty, and disincentivizes Getty from paying for new content in the future. So yeah, it's plausible that this behaviour from Stability could harm content creators. Not because it's AI, but because its just run-of-the-mill unauthorized usage.

eek2121 4y ago
I do NOT require licensing to produce artwork, even if it may or may not be slightly/not so slightly inspired by so called 'copyrights'. Me thinks you are an industry guy. You should read about all of the failed/lost cases that get swept under the rug. I don't have a clue whether Stability AI will win this, it depends on their exact algorithm and how much they rely on source content, but if I draw something similar to the modern equivalent of the 'Mona Lisa', no, you don't have a right to it unless you can prove that in court. No, you can't copyright a painter painting a woman, either.
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  I am not an industry guy, nor do I make any claims about how successful the lawsuit will be. I am simply arguing that Getty is not being hypocritical in their position. But now that you brought it up -- reproducing intact watermarks for Getty in multiple images as shown in the lawsuit feels like maybe your "slightly inspired" argument doesn't apply here.
- 4y ago

chasing 4y ago

> So it's clear these rights holders are OK with generative AI, as long as they continue to extract their pound of flesh. They own the images.