3 ms·
This seems totally irrelevant to the case in my view, which is whether Stability Ai had the right to use Getty’s content for training in the manner that they al
by martynr 4y ago
This seems totally irrelevant to the case in my view, which is whether Stability Ai had the right to use Getty’s content for training in the manner that they allegedly did.
- judge2020 4y agoIn general, consuming content cannot be a violation of copyright or a license agreement; What is controlled, however, is stuff like reproduction. So if you do see a Getty Images picture, redraw it almost verbatim (even without tracing), you've effectively reproduced it, but the act of viewing it isn't illegal. In this vein, "exhibiting the same level of creativity as a human" is important - if it is, you can argue that the AI is just creating new stuff and the training set was simply "viewed", so anything it creates isn't necessarily infringement of any one of Getty's photos.
- martynr 4y agoThat’s really helpful clarification, thanks :) - and helps explain why the claim doc includes a focus on the stages in the process where the Getty content is allegedly copied. With this in mind it will be even more interesting to see how this plays out.