4 ms·

I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for Adobe. :) The contributor agreement linked from here[1] is this: [2] "You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual

I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for Adobe. :) The contributor agreement linked from here[1] is this: [2] "You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work for the purposes of operating the Website; presenting, distributing, marketing, promoting, and licensing the Work to users; developing new features and services; archiving the Work; and protecting the Work. " I guess this would fall under the "developing new features and services". What is funny is that "we may compensate you at our discretion as described in section 5 (Payment) below". :) I like when I may be compensated :) And in section 5 they say: "We will pay you as described in the pricing and payment details at [...] for any sales of licenses to Work, less any cancellations, returns, and refunds." So yeah. Sucks to the artist who signed this. They can use your work to develop new features and services, and they do not have to pay you for that at all, since it is not a sale of a license. 1: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-gu... 2: https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20220415.pdf https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/service...

roughly 4y ago
> They can use your work to develop new features and services, and they do not have to pay you for that at all, since it is not a sale of a license. And in this case, to develop new features and services that specifically undercuts your existing business, viz. selling stock photos for money. Sucks to the artists, indeed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cto_of_antifa 4y ago
  [dead]
pradn 4y ago
The terms seem like legalese for "you pay me money now and get to do anything with it". It doesn't seem far-fetched for training AI models to be a valid use-case. This is way better than scraping the whole internet, for art by artists who have had no commercial arrangement with Adobe.
wwweston 4y ago
I'm starting to think that use of works in a training set is a category not covered well by existing copyright law, and it may be important to require separate explicit opt-in agreement by law (and receipt of some consideration in return) in order to be considered legitimate use. The vast majority of copyrighted works were conceived and negotiated under conditions where ML reproduction capabilities didn't exist and nobody knew what related value they were negotiating away or buying.
- musicale 4y ago
  Derivative works or remixes usually require a license. Artists could very reasonably argue that AI-generated images are derivative works from their own images - especially if there is notable similarity or portions appear to be copied. They could also point out that their images were used for commercial purposes without permission and without compensation to generate works that compete with their own. For example, even a short sample used in a song usually has to be licensed. Cover versions of songs may qualify for a compulsory license with a set royalty payment scale. However some reuse (such as transformative use, parodies, or use of snippets for various purposes, especially non-commercial purposes) may be considered fair use. AI companies could very reasonably argue that use of images for training AI models is transformative and qualifies as fair use, that no components of the original images are reused in AI-generated images, and that AI-generated images are no more infringing than human-generated images which show influences from other artists. Absent additional law, I expect the legal system will have to sort out whether AI-generated images infringe the copyright of their training images, and if so what sort of licensing would be appropriate for AI-generated (or other software/machine-generated) images based on training data from images that are under copyright.
  - AJ007 4y ago
    I propose that it is impossible to prove that any content created after 2022 did or did not utilize ML/AI during the process of its creation (art, code, music, audio, text.) Thus, anything produced after 2022 should not be eligible for copyright protection. Everything pre-2022 may retain the existing copyright protection but should be subject to extra taxes on royalties and fees given the exorbitant privilege. Though this sounds extreme, enforcing the alternative would break any last remnant of human privacy. It would kill the independent operation of computing as we know it and severely cripple AI/ML research when we need it most: human alignment. It is possible that a catastrophic event occurs and halts the supply chain of advanced semiconductors in the near future, in which case the debate can be postponed indefinitely.
cronix 4y ago
That is basically the same boiler plate legal release for photography/videography/audio works in general. You sell me this thing, and I can do whatever I want with it. From the popular Getty Images, used by media worldwide: > When a customer uses one of your files, it may appear in advertising, marketing, apps, websites, social media, TV and film, presentations, newspapers, magazines, books, or product packaging, among many other uses. https://www.gettyimages.com/workwithus https://www.gettyimages.com/workwithus

roughly 4y ago

> They can use your work to develop new features and services, and they do not have to pay you for that at all, since it is not a sale of a license. And in this case, to develop new features and services that specifically undercuts your existing business, viz. selling stock photos for money. Sucks to the artists, indeed.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cto_of_antifa 4y ago
[dead]

pradn 4y ago

The terms seem like legalese for "you pay me money now and get to do anything with it". It doesn't seem far-fetched for training AI models to be a valid use-case. This is way better than scraping the whole internet, for art by artists who have had no commercial arrangement with Adobe.

wwweston 4y ago

I'm starting to think that use of works in a training set is a category not covered well by existing copyright law, and it may be important to require separate explicit opt-in agreement by law (and receipt of some consideration in return) in order to be considered legitimate use. The vast majority of copyrighted works were conceived and negotiated under conditions where ML reproduction capabilities didn't exist and nobody knew what related value they were negotiating away or buying.

musicale 4y ago
Derivative works or remixes usually require a license. Artists could very reasonably argue that AI-generated images are derivative works from their own images - especially if there is notable similarity or portions appear to be copied. They could also point out that their images were used for commercial purposes without permission and without compensation to generate works that compete with their own. For example, even a short sample used in a song usually has to be licensed. Cover versions of songs may qualify for a compulsory license with a set royalty payment scale. However some reuse (such as transformative use, parodies, or use of snippets for various purposes, especially non-commercial purposes) may be considered fair use. AI companies could very reasonably argue that use of images for training AI models is transformative and qualifies as fair use, that no components of the original images are reused in AI-generated images, and that AI-generated images are no more infringing than human-generated images which show influences from other artists. Absent additional law, I expect the legal system will have to sort out whether AI-generated images infringe the copyright of their training images, and if so what sort of licensing would be appropriate for AI-generated (or other software/machine-generated) images based on training data from images that are under copyright.
- AJ007 4y ago
  I propose that it is impossible to prove that any content created after 2022 did or did not utilize ML/AI during the process of its creation (art, code, music, audio, text.) Thus, anything produced after 2022 should not be eligible for copyright protection. Everything pre-2022 may retain the existing copyright protection but should be subject to extra taxes on royalties and fees given the exorbitant privilege. Though this sounds extreme, enforcing the alternative would break any last remnant of human privacy. It would kill the independent operation of computing as we know it and severely cripple AI/ML research when we need it most: human alignment. It is possible that a catastrophic event occurs and halts the supply chain of advanced semiconductors in the near future, in which case the debate can be postponed indefinitely.

cronix 4y ago

That is basically the same boiler plate legal release for photography/videography/audio works in general. You sell me this thing, and I can do whatever I want with it. From the popular Getty Images, used by media worldwide: > When a customer uses one of your files, it may appear in advertising, marketing, apps, websites, social media, TV and film, presentations, newspapers, magazines, books, or product packaging, among many other uses. https://www.gettyimages.com/workwithus https://www.gettyimages.com/workwithus