4 ms·

This ruling has next to nothing to do with generative AI. If anything, the fact that there was enough ambiguity that it took 35+ years for a court to decide th

by mjr00 3y ago

This ruling has next to nothing to do with generative AI. If anything, the fact that there was enough ambiguity that it took 35+ years for a court to decide that someone tracing a photograph was, in fact, not fair use is a good indication that it will be very hard to use current laws to stop outputs of generative AI that have been trained on copyrighted material.

lesuorac 3y ago
I think parts of the ruling has a lot to do with generative AI. The big problem for Warhol is that people paid for the image he produced instead of paying for the original photograph for use as a reference to Prince's likeness. So the works were for the same purpose. If you use generative AI to produce a 3d State of Liberty for your video game I doubt you'll end up losing a case by a photographer of the Statue of Liberty because the purposes are actually different. But if you are using generative AI of stock imagery to produce stock imagery I think you're going to run into the same problem as Andy Warhol's foundation did.
- judge2020 3y ago
  Based off of current copyright statutes, nothing about generative AI creating stock photos by being trained on stock photos would violate copyright law; only if it was substantially similar to an existing work and was not transformative of that existing work. Just because the AI (read: the human) has seen work doesn't mean that creating a photo with the same subject and even with the same framing and techniques is inherently infringement.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > only if it was substantially similar to an existing work and was not transformative of that existing work That's a giant only. If the resulting image is nothing close to the source image then yes I agree you're unlikely to lose any copyright case. But its the cases where they are similar that anybody cares. I pick the word "stock imagery" for a specific reason; I do no see a way that you can have a transformative use of stock imagery since its use is so vague. And a reminder (with a quote this time) transformative does not refer to the production it refers to the use. If you painted every single stock imagery you could find and let companies license those paintings (or pictures of your paintings) instead of using the source stock imagery I believe you'd lose a copyright lawsuit. > [1] AWF contends that the Prince Series works are “transformative,” and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph. But the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or different character [1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    Training a model on a bunch of images by {artist}, and then telling it "Generate me 20 images in the style of {artist}" seems pretty close to this ruling. It's non-transformative in the legal sense that {an original image by X} and {a generated image in the style of X} are likely used for the exact same purpose (be it display, advertisement, whatever).
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      I think it would need to be a bit more than just that. If you have a Picaso style advertisement for Ford its probably transformative w.r.t. any of Picaso's works since none of them as-is could be used for that advertisement. There's no way Picaso painted any Ford motor vehicles. As well as if you used those imagery as an example of the generative capabilities the originals wouldn't suit that purpose. Or if you had a collection of AI generated art then the originals also wouldn't work.
    - mjr00 3y ago
      > Training a model on a bunch of images by {artist}, and then telling it "Generate me 20 images in the style of {artist}" seems pretty close to this ruling. No, it's not close at all. Did you look at the images in question for the ruling? Warhol's picture is very clearly a tracing of the photograph. Unless you're using the AI to generate an almost-exact copy of one of the training images, this ruling does not apply.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        The decision is not an infringement decision. AWF did not dispute the finding that the images are substantially similar.
        judge2020 3y ago
        > The decision is not an infringement decision > Supreme Court rules Andy Warhol’s Prince art is copyright infringement And fair use is the main exemption to copyright, and that was decided here.
Bjorkbat 3y ago
I was actually watching this case precisely because it has implications for generative AI
freejazz 3y ago
That's a complete misunderstanding of the issues present in this case, which were very nuanced. I say this as a copyright litigator. And I'm happy to explain further if you'd like.
- menro2 3y ago
  Please share your thoughts

by mjr00 3y ago

lesuorac 3y ago

I think parts of the ruling has a lot to do with generative AI. The big problem for Warhol is that people paid for the image he produced instead of paying for the original photograph for use as a reference to Prince's likeness. So the works were for the same purpose. If you use generative AI to produce a 3d State of Liberty for your video game I doubt you'll end up losing a case by a photographer of the Statue of Liberty because the purposes are actually different. But if you are using generative AI of stock imagery to produce stock imagery I think you're going to run into the same problem as Andy Warhol's foundation did.

judge2020 3y ago
Based off of current copyright statutes, nothing about generative AI creating stock photos by being trained on stock photos would violate copyright law; only if it was substantially similar to an existing work and was not transformative of that existing work. Just because the AI (read: the human) has seen work doesn't mean that creating a photo with the same subject and even with the same framing and techniques is inherently infringement.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > only if it was substantially similar to an existing work and was not transformative of that existing work That's a giant only. If the resulting image is nothing close to the source image then yes I agree you're unlikely to lose any copyright case. But its the cases where they are similar that anybody cares. I pick the word "stock imagery" for a specific reason; I do no see a way that you can have a transformative use of stock imagery since its use is so vague. And a reminder (with a quote this time) transformative does not refer to the production it refers to the use. If you painted every single stock imagery you could find and let companies license those paintings (or pictures of your paintings) instead of using the source stock imagery I believe you'd lose a copyright lawsuit. > [1] AWF contends that the Prince Series works are “transformative,” and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph. But the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or different character [1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
- ethbr0 3y ago
  Training a model on a bunch of images by {artist}, and then telling it "Generate me 20 images in the style of {artist}" seems pretty close to this ruling. It's non-transformative in the legal sense that {an original image by X} and {a generated image in the style of X} are likely used for the exact same purpose (be it display, advertisement, whatever).
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I think it would need to be a bit more than just that. If you have a Picaso style advertisement for Ford its probably transformative w.r.t. any of Picaso's works since none of them as-is could be used for that advertisement. There's no way Picaso painted any Ford motor vehicles. As well as if you used those imagery as an example of the generative capabilities the originals wouldn't suit that purpose. Or if you had a collection of AI generated art then the originals also wouldn't work.
  - mjr00 3y ago
    > Training a model on a bunch of images by {artist}, and then telling it "Generate me 20 images in the style of {artist}" seems pretty close to this ruling. No, it's not close at all. Did you look at the images in question for the ruling? Warhol's picture is very clearly a tracing of the photograph. Unless you're using the AI to generate an almost-exact copy of one of the training images, this ruling does not apply.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      The decision is not an infringement decision. AWF did not dispute the finding that the images are substantially similar.
      - judge2020 3y ago
        > The decision is not an infringement decision > Supreme Court rules Andy Warhol’s Prince art is copyright infringement And fair use is the main exemption to copyright, and that was decided here.

Bjorkbat 3y ago

I was actually watching this case precisely because it has implications for generative AI

freejazz 3y ago

That's a complete misunderstanding of the issues present in this case, which were very nuanced. I say this as a copyright litigator. And I'm happy to explain further if you'd like.

menro2 3y ago
Please share your thoughts