3 ms·

I agree it's not an entirely new issue. But it's a little different from search results. Say I use the generative paint brush in photoshop. It reproduces a p

I agree it's not an entirely new issue. But it's a little different from search results. Say I use the generative paint brush in photoshop. It reproduces a portion of the copyrighted work. I then use the image on an advertising campaign, other merchandise, or post the final product as my own work. Would I be responsible? Would Adobe? Given that retraining these models is not simple, or cheap, would this be just 'cost of doing business?' Would I be able to buy insurance for this? Enquiring minds want to know.

zdragnar 3y ago
How the copyrighted work is reproduced is irrelevant wrt whether copyright is violated. I suspect you would be held liable, though you would probably have a claim of your own to make against Adobe depending on the nature of the work in question. "Errors and Ommisions" is a fairly standard name for the type of insurance you are thinking of. Typically, you would get it to cover you / your small business in the event that you, by mistake or minor negligence, caused harm to a client (i.e. a bug that cost them some sales). I don't know the ins and outs of the insurance too well, but as long as it didn't create something super famous like the Nike swoosh, a genuine mistake through the use of an industry standard tool like Adobe might be covered.
rdmond 3y ago
This already sort of happened in 2008 when Chuck Close forced someone to stop distributing a Photoshop plug-in that imitated his style. https://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/ https://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/
- smashed 3y ago
  Hmm, from the link you provided, it was a website named freechuckcloseart.com that would autogenerate artwork in the style of chuck close. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this was a trade mark issue. He just had to avoid marketing his product using someone else's name.
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
In that particular case if you have an enterprise licence, Adobe have accepted responsibility: >Adobe is so confident its Firefly generative AI won’t breach copyright that it’ll cover your legal bills The offer is available only to users of its enterprise Firefly product, which launches today https://www.fastcompany.com/90906560/adobe-feels-so-confident-its-firefly-generative-ai-wont-breach-copyright-itll-cover-your-legal-bills https://www.fastcompany.com/90906560/adobe-feels-so-confiden...
- CaptainZapp 3y ago
  If they are that confident in their product why do they only indemnify users of their enterprise Firefly product? Smells to me like a bad case of corporate marketing bullshit.
  - helsinkiandrew 3y ago
    > Smells to me like a bad case of corporate marketing bullshit. It is likely to be the large companies that worry about getting sued and tell their employees not to use the functionality. By offering protection Adobe get to sell more to the people paying millions a year.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

zdragnar 3y ago

How the copyrighted work is reproduced is irrelevant wrt whether copyright is violated. I suspect you would be held liable, though you would probably have a claim of your own to make against Adobe depending on the nature of the work in question. "Errors and Ommisions" is a fairly standard name for the type of insurance you are thinking of. Typically, you would get it to cover you / your small business in the event that you, by mistake or minor negligence, caused harm to a client (i.e. a bug that cost them some sales). I don't know the ins and outs of the insurance too well, but as long as it didn't create something super famous like the Nike swoosh, a genuine mistake through the use of an industry standard tool like Adobe might be covered.

rdmond 3y ago

This already sort of happened in 2008 when Chuck Close forced someone to stop distributing a Photoshop plug-in that imitated his style. https://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/ https://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/

smashed 3y ago
Hmm, from the link you provided, it was a website named freechuckcloseart.com that would autogenerate artwork in the style of chuck close. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this was a trade mark issue. He just had to avoid marketing his product using someone else's name.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

In that particular case if you have an enterprise licence, Adobe have accepted responsibility: >Adobe is so confident its Firefly generative AI won’t breach copyright that it’ll cover your legal bills The offer is available only to users of its enterprise Firefly product, which launches today https://www.fastcompany.com/90906560/adobe-feels-so-confident-its-firefly-generative-ai-wont-breach-copyright-itll-cover-your-legal-bills https://www.fastcompany.com/90906560/adobe-feels-so-confiden...

CaptainZapp 3y ago
If they are that confident in their product why do they only indemnify users of their enterprise Firefly product? Smells to me like a bad case of corporate marketing bullshit.
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  > Smells to me like a bad case of corporate marketing bullshit. It is likely to be the large companies that worry about getting sued and tell their employees not to use the functionality. By offering protection Adobe get to sell more to the people paying millions a year.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]