5 ms·

> If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent Not trying to derail the discussion, but there is no legal issue with s

by creer 3y ago

> If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent Not trying to derail the discussion, but there is no legal issue with selling an art portrait without consent, or an art or news photograph of someone who didn't consent. The US legal limitations are elsewhere. Commercial (advertising use), overly piggybacking on someone's notoriety, that kind of thing. And even then, the question is usually more about who will share in the proceeds.

EricMausler 3y ago
I'd be curious to know the legality here more concretely. My understanding is that although a lot of it is not enforced, it is technically illegal to sell or publicly display images of another person's likeness without their consent. AFAIK An artist can draw whatever they want for personal use, and this is where I feel the distinction on whether or not an AI produced image is considered personal use or a traded good becomes critically relevant.
- creer 3y ago
  It depends. Heh. Here is a chart for street photography with people. Even then there are subtleties - perhaps if one person is singled out or there's an undifferentiated group. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi... So, in most of Europe, street photography is just about over. In some countries you can take photos, in some not even, and then you would have to agonize on what can and cannot be sold as art photos or published. Etc, when it comes to other mediums than street photography. In the US in general, the questions are of "expectation of privacy" and of "commercial use" (i.e. advertising and product promotion) and creating fiction showing someone in an untrue and compromising situation, etc. And largely the rest is open. There's no issue with publishing street photography in particular.

by creer 3y ago

EricMausler 3y ago

I'd be curious to know the legality here more concretely. My understanding is that although a lot of it is not enforced, it is technically illegal to sell or publicly display images of another person's likeness without their consent. AFAIK An artist can draw whatever they want for personal use, and this is where I feel the distinction on whether or not an AI produced image is considered personal use or a traded good becomes critically relevant.

creer 3y ago
It depends. Heh. Here is a chart for street photography with people. Even then there are subtleties - perhaps if one person is singled out or there's an undifferentiated group. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi... So, in most of Europe, street photography is just about over. In some countries you can take photos, in some not even, and then you would have to agonize on what can and cannot be sold as art photos or published. Etc, when it comes to other mediums than street photography. In the US in general, the questions are of "expectation of privacy" and of "commercial use" (i.e. advertising and product promotion) and creating fiction showing someone in an untrue and compromising situation, etc. And largely the rest is open. There's no issue with publishing street photography in particular.