3 ms·

> If an image is online, it is going to be looked at, maybe by people, maybe by automated systems. You cannot use a copyrighted image to produce derivatives wi

> If an image is online, it is going to be looked at, maybe by people, maybe by automated systems. You cannot use a copyrighted image to produce derivatives without obtaining authorisation from the copyright owner of the original work. Even if you are a human, copying the random image from the internet into photoshop and start modifying it could lead you into trouble (it is usually not enforced though, because it is hard to find. But AI systems would simplify scanning for such violations). Your understanding of copyright and actual copyright are two different things. Or at least you cannot share the produced image - which Midjourney does here.

jMyles 3y ago
[flagged]
someuser2345 3y ago
> copying the random image from the internet into photoshop and start modifying it could lead you into trouble That's only if you intend to sell the resulting image, right? If you just post it online for free then it should be fine
- hn_acker 3y ago
  No. Non-commercial uses are not automatically fair use. Commercial uses are not automatically infringing. And the purpose of the use is only one of the four prongs of fair use.
hn_acker 3y ago
> You cannot use a copyrighted image to produce derivatives without obtaining authorisation from the copyright owner of the original work. You can produce derivatives as long as the derivative doesn't contain anything substantially similar to the expression in the original work [1]: > To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation. ... > In the first context, it refers to that level of similarity sufficient to prove that copying has occurred, once access has been demonstrated. No similarity means no copying means no infringement. Simply using someone else's work is not infringement. An AI model can produce outputs similar to the original works, but that's almost always if not always because the prompt contains a reference to an author, an existing work, or a characteristic/style strongly associated with an author or an existing work. So there is infringement, but the most of the liability should belong to the person who chose the prompt, assuming the model creator responds to notifications of such situations from the relevant copyright holders by preventing the model from responding to prompts. Think DMCA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substantial_similarity_in_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substan...

jMyles 3y ago

[flagged]

someuser2345 3y ago

> copying the random image from the internet into photoshop and start modifying it could lead you into trouble That's only if you intend to sell the resulting image, right? If you just post it online for free then it should be fine

hn_acker 3y ago
No. Non-commercial uses are not automatically fair use. Commercial uses are not automatically infringing. And the purpose of the use is only one of the four prongs of fair use.

hn_acker 3y ago

> You cannot use a copyrighted image to produce derivatives without obtaining authorisation from the copyright owner of the original work. You can produce derivatives as long as the derivative doesn't contain anything substantially similar to the expression in the original work [1]: > To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation. ... > In the first context, it refers to that level of similarity sufficient to prove that copying has occurred, once access has been demonstrated. No similarity means no copying means no infringement. Simply using someone else's work is not infringement. An AI model can produce outputs similar to the original works, but that's almost always if not always because the prompt contains a reference to an author, an existing work, or a characteristic/style strongly associated with an author or an existing work. So there is infringement, but the most of the liability should belong to the person who chose the prompt, assuming the model creator responds to notifications of such situations from the relevant copyright holders by preventing the model from responding to prompts. Think DMCA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substantial_similarity_in_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substan...