8 ms·
The Getty makes nearly 88k art images free to use
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoThis is great, and I will repeat something here I have mentioned in the past about AI image generator datasets. Instead of building image generators off of images scraped from people's art without their consent, we could use openly licensed images, and intentionally push the public towards licensing more of their images for open datasets by encouraging twitter and instagram/meta to add image license options to image uploads, and running some public service campaigns on these platforms to encourage use of open licenses to help build better datasets. At the same time the smaller image sets that would be available would encourage additional research in to sample efficiency, which I regularly hear would be a generally useful area for further research. This approach would ensure several things: Public datasets would be available to all, not just the major institutions (assuming enough people cared about open licensed models to push the major players to use them), sample efficiency would be improved, more people would get used to licensing their images for public use, and artists who did not want their style copied by these technologies would have their rights respected. That last point would have a HUGE effect on public opinion about AI, building trust between the public and the AI research community. Ultimately I am in favor of a world where intellectual property restrictions are sharply curtailed, but to do that ethically we would need to put in place other systems to provide for those whose livelihood depends upon their intellectual works. And if someone created a work before AI existed, and they reserved their legal rights for their work at the time of publication, I think that should be respected such that the work would be left out of machine learning datasets. This approach would take more work, but setting this expectation would encourage the tech industry to clarify image licenses on their platforms, ultimately promoting open culture and open image licenses.
- Devasta 3y agoWhats the benefit to artists to licensing works in a way thats favorable for AI models? Most artists hate the concept of AI art regardless of whether or not its a threat to their livelihoods.
- ssalka 3y agoI could see it slowly approaching the open source model - you do it because you care, and maybe some people will donate to you because they want to see your work continue. You can also say you've done it, so if you're a prolific artist it would probably look good. Also, I feel like the main reason artists have a beef with AI right now is mostly because lots of their published works were used without permission to train models. I think if instead SD/Midjourney et al had used open datasets curated in the way TaylorAlexander described, there would be a lot less pushback, because everyone would know the models were trained with consent of the underlying artists responsible for the training data's existence. There is still the concern of automation eliminating demand for work done by humans, but I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. It still might be very different, i.e. AI is much more powerful/enabling than Photoshop, but I'm not sure that'll change the outcome.
- autoexec 3y ago> I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. I think artists will too, but so will everyone else - including many who wouldn't have the skills to create the art they want without AI and who would have had to hire an artist. Photoshop did this is a small extent, but it is possible that AI will meet most people's needs in most situations. As someone with little ability to draw or paint I'm excited for that future personally, but I can't blame professional artists for being nervous. That their own artwork is being used to train their replacement is just rubbing salt into their wounds. Right now, AI is putting out a lot of substandard work, and artists may find themselves employed just to fix the quirks of AI output, but I doubt they'll find that fulfilling. Eventually AI art may become so homogenized, derivative, and censored that it won't satisfy clients and their customers and if that happens demand for real artists will improve, but I think things could get really difficult for many professional artists in the meantime and I don't think many will be willing to offer up their art for AI the same way most people wouldn't offer to weave rope or sharpen axes for their executioner.
- ipaddr 3y agoSo an image uploaded by a random person (not necessarily the copyright owner) to twitter and it automatically is added to this public set? Not sure legally it would be any different.
- macksd 3y agoThe understanding (or level of giving a crap) the average social media user has of copyright is pathetic. How often do you see "DM for credit" or "no copyright intended"?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- numpad0 3y agoDepends on what circles you're in. Personally I used to see a lot of "ask permissions for reposts" purely as euphemism for "don't repost ever". They've since moved to outright saying so.
- macksd 3y agoThat was already the default situation of copyright. Unless it's fair use, you can't reproduce without license. It's the reproducers who don't care and don't understand.
- adzm 3y agoThis is pretty much what Adobe Firefly does, being trained on stock images that they have rights to.
- dheera 3y ago> we could use openly licensed images There simply aren't enough of them. Stable Diffusion is trained on 5 billion images. That kind of scale doesn't exist in public domain artwork. This dataset of 88k images is 0.0017% of that. Also, it's worth noting that intellectual property is a weird construct. Human artists are trained from looking at copyrighted works their entire lifetime. If you asked me to draw a cartoonistic bear I cannot guarantee you that it doesn't vaguely look like Winnie the Pooh or Baloo. I've seen those things and can't un-erase them from my head. And if you prevented me from ever seeing copyrighted works for my whole life, I might not be able to draw anything. So why are we holding AI to a different standard?
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago> Stable Diffusion is trained on 5 billion images. That kind of scale doesn't exist in public domain artwork. Right, which is why work on sample-efficiency would be so valuable. > So why are we holding AI to a different standard? Because it is an automated computer system, not a human being. It can be held to a different standard because it is an entirely different system.
- ufocia 3y agoI don't think we are on the training side. I think the artists would like us to.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- datagram 3y agoI was thinking about this the other day; it would be really interesting to have big corporations whose profits depend on public-domain data. We might actually see lobbying to decrease copyright terms, to counter companies like Disney trying to extend copyright until the end of time.
- dreadlordbone 3y agosounds like PR
- Smoosh 3y agoYes, I was disappointed to find only one or two images from each famous artist.
- encomiast 3y agoIt seems like these are all already in the public domain. They were already free to use however we liked and neither the Getty nor anyone else could use copyright to prevent that. It is nice that the Getty is providing some scanning and hosting to make them accessible, though. The article specifically mentions Irises by Van Gogh, but the link (https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103JNH https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103JNH) takes you to a page where it seems like you have to ask nicely and agree to terms to use this public domain image.
- imgabe 3y agoThe artwork is in the public domain. The photo of it is not. You can take your own photo, but if you want to use a photo someone else took, then you need their permission.
- encomiast 3y agoThis was a nice idea that was tested and failed in court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... Making a reproduction with a camera does not create a new copyright because copyright protects creative expression, not skill with a camera.
- imgabe 3y agoMaybe if you have money to burn taking it to court. In practice if you want to publish it you get permission. The publisher is not going to go to court for you.
- autoexec 3y agoIt looks like a lot of this stuff is already in the public domain and so they are just letting people use the scans/photos of these works that they took and are hosting. It's a shame that we don't already have this being done by public libraries.
- dhosek 3y agoSome do. A lot depends on the library’s resources, but the Library of Congress has a lot of free imagery available, and I think a number of other large public libraries with art collections also do the same.
- autoexec 3y agoHopefully they're taking advantage of this release and adding these images and scans into their own collections.
- chefandy 3y agoI'd be shocked if the IA wasn't all over this already.
- GuB-42 3y agoMany AIs didn't care about whether images were free to use before training. Including many from Getty, with the watermark, and it resulted in a lawsuit that is still ongoing. And 88k images is tiny when we consider that LAION has billions of entries.
- dhosek 3y agoWhen I was publishing a typography magazine in the 90s, most of my covers were non-typographic images. I used an image of a statue of Venus from the Getty for one cover. They not only provided the transparency free of charge, but offered to take a picture from a different angle if I needed a different image of the statue (also for no charge). The Getty does a lot to share their collections. (In contrast, I paid a couple hundred dollars to LACMA for the use of a transparency of a 17th century painting in their collection.)
- LZ_Khan 3y ago[flagged]
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoNot to be confused with Getty Images Holdings Inc who would likely fall quite on the opposite side of this move.
- jhanoncomm 3y agoI suggest a title update to “The J. Paul Getty Museum …” to the OP if they read this
- ivanjermakov 3y agoI think those are called dark-sky preserves? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-sky_preserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-sky_preserve
- tossit444 3y agoThink ya replied to the wrong thread, mate.
- promiseofbeans 3y agoA lost explorer from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39709981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39709981
- ivanjermakov 3y agoYou're right... somehow I jumped to the previous thread.
- tharakam 3y agoThose images have only a little commercial use IMO.
- tonymet 3y ago"J. Paul Getty was not a billionaire known for his generosity. " this is a rather disrespectful way to refer to the benefactor.
- SeanLuke 3y agoTo the contrary, it is a very mild way of describing one of the most famously callous, cartoonishly vicious misers in modern history. This man was right up there with Mr. Burns. https://brightside.me/articles/the-story-of-the-richest-man-on-the-planet-who-refused-to-pay-a-ransom-for-his-own-grandson-733810/ https://brightside.me/articles/the-story-of-the-richest-man-...
- tonymet 3y agothis speaks more about your character than his
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoWe're talking about a man who installed pay phones in his guest house and told his wife she was spending too much money keeping their son alive (while being one of, if not the single, richest men in America).
- tonymet 3y agoJust digging deeper guys
- tonymet 3y agoI get that you are trying to be "right" which means to be cynical and share some facts you read on wikipedia. I'm trying to encourage the author, and now the people here in this thread, to show some respect to the benefactor. The benefactor has donated billions and now his foundation is offering 100k images for free to the public domain. A nice gesture. And the best you all can do is slander him. Not the time or the place for that. Which one of us is right?
- bastardoperator 3y agoIf you're ever in LA, I recommend checking out the Getty. I'm by no means an art buff in any capacity, and honestly I thought going might be boring because I did the Getty Villa in Malibu when I was in elementary school and wasn't appreciative, but it completely changed my mind. Even if you don't like the art or the exhibits, the views of Los Angeles are amazing, probably better than Griffith in my personal opinion.
- wrsh07 3y agoIt's an incredible facility indoors and out, with some really great works (especially given the age of the collection - it's relatively new compared to some larger institutes) When I was there they also had an awesome special exhibit (cave temples of dunhuang if my memory and Google skills serve), which makes me think their average special exhibits are decent.
- stefanvdw1 3y agoNice! I love using high quality images of art for some of my personal projects. Might built something similar with these like I did for the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam[1]. 1. https://randomrijks.com https://randomrijks.com
- impjohn 3y agoVery cool. How are you extracting the colors from the image? Trying to do something similar but without yielding anything I'm happy with
- stefanvdw1 3y agoThanks! Some of the artworks have the colors as part of their metadata, so I directly use those. For a different project I’m looking in into using k-means to determine the dominant colors.
- eythian 3y agoYeah, I have a similar-ish project that I should see about about adding these images to.[1] Will have to see if they have a nice API. 1. https://botsin.space/@ExhibitExplorer https://botsin.space/@ExhibitExplorer
- virtualritz 3y agoIt seems the highest res. images for sizes over 10k (greater side res) constantly fail for me. For example I can't download the 11k version of this [1]. Is anyone else experiencing this? [1] https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103RHN https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103RHN
- lovegrenoble 3y agoWorked for me
- paol 3y agoI can't either. wget reports "Read error at byte 7843894" every time.
- tecleandor 3y agoIt's saying "Read error at byte 9604429" for me. Feels like the Load Balancers might be overloaded. Also, the server (or the load balancer) doesn't support range download, so I cannot resume where it failed :(
- AlexDragusin 3y agoGetting the 11k works for me. Edit: Upon trying to get some others, the error shows up "Read error at byte 7127040" seems they probably either limiting, overloaded servers or having some more serious issues.
- Donberry 3y ago[dead]
- rio517 3y agoGreat. Now Samsung can put these on my Frame TV and charge me $5.99 a month for the privilege of accessing them.
- quitit 3y agoGetty-Images* will barefacedly "license" you public domain images at significant cost (i.e. thousands per image.) Worse, they've attempted to extract licensing fees from people who use such public domain images, in one unfortunate case: Carol M. Highsmith, a photographer who had donated her works to the public domain received a letter of demand from Getty Images for using her own public domain images. https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/ https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-laws... * While Getty Images and Getty Museum are born of the same "Getty" family, they aren't connected entities, and one does not reflect upon the other.
- a1o 3y agoHey, about these double ones, are they like old 3D photography? https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/10757T https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/10757T
- klntsky 3y agoNot impressive. I run a meme image content farm and I have scraped many times more than that. Available for all of you to right-click-save.
- kouru225 3y agoHere you go AI people. Use this and avoid copyright claims!
- whydoineedthis 3y agoThis strange friend of mine had downloaded the entire collection just so he could peruse the pictures easier, in a random way, and created art.nelsonenzo.com. It's fun to explore, but annoyingly he never finished it with the Metadata. So you can never search, or get them back in the same order, nor know what your looking at. He said he redirects reddit.com to there on his work computer and he just uses it to meditate. Annoying.
- rldjbpin 3y agodespite the original license, it is still nice to have a curated dataset for potentially training newer models. not too bothered with the resolution as mere mortals today can only afford to train on downsized images anyways.