4 ms·

The NYT had another article a couple of days ago about Getty leveraging the images it owns to go into AI. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/technology/generat

The NYT had another article a couple of days ago about Getty leveraging the images it owns to go into AI. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/technology/generative-ai-getty-shutterstock.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/technology/generative-ai-...

buildbot 2y ago
Getty often makes false claims and generally is a super shitty organization, for example (there are many): https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty...
- rectang 2y ago
  Getty will have to indemnify users against infringement claims in the event that the images it generates turn out to be based on unlicensed materials and judged as derivative by a court. So will all other AI companies eventually, it's just that Getty has _some_ content while other companies rely much more on unlicensed content.
  - buildbot 2y ago
    To me, what getty is doing is actual theft. How do you “accidentally” issue copyright claims using images you don’t own? How did getty start claiming this image as their own? In contrast, training an AI model you download a piece of info once and then don’t resell that (exact) piece of info. Nobody is claiming they own the image when they don’t.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      It's fairly easy to do accidentally in the case of a large corporation like this: different parts of it don't check with other parts. In this case one part added some public domain photos to their site, which is scummy but legal, and then another part assumed that those photos were like the many others they have exclusive rights to. In another case mentioned in that article it's a third party which lied to them. Accidental doesn't mean they aren't reckless with their threats, however, which large-scale copyright license collection systems almost by necessity are, and that causes a lot of harm (and they are rightfully losing cases over it).
    - rectang 2y ago
      > Nobody is claiming they own the image when they don’t. An AI generated work may still be derivative enough to be judged as infringing by a court. AI is not a black box which magically performs copyright laundering.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    They wont and their clients will get sued, it's exactly what happens when getty licenses images to its clients that it does not own any rights to.

buildbot 2y ago

Getty often makes false claims and generally is a super shitty organization, for example (there are many): https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty...

rectang 2y ago
Getty will have to indemnify users against infringement claims in the event that the images it generates turn out to be based on unlicensed materials and judged as derivative by a court. So will all other AI companies eventually, it's just that Getty has _some_ content while other companies rely much more on unlicensed content.
- buildbot 2y ago
  To me, what getty is doing is actual theft. How do you “accidentally” issue copyright claims using images you don’t own? How did getty start claiming this image as their own? In contrast, training an AI model you download a piece of info once and then don’t resell that (exact) piece of info. Nobody is claiming they own the image when they don’t.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    It's fairly easy to do accidentally in the case of a large corporation like this: different parts of it don't check with other parts. In this case one part added some public domain photos to their site, which is scummy but legal, and then another part assumed that those photos were like the many others they have exclusive rights to. In another case mentioned in that article it's a third party which lied to them. Accidental doesn't mean they aren't reckless with their threats, however, which large-scale copyright license collection systems almost by necessity are, and that causes a lot of harm (and they are rightfully losing cases over it).
  - rectang 2y ago
    > Nobody is claiming they own the image when they don’t. An AI generated work may still be derivative enough to be judged as infringing by a court. AI is not a black box which magically performs copyright laundering.
- freejazz 2y ago
  They wont and their clients will get sued, it's exactly what happens when getty licenses images to its clients that it does not own any rights to.