4 ms·

Until AI generated imagery has been tested by the legal system it may be a bit too optimistic to call this "Royalty-free, copyright-free gallery of images". Ho

Until AI generated imagery has been tested by the legal system it may be a bit too optimistic to call this "Royalty-free, copyright-free gallery of images". How different from a source image do these AI generated images need to be to be considered "copyright free"? If I grab a series of photos from shutterstock, run them through a generative AI photo enhance process to improve the white balance, contrast and levels is that adequate enough to be considered "copyright free"?

ninetyninenine 2y ago
>If I grab a series of photos from shutterstock, run them through a generative AI photo enhance process to improve the white balance, contrast and levels is that adequate enough to be considered "copyright free"? Hard to say. If I had the generative AI copy the photo but change the time of day and angle then would it be copying? What if I went to the same location and changed the angle and the time of day? Would that be copying? AI is essentially "drawing" the same photo from a different time and angle. What if I did the same thing photorealistic-ally by hand in photoshop? Would I be copying if I painted the picture in the same way the AI did it?? I want you to consider what I'm doing here with my reply. I am admitting to a crime right now. What I have done with this reply is literally rip off different vocabulary words and certain short phrases from books all over the world and mixed up those words and phrases to produce the reply here. I am ADMITTING to copying those books. You going to accuse me of a crime even if I admitted to it? No. But if I did the same thing with AI.... you going to accuse me then?
- amelius 2y ago
  Your argument is based on a series of slippery slopes that I'm sure a judge would not tread on.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    I didn't even make an argument. I'm saying it's not clear cut.
jessriedel 2y ago
> Until AI generated imagery has been tested by the legal system it may be a bit too optimistic to call this "Royalty-free, copyright-free gallery of images". Although it's conceivable there's a surprise legal finding, companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are confident enough in how it will go that they are willing to insure you for any lawsuits, which would be ruinous for them if they consistently lost. (One can certainly argue that AI means the law should change, but that's a separate question.) > If I grab a series of photos from shutterstock, run them through a generative AI photo enhance process to improve the white balance, contrast and levels is that adequate enough to be considered "copyright free"? No, just like it's not enough for me to grab a photo and change white balance and contrast. AI doesn't change anything here. Copyright infringement is generally tested by comparing the two works directly. > How different from a source image do these AI generated images need to be to be considered "copyright free"? The same way it's always tested: "substantial similarity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity
- jprete 2y ago
  > Although it's conceivable there's a surprise legal finding, companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are confident enough in how it will go that they are willing to insure you for any lawsuits, which would be ruinous for them if they consistently lost. I don't think this is the right interpretation, at all. They can act confidently about this because corporations can't go below zero; the downside of the bet is so far in the red, in that zone of bankruptcy, that it actually makes the bet work even if they internally believe that they're likely to lose in court.
  - jessriedel 2y ago
    Google (gemini) does the same thing. You think they've bet the company on it?
- aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
  The trick here is that OpenAI might win and won’t be liable for plagiarizing the NYT (or my own GitHub repo, as I observed with GPT-3.5). But if YOU ask ChatGPT for something about American politics for your blog, and it gives you a paragraph from the NYT, then YOU are responsible for the copyright infringement. Even though you of course had no clue it was plagiarized. I do not think this is at all likely to happen with newer LLMs, but when GPT-3.5 spat out hundreds of lines of my own F#, verbatim, it certainly convinced me that this tech is too skeezy and unethical for me to use. I really don’t like the idea of playing Plagiarism Roulette.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

>If I grab a series of photos from shutterstock, run them through a generative AI photo enhance process to improve the white balance, contrast and levels is that adequate enough to be considered "copyright free"? Hard to say. If I had the generative AI copy the photo but change the time of day and angle then would it be copying? What if I went to the same location and changed the angle and the time of day? Would that be copying? AI is essentially "drawing" the same photo from a different time and angle. What if I did the same thing photorealistic-ally by hand in photoshop? Would I be copying if I painted the picture in the same way the AI did it?? I want you to consider what I'm doing here with my reply. I am admitting to a crime right now. What I have done with this reply is literally rip off different vocabulary words and certain short phrases from books all over the world and mixed up those words and phrases to produce the reply here. I am ADMITTING to copying those books. You going to accuse me of a crime even if I admitted to it? No. But if I did the same thing with AI.... you going to accuse me then?

amelius 2y ago
Your argument is based on a series of slippery slopes that I'm sure a judge would not tread on.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  I didn't even make an argument. I'm saying it's not clear cut.

jessriedel 2y ago

> Until AI generated imagery has been tested by the legal system it may be a bit too optimistic to call this "Royalty-free, copyright-free gallery of images". Although it's conceivable there's a surprise legal finding, companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are confident enough in how it will go that they are willing to insure you for any lawsuits, which would be ruinous for them if they consistently lost. (One can certainly argue that AI means the law should change, but that's a separate question.) > If I grab a series of photos from shutterstock, run them through a generative AI photo enhance process to improve the white balance, contrast and levels is that adequate enough to be considered "copyright free"? No, just like it's not enough for me to grab a photo and change white balance and contrast. AI doesn't change anything here. Copyright infringement is generally tested by comparing the two works directly. > How different from a source image do these AI generated images need to be to be considered "copyright free"? The same way it's always tested: "substantial similarity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity

jprete 2y ago
> Although it's conceivable there's a surprise legal finding, companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are confident enough in how it will go that they are willing to insure you for any lawsuits, which would be ruinous for them if they consistently lost. I don't think this is the right interpretation, at all. They can act confidently about this because corporations can't go below zero; the downside of the bet is so far in the red, in that zone of bankruptcy, that it actually makes the bet work even if they internally believe that they're likely to lose in court.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  Google (gemini) does the same thing. You think they've bet the company on it?
aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
The trick here is that OpenAI might win and won’t be liable for plagiarizing the NYT (or my own GitHub repo, as I observed with GPT-3.5). But if YOU ask ChatGPT for something about American politics for your blog, and it gives you a paragraph from the NYT, then YOU are responsible for the copyright infringement. Even though you of course had no clue it was plagiarized. I do not think this is at all likely to happen with newer LLMs, but when GPT-3.5 spat out hundreds of lines of my own F#, verbatim, it certainly convinced me that this tech is too skeezy and unethical for me to use. I really don’t like the idea of playing Plagiarism Roulette.