3 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".
by 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 agoGoogle (gemini) does the same thing. You think they've bet the company on it?
- aithrowawaycomm 2y agoThe 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.
- jessriedel 2y ago> 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. No. They indemnify you for from copyright lawsuits that arise for your use of ChatGPT output. https://openai.com/policies/service-terms/ https://openai.com/policies/service-terms/
- aithrowawaycomm 2y agoI had forgotten that, I think they had changed it a few months after ChatGPT launched in response. But you'll still be the one getting the angry letter. And this is a pretty shady exception IMO: > This section governs your use of services or features that OpenAI offers on an alpha, preview, early access, or beta basis (“Beta Services”). Beta Services are offered “as-is” to allow testing and evaluation and are excluded from any indemnification obligations OpenAI may have to you.
- bentocorp 2y agoBasing risk analysis on the confidence of a silicon valley huckster is the surest way to lose your shirt.
- jessriedel 2y agoGoogle (gemini) does the same thing.