The AI thread

[Alan Klein]

I know for a fact that my Flickr photographs have been "scraped" to help train AI datasets. Flickr management is taking a "let's wait and see what happens" approach to the matter. I did not grant permission for these entities to use my imagery to train their effing datasets, but Flickr isn't feeling motivated to stand up for their (paying) customers.

They'll probably lose. There are lawsuits now. I think it's Getty Images is one who is suing. What they want to do is allow AI to their members since they own all the pictures that would be used by their members to make AI pictures. Photos will be sold by Getty for AI use for a fee just as Getty sells pictures they have rights too for other uses. Ohers AI users who scan the internet do not own the photos used and will probably be disallowed to make AI pictures.

Adobe already is pushing AI in their programs because they too have the rights to a huge inventory of photos Adobe PS users can use. AI programing companies will have to partner with companies like Getty Images. Without the rights to content, the AI program is worthless unless you're using it with only your own photos.

[jnantz]

I can't wait for that solar storm. that EMP from the sun will be a miracle worker. all the zombies will go nuts and all the digita-razzi content makers won't be able to do. heliographers won't have any trouble though, long live heliography!

we'll just need someone to sing "ding dong the witch is dead"

[Pieter]

That's what juries are for. Both sides would present their evidence and the jury would decide who's telling the truth.

Not to go off-topic, but lawyers try to manipulate juries all the time, introducing misleading or off-topic evidence, omit key facts or evidence or make arguments to confuse the matter at heart. And I do not think lawyers are under any obligation to tell the truth.

[Pieter]

They'll probably lose. There are lawsuits now. I think it's Getty Images is one who is suing. What they want to do is allow AI to their members since they own all the pictures that would be used by their members to make AI pictures. Photos will be sold by Getty for AI use for a fee just as Getty sells pictures they have rights too for other uses. Ohers AI users who scan the internet do not own the photos used and will probably be disallowed to make AI pictures.

Adobe already is pushing AI in their programs because they too have the rights to a huge inventory of photos Adobe PS users can use. AI programing companies will have to partner with companies like Getty Images. Without the rights to content, the AI program is worthless unless you're using it with only your own photos.

Not sure what you mean by members. Unless things have changed, Getty is not a subscription service. Anyone can buy the rights for an image for a specified use and term, unless it is royalty-free. But even RF images have restrictions. As you have stated, Getty wants compensation for any image or part of an image that it manages.

Also, I am not sure of the contracts Getty holds with photographers. Some work is done on assignment and I assume it is "work for hire" and Getty owns the copyright. But I know for a fact that there have been images that either Getty or the photographers have pulled from licensing so my guess the copyright remained with the creator. Future contracts might spell out whether AI usage is OK with the photographer or not. And images that Getty licenses do not necessarily include all usage, such as photos of celebrities and buildings with trademarked designs. Rights to use those (in addition to Getty's fees) need to be negotiated with the estate or management of the subject in question, usually involving lawyers and big money.

[Alan Klein]

Not to go off-topic, but lawyers try to manipulate juries all the time, introducing misleading or off-topic evidence, omit key facts or evidence or make arguments to confuse the matter at heart. And I do not think lawyers are under any obligation to tell the truth.

That's why it's often best to settle before the trial, and most suits wind up that way. You never know what a jury will do.

[Alan Klein]

Not sure what you mean by members. Unless things have changed, Getty is not a subscription service. Anyone can buy the rights for an image for a specified use and term, unless it is royalty-free. But even RF images have restrictions. As you have stated, Getty wants compensation for any image or part of an image that it manages.

Also, I am not sure of the contracts Getty holds with photographers. Some work is done on assignment and I assume it is "work for hire" and Getty owns the copyright. But I know for a fact that there have been images that either Getty or the photographers have pulled from licensing so my guess the copyright remained with the creator. Future contracts might spell out whether AI usage is OK with the photographer or not. And images that Getty licenses do not necessarily include all usage, such as photos of celebrities and buildings with trademarked designs. Rights to use those (in addition to Getty's fees) need to be negotiated with the estate or management of the subject in question, usually involving lawyers and big money.

Getty and Shutterstock are already pursuing AI sales with their photo stock. Getty is already suing others for infringement. See this article. It makes sense that companies like these would be at the forefront of AI. Just as streaming services like Prime, Disney, and Netflix, content is king.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/tech/...uit/index.html

[jnantz]

And every image you have ever posted here or on any other site, plus anything you have ever written on forums or social media, is being "scraped," used to train AI to make versimilitudes of human creations.

I think there's a difference between having ones words ideas likeness and images directly used and boil3rplated so it / they are completely identifiable and having the shade tone distillate, condensate or grain of one's words ideas likenesses and images scraped mixed with others and their essence used to make something else. I don't even use crest and the last time I went to that restobistro I got terrible service.

Photographs are presented in court at trial all the time. If there's a sniff of falsehood about it, the judge will throw it out and not allow it in as evidence.

Photographs had been taken as truth because unlike paintings that come from the mind of the artist, photographs capture light in real time. Obviously, it can't actually be the moment in time or a duplicate, but a facsimile of it as close as possible. People know when they are being lied too. Try lying under oath on the stand and see what the judge thinks of your definition of truth.

and photographs being used in a court of law was always a bad choice. its an untruthful deeply flawed medium no matter how it is carried out, and it's the general public's problem that they are so gullible if they see it in a photograph ( or these days read something online or a radio broadcast ) and they think it's true.

[Ironage]

Photography will become like painting and practiced as a skill for enjoyment and self expression. Professional photography? That is another matter entirely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tin Can]

Exactly my plan too

I am not worried what it is called

Much ado about nothing

I stole that Shakespeare title phrase

he can sue me

Photography will become like painting and practiced as a skill for enjoyment and self expression. Professional photography? That is another matter entirely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rdenney]

Not to go off-topic, but lawyers try to manipulate juries all the time, introducing misleading or off-topic evidence, omit key facts or evidence or make arguments to confuse the matter at heart. And I do not think lawyers are under any obligation to tell the truth.

Lawyers aren’t witnesses to facts. Defense lawyers try to allow some facts to get into evidence, and they try to hide or challenge others. But if they are a witness to facts, the only person they can represent is themselves. Therefore the only lie they can state (in their argument) is one that has been introduced into evidence by a witness.

Prosecutors are further obligated to represent the whole set of facts, and withholding facts is an ethical breach that can get them in trouble. They frequently do not uphold those standards, but that’s a separate issue.

They do, of course, try to represent their set of facts as favorably to their side as possible. That’s what juries decide.

Juries often get it wrong, but not as often as judges do, it seems to me.

But a photograph will be able to withstand challenge only if the chain of control and the subsequent chain of evidence is provable. That had been true for a very long time and is even more true as manipulation becomes easier. That it can be fact at all comes from the indexical relationship between subject and photo. But we don’t get truth from a photo. We do sometimes get facts.

Rick “facts are true, but truth isn’t just fact” Denney