The AI thread

[Alan Klein]

Getty will also be training their AI computers and be making their own AI generated photos and will use their photos already in their system. They have joined with nVidia the electronics company at the forefront of AI to setup and train their computers and process.

From the same article: "...The difference with Getty's AI program, Generative AI, is that all the images used in its training are taken from Getty's own library – which it has collected over many years of commercially licensing 'human-made' photographs. When an image is used in the training or generation of an AI image, Getty states that the creator will benefit from the licensing just as stock photography would. .."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/othe...ia/ar-AA1hvKWY

[Alan Klein]

Yes, but other artists (for example screenwriters, authors, actors etc.) are saying that the AI algorithms are scraping content made by them and then reinterpreting it to create new content. This is beyond fair use and it does not either acknowledge the original human content creator or renumerate them. The recent SAG/writers strike was to a large part about AI, because the last time around during negotiations the studios absolutely screwed over artists in regards to residuals from streaming.

The logical conclusion is pretty much what happened during the transition from film to digital - many professionals with high levels of technical skill were replaced by amateurs and the margins compressed. This time around the remaining professionals in the digital space will be replaced by computers. For example, I suspect that weddings will shortly be "filmed" by small 360-degree film cameras (with social media images used as supplements) and any image that a person desires will be able to be created from the footage. If the 360-degree cameras are ubiquitous in the venue there will be no need for photographers at all. Venue design with better lighting and "camera traps" or funnels to herd people through will be the new job created!

Maybe the whole wedding will be done virtually with neither the engaged nor their guests having to show up. They'll all be inserted into AI created photos and videos. The newlyweds could even have the program automatically email thank you notes for the wedding gifts extracted electronically from their uninvited guests' bank accounts. "Thanks for your gift. Wish you could be here."

[Alan Klein]

Is this image copyrightable?

Attachment 243021

I believe it is already and I may be in violation by posting it here.

If a person created it and filed it, yes. You just can't get a copyright for the machine if one was used to create it. Only a real person can be assigned the copyright.

[jnantz]

"Fair use" doctrine allows reinterpretation of existing copyrighted work. So it seems to be legal to stick your tripod in someone else holes. Remember too, that only gets you to the place. Lighting conditions are never the same from one shot to another. So we're all reinterpreting work done by others whether we stick our tripods in holes or not. Of course, if your picture really duplicates an existing photo, you could be sued. And you never know whether the court will rule against you. Better to make your own tripod holes.

right ...
it might be legal but is it ethical to steal someone else's ideas and pass them off as one's own?
that's what this whole AI conversation seems to be about, outright theft, the technical definition of photography (calling an image a photograph when it might not be one)... altering what might be considered "truth" with people believing what they see because photography has been scotch taped to "truth" seeing it is a mirror to the world we all live in, is believable and people are gullible or too emotional and lazy to figure out if something is BS or not.. .

personally, I see no difference in your explaination other than "a person did it, ... and we'll give him/her/them a pass for ripping off someone else's ideas, not finding his/her/their own tripod holes, methods to develop film / prints, because nothing is ever the same twice and they're images are sort of different".
whole thing is a cop out if you ask me, but whatever, im speaking as someone whose methods and style has been "tweaked" by people who are known quantities, unable to think out of the box they constructed for themselves, and make it seem like they came up with the ideas on their own. some humans are inherantly lazy, and love using someone else's ideas as a seed for inspiration to tweak on their own, and now it's just a little easier, nothing really new here .. people rarely make their own tripod holes if they don't have to, too much trouble to think creatively .... but then again isn't there a saying about stealing some else's ideas and ripping them off is flattery / high praise LOL.

whatever, im not gonna change what I do or why because some bot might ingest what I do, that's one of the reasons I sail on a beat and constantly tack, if they can't keep up with you they can't really rip you off ..

Getting a copyright for an AI image is an interesting question. I'm not a lawyer. But to have a photographic copyright, you have to start with a photo. If an image is entirely generated within a computer, can you get a copyright? After all, many would argue, it's not a photograph.

there might end up being some sort of separate category for specific types of AI images made with programs that use a single pool of images that are pre licensed specifically for that purpose, and there is some sort of agreement about how it is done. can graphic design work be copyrighted if it uses licensed or royalty free images made by someone else? hopefully HAL won't lock the hatch before it's figured out..

[Tin Can]

too late

glad i made

it

[BrianShaw]

Hi Alan. Thanks for your posts 470 and 471. I tend to read and rely the more detailed/specific articles than that type of general news overview articles, but they are all quite similar if not consistent. Yes, it's about potential copyright infringement. You and I are reading the same material and in agreement but, perhaps, focusing on two slightly different aspects. In the sentence, "...images on the internet, regardless of copyright and usage policies", I'm focusing on the latter clause regarding the motivation to seek a legal judgement - money from "usage policies" (AKA licensing). Copyright, itself, is a rather ethereal concept of content creator rights with the original (and current) intent to protect the commercial/financial interests of the content creator and/or broker. In other words... protection of a created "product" for commercialization by the creator and not by others unless licensed to do so. In other words... money. Copyright, itself, is not really tangible thing.

Getty doesn't seem to have a problem with AI technology, as you point out. So why are they suing other folks in that technology field. Probably (a) to knock out the competition or (b) to get compensated for usage of the images they broker that were used without paying the Getty licensing fees. In other words, money... licensing fees that Getty as the broker didn't get and royalties that the creators don't get. If it weren't for financial damages then this wouldn't go very far since the courts aren't really morality judges who reign over hurt feelings.

I agree with you that this is not just about AI generated final product but also about the use of scavenged images that are not in the public domain (which is different from content that is displayed/accessable to the public) for AI training as "usage". In my mind, both are "usage" and compensation should be provided to the creator and their agents. It will be interesting to see if the courts see it that way or not. Time will tell.

Every American should read the actual words of Title 17 at some point in their lives if they are any kind of content creator. It's a lot of words but very enlightening. When I have some spare time I'm going to re-read to verify if the Fair Use clause includes anything about "academic honesty" and the documentation of source when content is re-used under that clause. And, BTW, Fair Use and derivative works are two different things.

[BrianShaw]

...

there might end up being some sort of separate category for specific types of AI images made with programs that use a single pool of images that are pre licensed specifically for that purpose, and there is some sort of agreement about how it is done. can graphic design work be copyrighted if it uses licensed or royalty free images made by someone else? hopefully HAL won't lock the hatch before it's figured out..

Hi John. Perhaps you've seen this already and I'm linking mostly for exemplar purposes. The current copyright registration form for visual arts seems to have this already covered. Well, not the HAL part, but the rest of your thought. Section 2 inlcudes a category for "2-dimensional artword". Why photographs have a separate category, IDK. Also note section 6 regarding derivative works and how they are documented when a copyright is sought. Interestingly, the official form does not ask about, or seem to verify, anything about proper licensing. This is very different from my past experience with Fair Use and my corporate legal/publication teams who ALWAYS required proof of permission to re-use copyrighted content even when Fair Use was clearly in play. They were very conservative and I can't count on all of my fingers and toes how many times I had to revise reports just before publication - delete explanatory or supportive content even though full citations and Fair Use clause was included in the manuscript - to remove content being legitimately used because the copyright owner was deceased or could not be located. Very frustrating it was.

https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formva.pdf

[Pieter]

Maybe the whole wedding will be done virtually with neither the engaged nor their guests having to show up. They'll all be inserted into AI created photos and videos. The newlyweds could even have the program automatically email thank you notes for the wedding gifts extracted electronically from their uninvited guests' bank accounts. "Thanks for your gift. Wish you could be here."

Never happen. Bridezillas want their extravanganza.

[Pieter]

If a person created it and filed it, yes. You just can't get a copyright for the machine if one was used to create it. Only a real person can be assigned the copyright.

Of course a person created it with a computer. Just like AI. It doesn’t create images willy-nilly. It takes a person to input prompts.

You seem to be missing the point. AI is not a machine, it is a program. And AI is not trying to copyright anything, it is corporations (remember the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people) that are trying to copyright AI creations.

[BrianShaw]

Never happen. Bridezillas want their extravanganza.

As do mothers of bridezillas.