Author Topic: GettyImages is suing AI Stable Diffusion (Read 5118 times)

leremy · « **on:** January 18, 2023, 09:52 »

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit?fbclid=IwAR1UHc6QTaUwQxX0Yu182da0ZjpkAJo4Kf81HLCG2RMZMBBq5sRP0yq-F1g

Getty Images is suing Stability AI, creators of popular AI art tool Stable Diffusion, over alleged copyright violation.

In a press statement shared with The Verge, the stock photo company said it believes that Stability AI “unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright” to train its software and that Getty Images has “commenced legal proceedings in the High Court of Justice in London” against the firm.

Getty Images CEO Craig Peters told The Verge...

cobalt · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2023, 10:14 »

They are doing the right thing.

Isn‘t stable the one where you keep getting results with visible watermarks from getty and dreamstime?

They should properly license the images used to train their ai.

Nothing is free in life.

alan b traehern · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2023, 12:00 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 19, 2023, 10:14

They are doing the right thing.

Isn‘t stable the one where you keep getting results with visible watermarks from getty and dreamstime?

They should properly license the images used to train their ai.

Nothing is free in life.

If images have Getty watermarks I'd agree they should sue. Getty is sue happy to start with.

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2023, 13:14 »

Ok month for December.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2023, 13:56 »

This is good news and will settle some of the legal questions. Sites that use composites and pieces of found images, will likely be liable or need to pay for the images they use. The others that only use found images for training, will probably be able to continue. All AI creations aren't the same.

The source and copyrights will need to be clarified.

cascoly · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2023, 15:06 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 19, 2023, 13:56

This is good news and will settle some of the legal questions. Sites that use composites and pieces of found images, will likely be liable or need to pay for the images they use. The others that only use found images for training, will probably be able to continue. All AI creations aren't the same.

The source and copyrights will need to be clarified.

not sure how the UK system works (is it just for London?). in the US a decision is usually just relevant, at most, to the circuit (of 13) in which it was decided. and these vary in their leanings. worse, the supreme court has shown in Dobbs & voting rights cases, etc that it really doesnt value precedent / stare decisis at all! (altho most appointees have said they would abide by precedent)

so it will take more than a few cases in UK, EU and US. and we already have the example of very different laws in US & EU regarding moral rights, privacy rights, etc

ADH · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2023, 22:47 »

Getty just want a piece of the cake, nothing (or almost nothing) for the artists no matter what. They are not better than the other party.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2023, 11:08 »

Quote from: cascoly on January 20, 2023, 15:06

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 19, 2023, 13:56
This is good news and will settle some of the legal questions. Sites that use composites and pieces of found images, will likely be liable or need to pay for the images they use. The others that only use found images for training, will probably be able to continue. All AI creations aren't the same.

The source and copyrights will need to be clarified.

not sure how the UK system works (is it just for London?). in the US a decision is usually just relevant, at most, to the circuit (of 13) in which it was decided. and these vary in their leanings. worse, the supreme court has shown in Dobbs & voting rights cases, etc that it really doesnt value precedent / stare decisis at all! (altho most appointees have said they would abide by precedent)

so it will take more than a few cases in UK, EU and US. and we already have the example of very different laws in US & EU regarding moral rights, privacy rights, etc

Yes you're right. If there's a decision in one district, it doesn't necessarily apply in another. We could have opposing decisions, things like sampling of music have that, and until it gets to the supreme court, if they issue a decision, the laws are the same but how they are enforced are different, and interpretations in Texas might not apply in New York.

I'm still following the cases for the Photograph of Prince and the Warhol use, and another. We just have to wait for AI/machine learning to work it's way through the system. The basic question is Fair Use. If the AI programs scrape, non-licensed images, from PD sites then there's nothing to argue in favor of the artists.

If they pay for data sets, then the company they paid is responsible.