AI created images vs. Photoshop fabrications. Is there a difference?

[BrianShaw]

This has nothing to do with my point and the questions raised by other about AI violating copyright laws. (snip)

It seems that your point (and Kino’s too, perhaps) is more about usage rights and compensation for usage of copyrighted works. Assuming that AI-generated images are considered “compilation” (not likely) and/or some other kind of “derivative works”, the current copyright law may have the limits of who-owns-what already under control. They just need to add “AI-generated imagery” to their list of examples.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Compensation for use of copyrighted works by folks who don’t want to pay for usage is not a new issue. Or do you see it another way?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

If entrants can start to use AI to produce all kinds of terrific pictures, why would anyone be interested in taking pictures with a camera

Well, not all is about competition. I, for example, do it, because I love the challenge, the process, the joy I get when I make mistakes to learn from, the joy from making a great picture or nailed that film for example.

No AI can influence and ruin this for me. And my result being slides projected with ancient technology - it gives a credit to it being very much real as there's no possibility that PC, let alone AI was involved in the creation of slide.

 

[nmp]

It's not that you're competing with others. You're competing with yourself. Why bother shooting with a camera in the cold when you can sit comfortably in an armchair and create better photos? Or even if you still want to capture the original images such as from a trip you took, why bother buying and using expensive cameras when AI will take a so-so photo shot on your cellphone and turn it into a shot that surpasses a D850 and two hours of editing with Photoshop? I don't know if I;d want to buy stock in Nikon right now.

It's not about the destination, but the journey. People who like the journey of creating the image the old fashioned way shouldn't be intimidated because there is easier pathway. (Easier pathway suits one, that's fine too.) No one needs to climb the mountain, one can just go around or fly over. But they still do. Same reason people lug around their 4x5's still when so many easier options are available.


:Niranjan.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

It's not that you're competing with others. You're competing with yourself. Why bother shooting with a camera in the cold when you can sit comfortably in an armchair and create better photos?

Because I'll learn nothing doing so, gain nothing as a person - except weight.

When digital boom died down, we saw people return to film for various reasons - one of them being simply the truth. I expect something similar with AI.

 

[BrianShaw]

It's not about the destination, but the journey. People who like the journey of creating the image the old fashioned way shouldn't be intimidated because there is easier pathway. (Easier pathway suits one, that's fine too.) No one needs to climb the mountain, one can just go around or fly over. But they still do. Same reason people lug around their 4x5's still when so many easier options are available.


:Niranjan.

But it is about the destination: the final image. The end product of all visual art is the final image. There may be several, or many, paths available to journey to get to the destination.

 

[nmp]

But it is about the destination: the final image. The end product of all visual art is the final image. There may be several, or many, paths available to journey to get to the destination.

Yes the final image is important. But if the process was not enjoyable, no one would be doing it. They would be buying the poster, hang it and be done with it. Why are we bothering to do all this photo-chemical mumbo-jumbo if all we want is the final image.

:Niranjan.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes the final image is important. But if the process was not enjoyable, no one would be doing it. They would be buying the poster, hang it and be done with it. Why are we bothering to do all this photo-chemical mumbo-jumbo if all we want is the final image.

:Niranjan.

Why? Habit, perhaps… comfortable and chosen journey path… but the path isn’t necessarily the final destination.

No disagreement. I’ve just seen that saying misused too often where some conflate the journey and destination as if the chosen journey path is the destination.

 

[nmp]

Why? Habit, perhaps… comfortable and chosen journey path… but the path isn’t necessarily the final destination.

No disagreement. I’ve just seen that saying misused too often where some conflate the journey and destination as if the chosen journey path is the destination.

Agree. I should have said: it's not just about the destination, but....

:Niranjan.

 

[VinceInMT]

….Many hobby photographers are going to say, "Why bother?" and dump their cameras.

If it is a hobby, then the motivation is intrinsic and isn’t impacted by what others are doing or not doing. Once competition or monetization enters into the hobby, motivation become extrinsic and the reason for engaging in the hobby changes and is impacted by others. Those who remain intrinsically motivated will continue to do what they enjoy.

 

[nmp]

Here's something relevant to the topic of copyrights etc...

Getty Images is suing the creators of AI art tool Stable Diffusion for scraping its content

Getty Images claims Stability AI ‘unlawfully’ scraped millions of images from its site. It’s a significant escalation in the developing legal battles between generative AI firms and content creators.

www.theverge.com

 

[Kino]

Here's something relevant to the topic of copyrights etc...

Getty Images is suing the creators of AI art tool Stable Diffusion for scraping its content

Getty Images claims Stability AI ‘unlawfully’ scraped millions of images from its site. It’s a significant escalation in the developing legal battles between generative AI firms and content creators.

www.theverge.com

Funny how it's different when the shoe is on the other foot...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Oh but it does directly have to do with your point when the entity simply takes the photos and attempts to charge for them as their intellectual property. What gives the new AI generated images any more protection than duly copyrighted material simply taken?

Believe as you wish, but you're not going to convince me that this will work out to anyone's advantage other than the huge conglomerates.

Photographers will have to pick stock agencies that don't cheat them. Isn't that true about anything we buy or deals we make? You have to do due diligence.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's something relevant to the topic of copyrights etc...

Getty Images is suing the creators of AI art tool Stable Diffusion for scraping its content

Getty Images claims Stability AI ‘unlawfully’ scraped millions of images from its site. It’s a significant escalation in the developing legal battles between generative AI firms and content creators.

www.theverge.com

It seems that we don;t have to wait weeks as I suggested. Getty is already selling rights to AI users. Here's what they said partially in that article:

Getty Images believes artificial intelligence has the potential to stimulate creative endeavors. Accordingly, Getty Images provided licenses to leading technology innovators for purposes related to training artificial intelligence systems in a manner that respects personal and intellectual property rights. Stability AI did not seek any such license from Getty Images and instead, we believe, chose to ignore viable licensing options and long-standing legal protections in pursuit of their stand-alone commercial interests.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It seems that your point (and Kino’s too, perhaps) is more about usage rights and compensation for usage of copyrighted works. Assuming that AI-generated images are considered “compilation” (not likely) and/or some other kind of “derivative works”, the current copyright law may have the limits of who-owns-what already under control. They just need to add “AI-generated imagery” to their list of examples.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Compensation for use of copyrighted works by folks who don’t want to pay for usage is not a new issue. Or do you see it another way?

I'm not a copyright expert. But I would think that taking images from the web to produce an AI image is a violation or should be. The courts will have to decide and Getty is suing in UK to get that process moving.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's not about the destination, but the journey. People who like the journey of creating the image the old fashioned way shouldn't be intimidated because there is easier pathway. (Easier pathway suits one, that's fine too.) No one needs to climb the mountain, one can just go around or fly over. But they still do. Same reason people lug around their 4x5's still when so many easier options are available.


:Niranjan.

I agree which is why I still shoot film and recently bought a new 4x5 LF camera. But I think we're going to be the exceptions.

 

[Pieter12]

Photographers will have to pick stock agencies that don't cheat them. Isn't that true about anything we buy or deals we make? You have to do due diligence.

Pretty much all the stock agencies pay a pittance for the images they license. And Getty has bought up or crushed most of the competition.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm not a copyright expert. But I would think that taking images from the web to produce an AI image is a violation or should be. The courts will have to decide and Getty is suing in UK to get that process moving.

I'm not an expert either but I read a lot and have worked with re-publication of copyrighted materials in the past. Perhaps I wasn't clear about the nuanced detail of my point... Getty is suing for using their images without an agreement to pay for that usage. It's not just that AI (or anyone else) took images off the web to use. There are, as noted in the link, legal uses of other people's already copyrighted works, with or without usage licensing payment.

 

[Kino]

A Photographer Tried to Get His Photos Removed from an AI Dataset. He Got an Invoice Instead.

A German stock photographer tried to get his photos removed from the AI-training LAION dataset. Lawyers replied that he owes $979 for making an unjustified copyright claim.

www.vice.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Photographer Tried to Get His Photos Removed from an AI Dataset. He Got an Invoice Instead.

A German stock photographer tried to get his photos removed from the AI-training LAION dataset. Lawyers replied that he owes $979 for making an unjustified copyright claim.

www.vice.com

A sad step in the wrong direction.

 

[Rrrgcy]

A sad step in the wrong direction.

I wouldn’t don’t know Germany EU laws but overzealous legaling by the AI non-profit Laion-5B? Sensitive, eh? if it doesn’t fight off one claim then many others will roll in? It trying to claim $979 damages for what it responds to be the copyright holder’s unjustified charge of a copyright claim might be analogous to a charge of frivolity. I’m in US but the German photographer seems to be doing the right thing in that he’s now committed to going through court anyway - wonder how that law defines “unjustified.” A lot of issues wrapped up in this arena and based on the AI company’s argument, rest on the technical and transitory nature of borrowing for its AI training and build processes. Ours surrounds itself w publishing, fair use etc... interesting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It seems that your point (and Kino’s too, perhaps) is more about usage rights and compensation for usage of copyrighted works. Assuming that AI-generated images are considered “compilation” (not likely) and/or some other kind of “derivative works”, the current copyright law may have the limits of who-owns-what already under control. They just need to add “AI-generated imagery” to their list of examples.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Compensation for use of copyrighted works by folks who don’t want to pay for usage is not a new issue. Or do you see it another way?

First, legislation has to define what AI Imaging is.

 

[Pieter12]

I think the recent US Supreme Court ruling may have some impact on AI usage rights. It seems that for commercial usage, AI users should have to pay into some sort of fund that would be distributed among the owners of the original image copyrights. Determining where the original bits came from could be challenging, but I am sure an AI program could handle that. The use of AI for non-commercial purposes and fine art, though would probably be considered OK. Too bad.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Perhaps AI-generated faux humanoids are best qualified to define AI generated art. Many politicians and legislators gave up being human.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think the recent US Supreme Court ruling may have some impact on AI usage rights. It seems that for commercial usage, AI users should have to pay into some sort of fund that would be distributed among the owners of the original image copyrights. Determining where the original bits came from could be challenging, but I am sure an AI program could handle that. The use of AI for non-commercial purposes and fine art, though would probably be considered OK. Too bad.

Pay a stock agency to gather photos for your ai image. Then they'll be responsible for copyright issues. Pretty much what they already do now.

 

[MattKing]

First, legislation has to define what AI Imaging is.

Any such legislation won't define what AI Imaging actually is. It will be what it turns out to be, and I would suggest it is in the midst of just its initial evolution - lots of changes still to come.
I expect that legislation will, however, define how what types of creations are subject to copyright law, and how that law applies to them.
And that there will be lots of "catching up" in the legislative field - lots of "bobbing and weaving" types of legislative amendment, as the technology explodes.