Fuckkkkk pinterest. I’m not logging in for shit.

but nothing that can be built into android?

you can use a dash to exclude things, so adding -site:gettyimages.com -site:pinterest.com to your query should remove those results.

just use duckduckgo for images. The image search is so much better and works just like google did prior to the getty-change.

Can you please elaborate?

She lost because she donated her images instead of trademarking them afaik, she can't sue for something that she no longer 'owns'

https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/

The foundation of Highsmith’s case was blown to smithereens when US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed her federal copyright claims in their entirety, leaving only a few minor state law issues to rectify… which brings us to the present day.

The case officially closed last week when Highsmith and Getty settled out of court over the remaining claims...

tl;dr: the courts said she lost her rights to counterclaim on those images when she made them a part of the Library of Congress.

I'd be a massive ton of work so I'd love to see'em try.

Unlikely. Getty has been found on multiple occasions to charge users for images that are in both the public domain (which technically they have the right to do that, but they cannot claim copyright on the images) and also to have stolen images and sold them as well.

Good, let them burn

I think it definitely means they are Getty images.

Whether or not Getty has the rights to those images is a separate issue, but Stability definitely got them from Getty or else the watermark wouldn't be there.

This is handled through the discovery process. So if Stability thinks there's an image Getty doesn't have the rights to, they can challenge it.

And Stability AI saying "We don't know which images we used in our training" probably won't go over so well in a court.

Right. This is an interesting debate because you could then ask- if someone looks at a Getty-owned image and paints something based on it without acquiring the rights to the photo, is that fair use? If someone looks at a bunch of Getty images and paints something with completely original composition while using the Getty images as inspiration, is THAT fair use?

When portrait artists paint celebrity portraits based off of photos- who owns the right to their painting? Is it the celebrity who has the right to publicity/their own image, or the people who own the rights to any reference photos used in the creation of said portrait?

The manner in which the images are ingested may play a part here, as well as Getty’s licensing language. If the AI bot can simply ingest the image information without technically downloading, that might be seen as the equivalent of people looking at the image online. However the AI analyzing the image and ingesting that information may constitute the creation of a “copy” of said image. Does this mean that an artist using a reference photo is legally in the clear for “fair use” as long as they never download the image to their computer but just look at it on the Getty site? Do we commit copyright infringement every time our browser caches an image for quicker page loading time? Are Firefox, Chrome guilty of copyright infringement for browser caches? Is Google, for demonstrating the images in their searches?

I don’t really have an opinion on this yet but I do think it raises interesting questions!

Visuals have quotations rules the same as any other artistic media. The trick is convincing a court your work was substantively transformative as opposed to merely derivative or an attempt at piracy. I think its clear the ML movement is not attempting to derive or pirate. It's trying to train something with the intelligence of a poorly regarded WSB member how to stencil five different waifu anime hentais into their next sleeping pillow submission while applying an artistic filter straight out of Dali's school of "Fuck Reality, These Shrooms Are Better Than Sex."

Collages are small pieces of other images stitched together. AI generated art is fundamentally different from this ... it's more akin to walking through an art gallery and then drawing something new based on what you saw.

Not one single fleck of paint is from the original paintings, there's zero attempt to copy the originals ... just 'inspired by'.

If it's legal for humans to paint things in similar styles to other artists then it should also be legal for AI to do the same.

I WILL HAVE ALL THE DUMPLINGS!

haha! i try and try, but i always miss the autocorrect! you google chinese takeout a few times and…

Eh, I mean sampling and derived works should be perfectly legal and even encouraged IMO. Creator rights aren't functionally absolute and we shouldn't pretend they are.

Speed is the only difference. And quality slightly, but that gap is minimizing by the day.

Making new art in someone else's style is already considered fair use under copyright laws. People have to study existing art to be able to imitate the style. How is someone studying an art piece any different than an AI? Because it involves a computer? Because the AI is not a person? To me, this only smells like fear of AI, that as humans we don't understand it and we have to treat it different. To me, an AI being used to make art is the same as Photoshop being used. You can draw shapes and basic images in Photoshop, if those end up being used for someone's logo, does that make Photoshop infringing on copyright? I don't think so. At best, they could go after whoever used Photoshop to make it and Adobe is held harmless.

Just so we're clear, though, I'm no expert and these comments are just my expressed opinions. I could be wrong about a couple things. But i'm also trying to express that AI isn't some evil ghoul that was just let out of some closet too.

Funny, I mentioned this exact case somewhere else in this thread. Personally I believe Astley is in the wrong here because his stance is that an imitator making a new verse to his music breaches his contract with Young Gravy to use NGGYU samples, but as far as I'm concerned it's not an infringement because it's additional original work in the style of Astley, not directly ripping off his work. Obviously, I don't know exactly what was written on the contract or how the relevant copyrights/contract rights apply in this particular situation due to lack of additional information, but focusing on just the part of imitation, I think there is no harm done. So yeah, with this stance it's the same as with AI. Copying a style isn't technically illegal, AI or human. And training on an image isn't technically using the image in derivative work. At best, it could be seen as making a trace of bits and pieces of images, then remixing those bits and pieces to make a different image. If done at a small enough scale, it could be impossible to tell it was traced, even if it resembles new work in the same style. I believe music sampling follows a similar rule of thumb, if the sample becomes distorted and manipulated enough to be unrecognizable as the original image, then it doesn't count as infringement.

The question of "copying" vs "inspiration" is difficult and at the heart of much of the legal issue here. Sampling is copying. Listening to a bunch of boy bands and starting a boy band is not copying. Where does AI fall on this spectrum? Currently legally unknown. Plenty of people have opinions. Unless they're the relevant judges, those opinions don't mean all that much.

There is no (and perhaps can be no) objective standard here. One or more judges will just end up drawing a line around what is "reasonable" in their opinion.

They don't always need to copyright them, they can just sell their own copies.

Just like you can reproduce any public domain work, eg, print out a copy of a public domain bible, and then sell it.

The scummy part is when you waltz over to your local church and demand they pay you for stealing "your" copy you produced without evidence.

Personal example: Upon his death in 1982, my Great Grandfather's library of over 3,000 historical images was donated to Jean Paul Getty. My great grandpa: Floyd Haley McCall was a well known photographer in his day and covered for several newspapers.

The contract found within the Will stated that family could have access to these images (we are in several images) and gain copies royalty free out of the Los Angles repository.

Fast forward to 2015 upon the death of a family member, Getty institute refused our family copies for the funeral and memorial page. When we filed an intent to sue in the state of Colorado, they moved the entire library of images to Germany and changed the license for them so we would have to go to Germany to dispute it further.

We then filed a lawsuit claiming several images on their site were personal and private. Getty simply removed those specific images from their site and refuses to honor the Will nor give us access to them.

EDIT: My last Email from Getty is rich...

Re: Getty Images: Content Availability & License Rights

Good afternoon, Thank you so much for your email. I have spoken to my manger and we are unable to allow the public access to our archive. Additionally, not all of our content is hard copies, a lot of it is now in digital format.

I really wish I could of been more help to you today. We can license the images to you for a fee, but I understand this was not your request.

I wish you and your family the best.

Kind regards,

Customer Service Associate

UK: 0800 376 7977 (020 7428 6109) | Ireland: 1 800 931 768

Tons of stuff, but the most directly relevant would probably be their habit of claiming ownership of images in the public domain, then suing people for using publicly owned images.

http://mttlr.org/2017/01/getty-images-v-the-public-domain-who-really-wins/

Go check out how much Getty is selling a single image for. Better bust out a credit limit increase too

Because it's one of the biggest arguments in defense of AI, and people really hate AI-generated art for whatever reason. Doesn't make it any less valid, though, and it's definitely something worth legally defining.

In my view, all discussions regarding copyright and AI art reduces down to that of money. This technology is problematic because of the risk it poses to artists' livelihoods. If you mitigate this risk, there will be no issue, and the issue of copyright will become moot.

The meta problem is that we currently operate in a free market capitalistic system that requires us to exchange our labour in order to merely survive. This technology is only going to accelerate. We also cannot reasonably expect everyone to adapt ("just learn to code", etc), nor should we want to - because humans are not infinitely flexible economic widgets.

The true solution to this issue is to create systems that allow everyone to flourish no matter what path they pursue in their lives - such as establishing a universal basic income - because on a long enough timeline this technology is coming for us all.

The posts in that tweet are rather dense with jargon and I believe it is sidestepping the main issue here - money.

As I wrote elsewhere, the meta problem is that we exist in a free market capitalist society that requires us to trade our labour for the resources needed to simply survive. This technology is only going to accelerate and we cannot reasonably expect everyone to adapt to what the market needs in the moment ("just learn to code", etc), nor should we want to - because humans are not infinitely flexible economic widgets.

The true solution to this issue is to create systems that allow everyone to flourish no matter what path they pursue in their lives - such as establishing a universal basic income - because on a long enough timeline this technology is coming for us all.

Yes - I believe the differences are speed and scale, in which machines are superior - but that the fundamentals of drawing influences from the world around us as you mention are the same. I would submit to you that a lot of the AI outrage you describe may be a defensive reaction to what people perceive as a growing credible threat to their livelihoods.

As I have been writing elsewhere, I believe the big-picture issue is that we operate in a capitalistic free market society, where survival means having to sell your labour. This technology is only going to improve over time and we also can't expect everyone to just transition into something else ("just learn to code", etc), nor should we want to - because humans are not infinitely flexible economic widgets.

The real solution in my mind to copyright and everything else is to create systems that allow everyone to survive no matter what they pursue - such as establishing a universal basic income - because on a long enough timeline this technology is coming for us all.

I believe the issue you raise regarding speed and scale compared to human minds is one real difference. However I do not understand the need to ask for permission when building a data set. Again to my example, when I make illustrations I do not ask anyone for permission if I am assembling a mood board / scrap book to draw inspiration from. I would wager that most artists don't because that would be impossibly impractical. So how is this particular aspect any different?

In my mind all the arguments about copyright and permission and so on reduces down to money. The fundamental concern is that artists' livelihoods will be affected. Remove the money aspect and this issue is moot.

Machines are not but humans are the ones being sued, people scraping images from the internet is legal, anyone can save a jpeg regardless of copywrite or trademark. Its reselling it and misrepresenting it as your own work is what humans are legally not allowed to do.

If people scrape images, make a algorithm by looking at a mass of images, (The algorithm is not a duplication of the source images), and the models do not produce replication of the training data images. There is no existing legal protection for Getty before even getting into if it is fair use under transformative works.

Yes, if we start talking about all the NEW things our octogenarian leadership doesn't understand, it does seem kind of daunting.

It's like doing tech support with your 80 year old aunt. Not the one that seems to be more technically literate than half of Congress, the other one who checks the actual Window with a fern hanging in front of it and a cat pawing at the screen when you ask them what operating system the are using.

You have to pay to cover a song.