Fearing copyright issues, Getty Images bans artworks created by artificial intelligence

Zoom / A selection of Stable Diffusion images with crosses through.

Ars Technica

Getty Images has banned the sale of generative AI artwork created with image synthesis models such as Stable Diffusion, DALL-E 2 and Midjourney through its service, The Verge reports.

To clarify the new policy, The Verge spoke with Getty Images CEO Craig Peters. “There are real copyright concerns regarding the output of these models and unaddressed rights issues regarding the images, the image metadata, and the individuals in the images,” Peters told Publishing.

Getty Images is a large repository of stored and archival images and illustrations, often used by publications (such as Ars Technica) to illustrate articles after paying a license fee.

Getty’s move follows a ban on image synthesis by smaller art community sites earlier this month, which found their sites inundated with AI-generated work that threatened to inundate artwork created without these tools. Getty Images competitor Shutterstock allows AI-generated artwork on its site (and although Vice recently reported that the site was removing AI artwork, we’re still seeing the same amount as before — and the terms for submitting content haven’t changed Shutterstock).

Notice from Getty Images and iStock about file bans
Zoom / Notice from Getty Images and iStock about a ban on “artificial intelligence-generated content.”

Getty Images

The ability to AI-generated artwork has not been tested in court, and the ethics of using artists’ works without consent (including artworks found in Getty Images) to train neural networks that can create artworks at a nearly human level remains an open question being discussed. Online. To protect the company’s brand and its customers, Getty decided to avoid the issue entirely with its ban. However, Ars Technica searched the Getty Images library and found AI-generated artwork.

Can AI artwork be copyrighted?

While the creators of popular AI photomontage models insist that their products create copyrighted work, the issue of copyright over AI-generated images is not yet fully resolved. It should be noted that an often-cited article in the Smithsonian titled “U.S. Copyright Office Rules AI Art Cannot Be Copyrighted” is mistitled and is often misunderstood. In this case, the researcher attempted to register the AI ​​algorithm as a non-human copyright owner, which the Copyright Office denied. The copyright owner must be a human (or a group of humans, in the case of a company).

Currently, AI image synthesis companies operate under the assumption that the copyright to AI artwork can be registered to a person or company, just as it would output to any other art tool. There are some strong precedents for this, and in the Copyright Office’s 2022 decision to deny copyright registration to Amnesty International (as noted above), it cited a landmark 1884 legal case that affirmed the copyright status of photographs.

Early in the camera’s history, the defendant in the case (Borough Giles Lithography Co. v. Saroni) He claimed that the images could not be copyrighted because the image was “a copy on paper of the exact features of some natural thing or person”. In fact, they argued, the image is the work of a machine and not a creative expression. Instead, the court ruled that the images could be copyrighted because they “represent original intellectual concepts of [an] author.”

People familiar with the AI ​​generative art process as it stands now, at least with regard to text-to-image generators, will recognize that their image compilation outputs are “representatives of the original intellectual concepts of [an] The author” too. Despite misconceptions to the contrary, creative input and human guidance are still necessary to create a photomontage work, no matter how small the contribution. Even the choice of tool and the decision to implement it is a creative act.

Under US copyright law, pressing the shutter button of a camera randomly pointed at the wall still assigns copyright to the human who took the photo, however human creative input into a photomontage artwork can be more extensive. So it makes sense that the person who started the AI-generated work should be holding the copyright to the image unless otherwise restricted by the license or terms of use.

That being said, the issue of copyright over AI artwork has yet to be legally resolved one way or another in the United States. Stay tuned for more developments.

#Fearing #copyright #issues #Getty #Images #bans #artworks #created #artificial #intelligence

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.