MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Generative AI Collection of links and important articles, videos, court cases  (Read 55674 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Just_to_inform_people2

« Reply #150 on: July 06, 2023, 12:58 »
+2
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/shutterstock-offers-enterprise-customers-indemnification-for-ai-image-creation-856356568.html

Shutterstock is offering Enterprise customers legal indemnification for AI generated content

"This is a critical advancement, not just for our platform, but for the industry as creatives and business professionals alike can use the AI content generated on our platform for any purpose, whether it's commercial or personal, without worrying about copyright infringement or ethical issues....We're excited to play a leading role in shaping how generative capabilities can be leveraged ethically, safely and in more creative ways than ever. We feel it's a crucial step towards protecting our customers and our artists."
Then they are very sure of their case or taking a huge gamble with their company. Interesting.


« Reply #151 on: July 06, 2023, 13:26 »
0
They are following the lead of Adobe.

It is probably the thing customers keep asking for..."but on Adobe we get legal protection..."

I have done a lot of test searches for my finished "creations". I usually cannot find anything similar on stock agencies (didn't try the entire planet).

Unless it is very, very generic, like a red heart.

The remixes are quite creative, so unless the producer intentionally used the style of a well known artist or brand like starwars, pixar...I don't think it is such a common problem to run into copyright issues.

If the inspections are good...

So I guess soon SS will allow ai content to be uploaded.

Now, when firefly goes live...will other agencies accept firefly generated content?

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Getty/Nvidia come out with their own ai generator and Getty only allows content from the Nvidia app.


« Reply #152 on: July 09, 2023, 17:31 »
+3
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/9/23788741/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-chatgpt-llama-copyright-infringement-chatbots-artificial-intelligence-ai

"In both claims, the authors say that they did not consent to the use of their copyrighted books as training material for the companies AI models. Their lawsuits each contain six counts of various types of copyright violations, negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. The authors are looking for statutory damages, restitution of profits, and more."

« Reply #153 on: July 10, 2023, 02:35 »
+3
I'm following the blog ( https://www.technollama.co.uk/) of  Dr Andrs Guadamuz expert of  Intellectual Property Law at the University of Sussex (also quoted in a post by Jo Ann)
His articles cover topics on copyright, infringement, artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Here a draft  : A Scanner Darkly: Copyright Infringement in Artificial Intelligence Inputs and Outputs
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19fVgFAOK0X0Mwbp-Z5w5WcaeTO8Cx7Lx/view?pli=1

and the last article Authors sue OpenAI for copyright infringement https://www.technollama.co.uk/authors-sue-openai-for-copyright-infringement

Enjoy (as I do)  :)

« Reply #154 on: July 10, 2023, 03:02 »
0
That artists should be able to have their content removed from ai collection material should be the minimum that the courts establish as a new law.

This would of course extend to texts, music, software.


« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2023, 03:31 »
+1
That artists should be able to have their content removed from ai collection material should be the minimum that the courts establish as a new law.

This would of course extend to texts, music, software.

I am not sure that's even possible, as the AI doesn't store and access the copyrighted material anywhere. It was just trained on it. Unless all AI is reset to zero you  probably cannot remove a single piece of work from what has already been used - and even then people have already used the AI trained with copyrighted material to create new content, which then again the AI could use, even if the original copyrighted material could somehow be "untrained" from the AI.

« Reply #156 on: July 10, 2023, 04:28 »
0
Then they will have to create a new ai version with legally licensed content. The way Adobe did with firefly.

This argument is like making a painting that looks like copyrighted work and saying, oh but I just looked at it on the ointernet, I never downloaded it.

same for music, oh I heard it somewhere, no idea when or where.

It does not help you.

They could however, simply make the ai producer responsible.

If you put out something for commercial use that looks like something that is copyright protected...then the ai scrapers could continue to scrape the entire internet.

Music, text and image producers would the have to keep looking for similars of their work and sue the way they do it now.

This solution would be what the agencies would love.

We will see what happens.

« Reply #157 on: July 10, 2023, 05:58 »
+4
Then they will have to create a new ai version with legally licensed content. The way Adobe did with firefly.

This argument is like making a painting that looks like copyrighted work and saying, oh but I just looked at it on the ointernet, I never downloaded it.

same for music, oh I heard it somewhere, no idea when or where.

It does not help you.

They could however, simply make the ai producer responsible.

If you put out something for commercial use that looks like something that is copyright protected...then the ai scrapers could continue to scrape the entire internet.

Music, text and image producers would the have to keep looking for similars of their work and sue the way they do it now.

This solution would be what the agencies would love.

We will see what happens.

You do not have to tell me. I think AI trained on unlicensed content is absolutely utterly wrong and should be highly illegal (AND that includes Adobe firefly! Never have they asked me for permission nor compensated me for using my work ). But I think artists should get money - A LOT of money for the damage that using their work has caused and that just "removing" one image from the training set once the damage has already been done is not helping.

« Reply #158 on: July 10, 2023, 13:59 »
0
...
If you put out something for commercial use that looks like something that is copyright protected...then the ai scrapers could continue to scrape the entire internet.

Music, text and image producers would the have to keep looking for similars of their work and sue the way they do it now.

This solution would be what the agencies would love.

We will see what happens.

there are already many thousands of similar images in any database - does the first to photograph the taj mahal at dawn get to ban all others taken from the same place? how do you claim copyright for sliced tomatoes?

« Reply #159 on: July 10, 2023, 14:05 »
0
.... But I think artists should get money - A LOT of money for the damage that using their work has caused and that just "removing" one image from the training set once the damage has already been done is not helping.

evidence such damage has occurred?

how do you determine damage?  esp'ly when it's based on one image among millions used for the training set? and, as you've noted, new images don't directly reference any image.

 any claim needs to be based on the original collection used for training as a matter of copyright

« Reply #160 on: July 11, 2023, 15:05 »
+2
"Software giant Adobe has banned employees from using their private email addresses or corporate credit cards to sign up and pay for machine learning products and services."

https://petapixel.com/2023/07/06/adobe-limits-its-employees-use-of-generative-ai/
https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/10/in_brief_ai/

Emphasis mine - I wish contributors to Adobe Stock had that option...

"Adobe hasn't banned third-party applications like ChatGPT outright, but has strict restrictions in place on what is and isn't allowed on such systems. Employees should not reveal their input prompts, upload private Adobe data or code to generate email drafts, summarize documents, or patch software bugs.

They should also make sure to opt out of having content from their conversations being used as training data. In addition they can't sign up to use these tools with their own private email addresses or pay for a subscription with their corporate credit cards (or pay with a personal card and claim it back as an expense). "

« Reply #161 on: July 11, 2023, 15:23 »
+2
Another contributor brought Lasco.ai to my attention. It's a beta generative AI platform that for the moment is free to use

https://www.kedglobal.com/artificial-intelligence/newsView/ked202304130025

The way they were promoting it was unfortunate.

No idea what they'll charge for this service when it's out of beta, or what their training data is, and thus how safe for commercial use any output would be. Their example gallery has a fairly narrow range of types of images; I'm not planning to try it out, but thought it worth noting here in case anyone else is inclined to

https://www.lasco.ai/

« Reply #162 on: July 12, 2023, 11:34 »
0
Petapixel quotes Robert Kneschke on how much SS is paying out to artists for ai use

https://petapixel.com/2023/07/12/shutterstock-may-have-paid-out-over-4-million-from-its-ai-contributor-fund/?fbclid=IwAR0ZWlnFc-ujmLJZrjAqcanUrUZzSGDHL7bQ7F01_VSqFAxAZvN7m3-Zafg

That is really very little money.

Will be interesting to see how Adobe does this.

« Reply #163 on: July 12, 2023, 11:39 »
+1

The way they were promoting it was unfortunate.

https://www.lasco.ai/

The way they are promoting is is just telling how things will be in the future, no matter how much some people refuse to see it. Apart from editorial photos of real places, events and people, it will be indeed "say goodbay to paid stock images".  Which, from our persepective translates into "Say goodbye to being paid for stock images".

« Reply #164 on: July 13, 2023, 15:43 »
+3
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23794224/sag-aftra-actors-strike-ai-image-rights

 This groundbreaking AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one days pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think thats a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.

« Reply #165 on: July 13, 2023, 15:48 »
+1
There is a very on point episode on black mirror that deals with this situation

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20247352/?ref_=ttep_ep1


« Reply #166 on: July 16, 2023, 13:41 »
+1
I just started watching, but it seems interesting so far:

"The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee holds a hearing on artificial intelligence and intellectual property on Wednesday.
Witnesses testifying include Jeffrey Harleston, general counsel and executive VP of business and legal affairs at Universal Music Group; Karla Ortiz, concept artist and illustrator; Matthew Sag, professor of artificial intelligence at Emory University School of Law; Dana Rao, executive VP and general counsel at Adobe Inc., and Ben Brooks, head of public policy at Stability AI."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoCJun7gkbA

« Reply #167 on: July 18, 2023, 09:31 »
+1
Not sure how good the evaluations were (no idea who/what Insider Monkey is) but here's there take on the top 15 AI image generators (note that for the top 5 you have to follow a link, and then to get 4-3-2-1 you have to click "Next" links like a slide show. The site is littered with ads)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-best-ai-image-generators-050331833.html


« Reply #168 on: July 18, 2023, 09:41 »
+2
Not sure how good the evaluations were (no idea who/what Insider Monkey is) but here's there take on the top 15 AI image generators (note that for the top 5 you have to follow a link, and then to get 4-3-2-1 you have to click "Next" links like a slide show. The site is littered with ads)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-best-ai-image-generators-050331833.html
I am not sure whoever wrote this really tried out all these Ai image generators, or at least tried them in a way to be able to make any judgement. For midjourney it says "While users cannot choose specific art style...". But of couse you can say what art style you want for the image to be in your pormots.

And I don't understand how DALLE 2 is on the top. I have only tried out a few of these image generators, but I thought DALLE 2 was the one with the worst results.
And the article does not even really explain how they rated these genators or why one is better than the other, so even after reading this I still don't understand why they think DALL was the number 1.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2023, 09:44 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #169 on: July 18, 2023, 19:37 »
0
There is a very on point episode on black mirror that deals with this situation

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20247352/?ref_=ttep_ep1

a great episode

« Reply #170 on: July 18, 2023, 23:12 »
0
Interesting article about celebrities and actors that embrace deepfakes.

It is true that they might be earning very good money, because the companies save much money on production costs.

Perhaps if they can negotiate a perpetual royalty deal or just a yearly license, it is a way for some to build up a passive income stream.

It all depends on the contract.

The real competution will be companies using fully generic fake actors created with ai.

It also not completely knew, many actors license their likeness and voice for computer games and their avatars are used by the millions every day.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65995089

The technology is here, it will stay.

Adapt or die said the photographer to the oil painter after taking the wedding portraits.

And suddenly normal people could have their image saved for all eternity, a privilege only rich people could afford before.

« Reply #171 on: July 19, 2023, 11:30 »
+1

« Reply #172 on: July 21, 2023, 15:37 »
+1
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/21/23803244/meta-google-openai-microsoft-artificial-intelligence-ai-white-house-commitments

"In a Friday blog post, OpenAI said that the watermarking agreements would require the companies to develop tools or APIs to determine if a particular piece of content was created with their system. "

"Google pledged to deploy similar disclosures earlier this year. Kent Walker, Googles president of global affairs, reiterated that commitment in a statement Friday, saying that the company would soon be integrating watermarking, metadata, and other innovative techniques into upcoming generative systems. "

https://openai.com/blog/moving-ai-governance-forward

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/07/openai-google-will-watermark-ai-generated-content-to-hinder-deepfakes-misinfo/

"It's currently unclear how the watermark will work, but it will likely be embedded in the content so that users can trace its origins to the AI tools used to generate it."


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #173 on: July 23, 2023, 11:36 »
+1
There is a very on point episode on black mirror that deals with this situation

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20247352/?ref_=ttep_ep1

Just watched that one a couple weeks ago. Gotta love the ending.  ;D

« Reply #174 on: July 25, 2023, 08:50 »
+1
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-joins-the-content-authenticity-initiative-301884514.html

I love the title of one Shutterstock employee quoted: Senior Director of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3834 Views
Last post March 28, 2014, 06:40
by Bibi
9 Replies
8696 Views
Last post January 17, 2017, 11:47
by Jafo2016
234 Replies
32803 Views
Last post May 27, 2023, 12:12
by cobalt
A.I. Legal cases

Started by Lowls « 1 2 3  All » Adobe Stock

68 Replies
9323 Views
Last post May 28, 2023, 15:46
by stoker2014
0 Replies
346 Views
Last post January 16, 2024, 07:00
by cobalt

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors