pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Generative AI Collection of links and important articles, videos, court cases  (Read 55669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: September 20, 2023, 20:17 »
+2
DALL-E 3 will apparently include some sort of watermarking/metadata indicating the item was created by genAI. There's a mention of the Content Authenticity Initiative, but no specifics - OpenAI is not a member.

(paywall)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/20/openai-dall-e-image-generator/

"The release comes amid challenges for the San Francisco start-up, as competitive pressure builds. Traffic to and monthly users of both DALL-E and OpenAIs flagship chatbot have slowed, as Google rushes a fleet of AI-driven products to users. But by integrating its novel image generator into ChatGPT, OpenAI is expanding its market and offering the technology as a feature to turbocharge its chatbot, rather than presenting the tool as a stand-alone product.
. . .
"DALL-E 3′s improvements make it more difficult for a layperson to identify real photos...Youre not going to be able to trust your eyes, said University of California at Berkeley Professor Hany Farid, who specializes in digital forensics and works with Adobe on its Content Authenticity Initiative. But Farid emphasized that the DALL-E 3′s improvements are not cause for alarm because AI gets better at mimicking the real world every six months or so.
. . .
"As part of a voluntary White House pledge in June, OpenAI agreed to develop and deploy mechanisms to identify when visual or audio content is AI-generated, using methods such as watermarking an image or encoding provenance data to indicate the service or model that created the content. DALL-E 3 is experimenting with a classifier that looks at where an image came from or the contents provenance, said Ramesh, a method mentioned in the White House commitments.

These types of mechanisms help identify deepfakes but also can help artists track whether their work was used without consent or compensation to train models, said Margaret Mitchell, a research scientist at Hugging Face and former co-lead of ethical AI at Google."

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/20/23881241/openai-dalle-third-version-generative-ai

https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/20/openai-unveils-dall-e-3-allows-artists-to-opt-out-of-training/

"Beyond this, DALL-E 3 has new mechanisms to reduce algorithmic bias and improve safety or so OpenAI says. For example, DALL-E 3 will reject requests that ask for an image in the style of living artists or portray public figures. And artists can now opt out of having certain or all of their artwork used to train future generations of OpenAI text-to-image models. (OpenAI, along with some of its rivals, is facing a lawsuit for allegedly using artists copyrighted work to train its generative AI image models.)"

https://www.wired.com/story/dall-e-3-open-ai-chat-gpt/

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/openai-announces-dall-e-3-a-next-gen-ai-image-generator-based-on-chatgpt/

"Right now, US copyright policy says that purely AI-generated artwork cannot receive copyright protection, so technically any image created with DALL-E 3 will fall within the public domain. While OpenAI doesn't acknowledge that explicitly, it does say that "the images you create with DALL-E 3 are yours to use and you don't need our permission to reprint, sell or merchandise them." That's a marked change from last year when OpenAI restricted DALLE-2 image use based on a license that said OpenAI "owns all generations."

"OpenAI has given no word about its tool's potential to bend the historical record with convincing fabrications, although it says it is experimenting with a "provenance classifier" tool that can help identify whether or not an image was generated by DALL-E 3."


karmalama

« Reply #226 on: September 20, 2023, 20:28 »
+1
[deleted]
« Last Edit: September 26, 2023, 19:16 by karmalama »

karmalama

« Reply #227 on: September 20, 2023, 20:36 »
+1
[deleted]
« Last Edit: September 26, 2023, 19:16 by karmalama »

« Reply #228 on: September 20, 2023, 22:22 »
0
Seen this? Is it legit or a trap?

https://haveibeentrained.com/

Didn't LAION threaten to sue some dude that tried to have his images removed from the dataset?

This is real. The court case with Robert Kneschke, the German artist, is still ongoing.

fotorob is his alias here, I am sure he will update us if there is any news.

karmalama

« Reply #229 on: September 20, 2023, 23:17 »
+1
[deleted]
« Last Edit: September 26, 2023, 19:16 by karmalama »

« Reply #230 on: September 21, 2023, 00:15 »
+2
Dall-e3 will allow artists to opt out

https://openai.com/dall-e-3


I am VERY curious how that feature will work. Do I submit all of my 10.000 images to them manually to have them opted-out? Since DALL-E's training  is based on simply crawling the whole internet for images, I am not sure how I can keep them from using my images, especially as a microstock photographer where my imags can be found all over the internet. Even if I sent them a link to one website and say "don't use these images", there are literally 10.000 websites out there that use my images. So will they then not use my images from one scource, but instead use them from all the others? I am pretty sure DALL-E's attempt to offer an opt-out option is really just there for image polishing and to prevent lawsuits, so I can't imagine they will go out of there way to offer a really effective solution for this.

Also, metadata indicating the item was created by genAI is nice, but there are so easy ways to manipulate metadata, that I am not really sure it will do much good. People honestly disclosing an image or text was AI created are not as much a problem as people claiming AI generated content was human created and the people who want to lie about it, for example to submit AI images to microstock agencies that don't allow it like Shutterstock, are exactly the people who will manipulate it.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2023, 00:46 by Her Ugliness »

karmalama

« Reply #231 on: September 21, 2023, 00:33 »
+3
[deleted]
« Last Edit: September 26, 2023, 19:15 by karmalama »

« Reply #232 on: September 21, 2023, 03:31 »
+1
The problem is that there will be countries that will legally allow scraping the internet. I think Japan was planning to have extremely lax laws around ai training.

So even if one country is very strict with their laws, they will not be able to prevent the data scraping somewhere else.

And I am sure somebody will come up with secondary data sets - scrape it all in one country, then mash and scramble it all up into math gibberish, then sell that to ai companiesand nowno direct involvement of our images.

Everything that we believe OUR copyright is, will become invalid as long as the ai does not put out images identical to ours or uses our artists name in the prompting.

Of course you can create content that looks like Rutkowsky. Nobody can patent a brush stroke style, color style etcif  you describe what you want in very much detail, but not use his nameit all becomes very difficult as long as your resulting image is not a copy of one of his works.

You can obviously paint whatever you want with your own brush.

It will be the same with ai.

It is important to follow what other industries do - music, gaming, writing, software.

Because the problem is affecting us all.

At the same timenot having to spend mastering skills and instead just going forward creating content with the help of magical ai is creating a whole new group of talent.

I think especially with software there will completely new levels of production possible.

Also engineering etconce it becomes more factly accurate.

But we will also see more indie movies created by small actor/writer teams that will create theatre level content without the big Hollywood budget.

And they will be free of Hollywood pressure.

For many creators, working with ai will give them total artistic control.

This is the other side, it can be empwoering.

Including actors that rent out their avatar likeness, like in the Black Mirror episode.

It does not all have to be horrible. There is also a great opportunity for all those that really have ideas.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2023, 03:36 by cobalt »

« Reply #233 on: September 21, 2023, 11:16 »
0

« Reply #234 on: September 21, 2023, 13:23 »
+1
British actor Stephen Fry found his voice had been used to narrate a documentary without his knowledge or participation. The article says they used his narration of audio books to get the needed samples:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/20/it-could-have-me-read-porn-stephen-fry-shocked-by-ai-cloning-of-his-voice-in-documentary

I have to imagine there'll be litigation about this, but nothing so far.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/18/harry-potter-narrator-stephen-fry-says-ai-was-used-to-steal-his-voice/
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/stephen-fry-ai-stole-voice-harry-potter-audiobooks-1235727795/

This is about the music business and different ways to license sounds that would allow artists to retain the rights to the sound of their own voice

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23836337/music-generative-ai-voice-likeness-regulation

"AI poses a tricky problem for labels and musicians under copyright law: establishing ownership of a song that sounds like an artists overall output but does not feature a direct copy of any particular work. "

"It isnt just AI-powered music platforms looking at licensing artists voices; even established record labels believe this is a good start. The Financial Times reported Universal Music is in talks with Google to license artists voices and melodies for generative AI projects."
« Last Edit: September 21, 2023, 13:43 by Jo Ann Snover »


« Reply #236 on: September 23, 2023, 21:15 »
+2
This is another voice actor situation - Greg Marston did voice work for IBM in 2005, but IBM used that to train an AI voice and then sold it to Revoicer. No compensation for Greg. He understood IBM could use that recording in perpetuity, but not for new uses, essentially competing with him in the here and now for voice work.

https://www.ft.com/content/07d75801-04fd-495c-9a68-310926221554

[Marston] is working in the same marketplace, he is still selling his voice for a living, and he is now competing with himself, said Mathilde Pavis, the artists lawyer who specialises in digital cloning technologies. He had signed a document but there was no agreement for him to be cloned by an unforeseen technology 20 years later.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gregmarston7_has-a-computer-company-cloned-this-mans-activity-7087772812093857793-uEg2/

(paywall)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/opinion/ai-internet-lawsuit.html

"Tim Friedlander, founder and president of the National Association of Voice Actors, has called for A.I. companies to adopt ethical standards. He says that actors need three Cs: consent, control and compensation.

In fact, all of us need the three Cs. Whether we are professional actors or we just post pictures on social media, everyone should have the right to meaningful consent on whether we want our online lives fed into the giant A.I. machines.

And consent should not mean having to locate a bunch of hard-to-find opt-out buttons to click which is where the industry is heading.

Compensation is harder to figure out, especially since most of the A.I. bots are primarily free services at the moment. But make no mistake, the A.I. industry is planning to and will make money from these systems, and when it does, there will be a reckoning with those whose works fueled the profits."

« Reply #237 on: September 24, 2023, 03:16 »
0
This is pretty disgusting.

Ai is being used to create fake nude photos of children. While it has always been possible to do this in photoshop, with ai this abuse goes to a whole new level.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66877718

« Reply #238 on: September 24, 2023, 09:41 »
0

« Reply #239 on: September 24, 2023, 10:08 »
+2
As an addendum to the above Guardian article, obviously is US specific. An interesting (brief) summary of US copyright law issues.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-3-1/ALDE_00013063/

"The Supreme Court held that originality, the sine qua non of copyright, requires that the work was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity"

I think AI creations fail because it wasn't independently created by the author - the creation is dependent upon all the other people's artwork used to train the system. The fact that the prompter had some creativity is irrelevant.

« Reply #240 on: September 24, 2023, 11:31 »
+1
I think over time this attitude will evolve.

When cameras first came out it was denied any creative value and photographers were not considered artists.

They just push a button, how can it be art?

Today it is an accepted art form and people take6 year degrees at a university or other long education to reach professional levels.

It will be the same with ai.

The judges should try themselves to create an image like that.

They would quickly understand how much work and how much human thinking goes into this.

« Reply #241 on: September 24, 2023, 14:09 »
+1
...When cameras first came out it was denied any creative value and photographers were not considered artists.
...

This isn't about what is and isn't art. It's about copyright - and in particular US copyright law. Two different issues.

This summary is pretty helpful in outlining what qualifies a photograph for copyright protection.

This article is also helpful in covering the creation of derivative works from a copyrighted photograph (a right that the original owner possesses).

" In photography, whenever someone produces a photograph that closely resembles or is "substantially similar" to another copyrighted work, they may be infringing on the original owner's rights.

To determine if copyright laws have been violated, a court of law compares and evaluates the derivative work against the original. Essentially, a photographer who meticulously recreates an original work's composition, lighting, and other creative aspects is more likely to be found guilty of copyright infringement than a photographer who merely captures subjects that already exist in other photos (e.g., monuments, nature). This allows multiple photographers to photograph the same subjects, like the Golden Gate Bridge, without infringing on each other's artistic rights."

This article talks about the fair use defense - often trotted out by the companies who scraped data without asking for permission or paying.

"Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work."

If you read the section on joint authorship in the first article, IMO that comes closest to what's happening with humans using genAI tools. The humans probably wouldn't like that approach as they'd be sharing their copyright with Midjourney or whoever, not to mention it's not clear that Midjourney came by their contribution legitimately:

"Jointly authored works are works that are prepared by two or more creators with the intent that their contributions be inseparable from one another. In a joint work, each of the authors hold an undivided, equal share to the copyright in the final work. Thus, the default rule is that each author has an equal claim to all the exclusive rights in the joint workthe right to reproduce, distribute, create derivative works, and publicly perform or displayunless they separately agree among themselves that the shares or division of rights or profits should somehow be different."

« Reply #242 on: September 24, 2023, 14:31 »
+1
....
The judges should try themselves to create an image like that.

They would quickly understand how much work and how much human thinking goes into this.

of course it's futile to hope for rational thinking by many US congressfolk & judges. their level of ignorance concerning science and technology is staggering consider  evolution-, vaccine- & climate-deniers

admittedly it was a long time ago -  there's former Senator Ted Stevens, chair of the Senate committee responsible for regulating the internet:

the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

« Reply #243 on: September 24, 2023, 16:30 »
0
The more I use ai tools for image creation, the less "intelligence" I find in it.

In the end it is all human intelligence.

There are the original art creators, going all the way back to the first cave paintings, where a human mind translated the world around them into 2d cartoon like drawings. Then the whole evolutionary process of art, depending on the material and techniques used. Then cameras and the new way to play with light, people, scenes.

It is always humans telling a story.

The ai tools, the software, is written and evolved by humans. Used on machines and computers designed by humans.

The users, the prompters, who often mix prompt works with normal photoshop or other art work...again...humans.

Humans give a thumbs up/down to the pixel mixing machine, to tell it what is good and what isn't in the eye of the human.

So yes, it is a huge collaborative effort, including all the artists that came before us.  And all the software engineers who are creating the interface for the users.

Copyright will evolve to be practical in the modern world.

Probably there has to be a new category for ai.

But all modern marketing and design will use ai tools and they will want to protect their branded results from competitors.

So to be of service to the business world, where copyright is needed to protect brands, the legal framework will evolve to include ai.

Copyright does not exist for itself, it is another human tool invented to organise certain situations in business.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2023, 03:43 by cobalt »

« Reply #244 on: September 25, 2023, 04:20 »
+2
French lawmakers propose new copyright law about generative AI

https://www.technollama.co.uk/french-lawmakers-propose-new-copyright-law-about-generative-ai

interesting highlighting and considerations by the author (of the blog)
« Last Edit: September 25, 2023, 05:12 by gameover »

« Reply #245 on: September 25, 2023, 07:17 »
+1
It has a lot of interesting ideas

"Article 4

This may seem like a throwaway article, but this is the real land-grab by collective societies. This article also adds to the existing Art L121-2 (publication right), and it says:

Furthermore, in the event that a work of the mind is generated by an artificial intelligence system from works whose origin cannot be determined, a tax intended to enhance the value of creation is introduced for the benefit of the organisation responsible for collective management designated by article L. 131-3 as amended of this code.

This tax is imposed on the company that operates the artificial intelligence system used to generate the said artificial work.

A Conseil dEtat decree sets the rate and basis of this tax.

As you can see from the analysis of Article 2, allocating an author may be either impractical or impossible. So in my view, this is the real intention of the legislation. As it will be not possible to find the author of an AI work (which remember, has copyright and therefore isnt in the public domain), the law will place a tax on the company that operates the service. So its sort of in the public domain, but its taxed, and the tax will be paid by OpenAI, Google, Midjourney, StabilityAI, etc. But also by any open source operator and other AI providers (Hugginface, etc). And the tax will be used to fund the collective societies in France so unless people are willing to join these societies from abroad, they will get nothing, and these bodies will reap the rewards.And remember, the idea behind the tax is predicated on outputs being able to make money, which is not at all guaranteed."

As the article says, this is early stages.

To benefit from the tax collected the artist has to be a member of the countries artists organsitations, which excludes a lot of people.

In our case the agencies who sell licenses and probably the customers will also be taxed in addition to the normal vat.

The whole legal framework around ai will take years to sort out.

But in the end we will hold some form of copyright, and not just midjourney.

« Reply #246 on: September 25, 2023, 07:51 »
0
....
The judges should try themselves to create an image like that.

They would quickly understand how much work and how much human thinking goes into this.

of course it's futile to hope for rational thinking by many US congressfolk & judges. their level of ignorance concerning science and technology is staggering consider  evolution-, vaccine- & climate-deniers

admittedly it was a long time ago -  there's former Senator Ted Stevens, chair of the Senate committee responsible for regulating the internet:

the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Sounds like Trump and his stupid double talk. But AI is not human and in order to be protected the work has to be made by a human. Remember the monkey that someone tried to claim had rights to a photo. "copyright law only protects 'the fruits of intellectual labor' that 'are founded in the creative powers of the mind.' " That's the law.

« Reply #247 on: September 25, 2023, 08:29 »
0
Why don't you create specific targeted sellable content with ai and then explain to me again how your mind was never involved doing that?

If you write software that feeds ai with random word salads, does no research into needed content and never considers a customer...well then you would still be the human writing the software to program the ai...

By your definition no photographer could ever hold any copyright...because we are all just pressing a button just like the monkey..

« Reply #248 on: September 25, 2023, 09:06 »
+1
Why don't you create specific targeted sellable content with ai and then explain to me again how your mind was never involved doing that?


No one said your mind wasn't involved doing it. But you did NOT CREATE it. All you did was describe it.
I've described and let AI create enough sellable content (from comparing our numbers better than you) to be able to judge my human involvement in AI content creation and it's hardly there.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2023, 09:09 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #249 on: September 25, 2023, 10:09 »
0
How do you create with pushing a button on a camera?

That is less creative than writing a sentence.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3833 Views
Last post March 28, 2014, 06:40
by Bibi
9 Replies
8695 Views
Last post January 17, 2017, 11:47
by Jafo2016
234 Replies
32802 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
9321 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