Author Topic: A.I. Legal cases (Read 10098 times)

Lowls · « **on:** April 15, 2023, 03:34 »

Sky News today aired a story about gathering momentum from creative artists to call a halt to ilegal A.I. data set usage because work is being plucked direct off their private commercial websites.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/ai-art-generators-face-backlash-from-artists-but-could-they-unlock-creative-potential-12857072

Someone should pay attention or its gonna be expensive down the line. The US copywrite office decided in 2022 that A.I. generated work wasn't eligible for copywrite and began defending a law suit against a company that filed a law suit claiming this decision was wrong. Never the less at present A.I. generated work isn't copywritten. So anyone who wants to use it can do so free of charge.

They were open to exploring a change in the law if humans were involved. For instance if an artist or photographer used A.I. to enhance work. But the problem exists on what percentage of A.I. involvement does the copywrite cease to apply. They state they will look at the situation this year. Which explains the gold rush to get it up and running.

The UK government are now looking at the illegal use of artists (creators) via data sets which they are aware have been used illegally after pressure from many trade bodies. And will be looking at changing the law. But they state that initially this change in law will possibly require voluntary registration. But the big boys will rush to join and those who dig their heals in will pay the price. Because that's how it always works no matter what it is.

So Adobe ... look faster at a compensation model.

A paper by researchgate in January 2022 examined the potential for legal action against companies that use copywritten work to train their A.I.

Using Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) to create images from data sets, which is how many A.I. generators work, they looked at the legal position regarding copywrite law, although newer methods exist such as CANs (Creative Adversarial Networks). The former would focus on the predominant features of a data set. If it was trained on animals it created animal like images even if clouds that contained animal like features were added. CANs were created to remove human input in the creation process but never the less using human data sets.

After examining copywrite law in this framework they state that Copywrite law may be triggered if the origin data was copywritten work. It varies from state to state but generally this fact is a given via reproduction laws. Even partial use is covered and requires the authorisation of the author/artist/creator ... this was never given. Implied authorisation by use of the site isn't enough because you have to be aware your images are being used for this purpose.

Opinion - If the output of the A.I. isn't as yet copywritten then anything it creates is free to use and requires no payment.

If people are paying for those created images it proves that that they believe their purchase is protected by use laws. In this regard they believe their purchase is copywritten and safe. And no doubt the Ts&Cs will assert as much therefore a company selling these pictures must be offering to protect the images because they are charging for them. This infers the sold A.I. output is coyywritten and protected by Adobe's legal framework.

If this is true they must have paid for the license to use copywritten work to create protected work which they sell. If they didn't they must give the A.I. generated work away for free. They can't claim fair use because they sell world wide and are also governed by TDM (Text and Data Mining) in Europe. Which excludes commercial gain.

You can make your own opinions but compensation now will be much cheaper than compensation later because now you pay for what you have used. Later you have to pay everyone because you won't be able to prove who's work you did or didn't use.

Researchgate source - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357685384_Protection_of_AI_generated_photographs_under_copyright_law_pre_print_version_09_01_2022

Edit: I've just seen a payment today from POND 5 for data set use of my work. SS have also paid for use of my work. As we can clearly see ... regardless of the laws in place at present ... stock agencies do not want to be the last one digging their heals in.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2023, 03:57 »

So what are the conclusions? Stock agencies are not allowed to sell content to buyers on their own behalf?

Lowls · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2023, 04:41 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 15, 2023, 03:57

So what are the conclusions? Stock agencies are not allowed to sell content to buyers on their own behalf?

No that's already happening I believe. I'm not a buyer so I don't know. But the conclusion is that if the A.I. generated product isn't copywritten and I believe it isnt, why do people need to pay for it. They could just take it. An A.I. can't bring a case against them. It is the creator. It's work according to the conclusion last year wasn't copywritten. So who can claim copywrite theft? Unless laws have changed since then it appears the work can just be taken.

ouatedeP · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2023, 06:00 »

Quote from: Lowls on April 15, 2023, 04:41

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 15, 2023, 03:57
So what are the conclusions? Stock agencies are not allowed to sell content to buyers on their own behalf?

No that's already happening I believe. I'm not a buyer so I don't know. But the conclusion is that if the A.I. generated product isn't copywritten and I believe it isnt, why do people need to pay for it. They could just take it. An A.I. can't bring a case against them. It is the creator. It's work according to the conclusion last year wasn't copywritten. So who can claim copywrite theft? Unless laws have changed since then it appears the work can just be taken.

it will be interesting, not sure we can conclude it can be taken. Going to take property illegally, copyrighted or not, is still theft, either downloading without paying (breach of terms) or removing watermarks (intention to defraud). I think the bigger issue is for buyers, if they use AI generated material they can copyright it, so this would be a big issue if they use it in trademark and copyright stuff

stoker2014 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2023, 06:37 »

This means that artificial intelligence will not deprive us of work, because responsible buyers will simply not download this artificial content on stocks.

Lowls · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2023, 07:08 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 15, 2023, 06:37

This means that artificial intelligence will not deprive us of work, because responsible buyers will simply not download this artificial content on stocks.

Well I think buyers will want a product that is protected by copywrite so that they can use it safely.

Lowls · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2023, 07:18 »

Quote from: ouatedeP on April 15, 2023, 06:00

Quote from: Lowls on April 15, 2023, 04:41
Quote from: stoker2014 on April 15, 2023, 03:57
So what are the conclusions? Stock agencies are not allowed to sell content to buyers on their own behalf?

No that's already happening I believe. I'm not a buyer so I don't know. But the conclusion is that if the A.I. generated product isn't copywritten and I believe it isnt, why do people need to pay for it. They could just take it. An A.I. can't bring a case against them. It is the creator. It's work according to the conclusion last year wasn't copywritten. So who can claim copywrite theft? Unless laws have changed since then it appears the work can just be taken.

it will be interesting, not sure we can conclude it can be taken. Going to take property illegally, copyrighted or not, is still theft, either downloading without paying (breach of terms) or removing watermarks (intention to defraud). I think the bigger issue is for buyers, if they use AI generated material they can copyright it, so this would be a big issue if they use it in trademark and copyright stuff

This is the point though isn't it. Watermarks can be removed because an AI created the work. Watermarks are for ownership protection. They don't own it 😲. They didn't pay for the rights to use data sets. They just took them. You cannot claim ownership of stolen goods.

If you steal pair of dogs and use them to mate. The pups don't belong to you, just because you I introduced them.

If you steal a red car and paint it green it still isn't yours.

If you steal a Monet from a gallery and use its detail to paint a fake and sell it for millions ... you don't get to keep your millions.

And at least technically these items produced are in theory covered because as per the law they have had human interaction.

A.I. cannot claim any of these traits.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2023, 09:32 »

A few years ago there was an outcry when Getty Images was charging for downloads (from the agency web site) of public domain images. Getty's claim was that they were entitled to charge for the convenience of having scanned and hosted these in a convenient way for their customers. In other words, the fact that Getty didn't own the copyright in an image wasn't significant in offering it for sale. I'd assume the same would apply to licensing or sale of AI-generated imagery where no one held copyright in it.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-photos-20160801-snap-story.html
https://will.illinois.edu/legalissuesinthenews/program/getty-images-and-fair-use
https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/

Lowls · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2023, 10:43 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 15, 2023, 09:32

A few years ago there was an outcry when Getty Images was charging for downloads (from the agency web site) of public domain images. Getty's claim was that they were entitled to charge for the convenience of having scanned and hosted these in a convenient way for their customers. In other words, the fact that Getty didn't own the copyright in an image wasn't significant in offering it for sale. I'd assume the same would apply to licensing or sale of AI-generated imagery where no one held copyright in it.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-photos-20160801-snap-story.html
https://will.illinois.edu/legalissuesinthenews/program/getty-images-and-fair-use
https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/

Thank you for that Jo that does indeed tally with what I assume. Whilst Getty acquired the library it didn't own the copywrite. As the article states

Whilst those that purchase use of the image from Getty it doesn't indemnify the purchaser from copywrite infringement and therefore Getty indemnified the purchaser themselves because the law couldn't. Hahahaha ... oh dear. Well this is an extremely ugly can of worms isn't it.

But also we have not handed over use free of charge in any way by way of donation to public use. So slightly different.

Mir · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2023, 17:32 »

I am not sure if this was already shared:
Class Action Filed Against Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DeviantArt
https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/
This is from January but I can't find any updates.

Lowls · « **Reply #10 on:** April 16, 2023, 07:24 »

Quote from: Mir on April 15, 2023, 17:32

I am not sure if this was already shared:
Class Action Filed Against Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DeviantArt
https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/
This is from January but I can't find any updates.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/generative-ai-heading-down-dangerous-164041633.html

although the words million dollar law suit have now been replaced with trillion dollar and billion dollar lawsuits in the various online articles regarding Getty and others. They have yet to respond to the law suit's.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #11 on:** April 16, 2023, 12:06 »

Quote from: Mir on April 15, 2023, 17:32

I am not sure if this was already shared:
Class Action Filed Against Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DeviantArt
https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/
This is from January but I can't find any updates.

It's filed in California, last update was March 14, 2023

https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-andersen-et-al-v-stability-ai-ltd-et-al-1380299

Lowls · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2023, 04:40 »

March 21st 2023

apparently we will be able to get paid they told the media and opt out ... if only they mentioned if/when/how ...

"Adobe Inc (ADBE.O) added artificial intelligence to some of its most popular software, including Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator, to speed the process of generating images and text effects, noting that creators whose work was used by the tools will be able to get paid."

"Nvidia trained the technology on images licensed from Getty Images, Shutterstock Inc (SSTK.N), and Adobe, and plans to pay royalties."

"Adobe's new AI-enhanced feature, called "Firefly," allows users to use words to describe the images, illustrations or videos that its software will create. Because the AI has been trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and older content where copyright has expired, the resulting creations are safe for commercial use, it said.

The company also is advocating for a universal "do not train" tag that would allow photographers to request that their content not be used to train models."

source https://www.reuters.com/technology/adobe-nvidia-ai-imagery-systems-aim-resolve-copyright-questions-2023-03-21/

gameover · « **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2023, 07:13 »

Dismiss in the class action lawsuit against StabilityAI, Deviantart, and Midjourney

https://twitter.com/technollama/status/1648981345924685824?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email

Mir · « **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2023, 07:28 »

But it says 'The companies asked a San Francisco federal court to dismiss the artists' proposed class action lawsuit'
Isn't the court supposed to decide whether to dismiss it or not.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-companies-ask-us-court-dismiss-artists-copyright-lawsuit-2023-04-19/

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** April 20, 2023, 13:33 »

Quote from: Mir on April 20, 2023, 07:28

But it says 'The companies asked a San Francisco federal court to dismiss the artists' proposed class action lawsuit'
Isn't the court supposed to decide whether to dismiss it or not.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-companies-ask-us-court-dismiss-artists-copyright-lawsuit-2023-04-19/

Yes. Motion to dismiss is pretty standard and it doesn't mean the judge will say they agree. My bold of the upcoming court date.

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendants
Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc., through their undersigned counsel, will, and hereby do, move
to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint (“Compl.” or “Complaint”) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6)."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.51.0.pdf

Lowls · « **Reply #16 on:** April 20, 2023, 17:50 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 20, 2023, 13:33

Quote from: Mir on April 20, 2023, 07:28
But it says 'The companies asked a San Francisco federal court to dismiss the artists' proposed class action lawsuit'
Isn't the court supposed to decide whether to dismiss it or not.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-companies-ask-us-court-dismiss-artists-copyright-lawsuit-2023-04-19/

Yes. Motion to dismiss is pretty standard and it doesn't mean the judge will say they agree. My bold of the upcoming court date.

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendants
Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc., through their undersigned counsel, will, and hereby do, move
to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint (“Compl.” or “Complaint”) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6)."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.51.0.pdf

and of course this isn't one of the high profile cases. This is a collection of artists that have gone after them. This isn't Getty or future organisatios. They should avoid wriggling out of this because the hammer will fall on them. How hard depends on what they do now. Already numerous legal bodies are scrambling to nail this down and when they do ...

... further other areas of society have begun recoiling away from this tech. Writers, painters, even the legal profession and song writers and financial bodies. And now they are teaching Chatgpt to lie ... which will render it useless.

Lowls · « **Reply #17 on:** May 19, 2023, 11:13 »

... And so it begins ... Adobe this means you.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urged lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence during a Senate panel hearing Tuesday, describing the technology's current boom as a potential "printing press moment" but one that required safeguards.

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

Quickly followed by agreement and expression of laws in the making to do just that.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #18 on:** May 19, 2023, 11:45 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 19, 2023, 11:13

... And so it begins ... Adobe this means you.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urged lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence during a Senate panel hearing Tuesday, describing the technology's current boom as a potential "printing press moment" but one that required safeguards.

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

Quickly followed by agreement and expression of laws in the making to do just that.

This should be interesting and maybe bring some future returns for the use of datasets. We didn't create the art and photos to be paid cents and dimes for their eternal use, and re-use.

Used for training and I get paid this?

Roscoe · « **Reply #19 on:** May 19, 2023, 15:42 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 19, 2023, 11:13

... And so it begins ... Adobe this means you.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urged lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence during a Senate panel hearing Tuesday, describing the technology's current boom as a potential "printing press moment" but one that required safeguards.

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

Quickly followed by agreement and expression of laws in the making to do just that.

He's obviously right, but that's a weird thing of him to say. Right? He used people's data to train his ChatGPT.
It's already there, and it sounds like he want's to prevent competitors from getting access to the amount of data he had.
Or is he gonna shut down ChatGPT and start all over again the "moral" way?

Lowls · « **Reply #20 on:** May 20, 2023, 06:18 »

Quote from: Roscoe on May 19, 2023, 15:42

Quote from: Lowls on May 19, 2023, 11:13
... And so it begins ... Adobe this means you.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urged lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence during a Senate panel hearing Tuesday, describing the technology's current boom as a potential "printing press moment" but one that required safeguards.

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

Quickly followed by agreement and expression of laws in the making to do just that.

He's obviously right, but that's a weird thing of him to say. Right? He used people's data to train his ChatGPT.
It's already there, and it sounds like he want's to prevent competitors from getting access to the amount of data he had.
Or is he gonna shut down ChatGPT and start all over again the "moral" way?

I know right. So I couldn't listen any more because flashbacks to Zuckerbergs BS. I say that because he stated paraphrasing "I think that governmnent needs to make laws to protect creativity and jobs and people's livelihoods when this grows and we have to decide what do we do with our time" but then his sickening smile as he said "but I am here ro ask for that support and to work with tye governmnet to do this the right way but I also have huge belief in the ability of humans to find new uses for ... blah nlah blah"

So I think he has realised he can't get the s#it back in the horse. And he isn't as arrogant or as well protected as Zuckerberg and he knows that when the hammer falls its gonna fall on him. So he's come running to get in with the in crowd early doors. It's totally too late. He I am sure knows its way too late but I think he is banking on the government not knowing its as late as it is. If he can hand the government the reigns its their sh£tshow and he's just an advisor when it becomes apprent just how damaging this will be.

Drug companies bust as that thing examines every bit of data and works our the best chemical composition for everything.

Defence agencies bust as it examines all data and designs open source hyperersonic jets for the rich.

Secrets exposed as it crawls every chat, email, document, stocks movements and utterance by anyone on any platform and joins the dots. A secret plane design shown on a patch of ground in White sands which gives the US superior air power propaganda. It matches the landscape up as a field in Texas belonging to a visual effects artist lol. Accountants out of work. Lawyers out of work because it wrote your whole defence for you while you ate a pop tart.

This guy is a walking dead man. Of course he wants to help the government.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 20, 2023, 13:27 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 19, 2023, 11:13

"I think that people should have the right to refuse to have their data (created content) used for it to be trained on"

I give permission for education, but I do not give permission for artificial intelligence to trade. Let the AI learn, but it cannot sell the works it creates. More precisely, in this case, a base should be created, and each author from whom the AI studied should receive in the future a percentage of the sales of everything that will be created by the AI. And even now, the authors must give consent not only to AI training, but also to its business activities.

oooo · « **Reply #22 on:** May 20, 2023, 14:07 »

-there must be an opt out
-and in case, like at adobe - an undone and unlearn

it would be absurd getting some ridiculous compensation
for training final enemy, rich companies cash cow,
with ones hard work

stoker2014 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 20, 2023, 16:11 »

Quote from: oooo on May 20, 2023, 14:07

it would be absurd getting some ridiculous compensation

At the moment, I am satisfied that AI pays good money for his training. I think that if AI has prospects and people will buy its product, the compensation could also be very good money. As a result, one could no longer even work, AI would work on the authors.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #24 on:** May 20, 2023, 16:23 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 20, 2023, 16:11

Quote from: oooo on May 20, 2023, 14:07
it would be absurd getting some ridiculous compensation
At the moment, I am satisfied that AI pays good money for his training. I think that if AI has prospects and people will buy its product, the compensation could also be very good money. As a result, one could no longer even work, AI would work on the authors.

oooo · « **Reply #25 on:** May 20, 2023, 16:26 »

in short, as soon as "this thing" is trained one will get 0,00000000...
same like it was with enough images video etc

Ps: may i ask what you define with good money and do you know
how often and how many images are used and where the outlet goes?

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #26 on:** May 20, 2023, 20:29 »

Quote from: oooo on May 20, 2023, 16:26

in short, as soon as "this thing" is trained one will get 0,00000000...
same like it was with enough images video etc

Ps: may i ask what you define with good money and do you know
how often and how many images are used and where the outlet goes?

Don't get me wrong but i think your perspective is limited to the perception of Knowledge you have about AI.

Real authentic images/video have real data/metadata which can produce augmented reality and new perception about things that humans alone cannot do or have. Generative AI Images have "fake" simulated data and are limited to just that - artistic visions about reality.

I.E. If you are training AI for safe driving i bet you won't want "fake" metadata from AI images because it will corrupt the learn of AI itself. In this case the learning curve of AI will be something called "false positive learning" or "false negative learning" depending on the measures of safe drive attributes established primarily.

However, the actual value of each Real image will be less as there is more and more about the subject portrayed in the image. As it becomes increasingly easier to produce generative AI images and their volume increases exponentially, the values of real images will be greater than those of AI images because they got real data and metadata about reality.

The good news is that the research and development industry is far superior to the Hollywood industry. To give you a clue European Commission Spends Trillions in research and only some hundred millions in programmes for Media. In this sense one of the paths for Microstock contributors will not be so much an artistic vision of reality, but rather a perspective of reality like documentary/news and that serves or has potential to be used for AI learning.

I'm not psychic but I think that in the near future AI images are here to stay but Real Images will not disappear - only part will be substituted.

In short: adapt your work/portfolio for this new reality.

Lowls · « **Reply #27 on:** May 21, 2023, 01:29 »

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 20, 2023, 20:29

Quote from: oooo on May 20, 2023, 16:26
in short, as soon as "this thing" is trained one will get 0,00000000...
same like it was with enough images video etc

Ps: may i ask what you define with good money and do you know
how often and how many images are used and where the outlet goes?

Don't get me wrong but i think your perspective is limited to the perception of Knowledge you have about AI.

Real authentic images/video have real data/metadata which can produce augmented reality and new perception about things that humans alone cannot do or have. Generative AI Images have "fake" simulated data and are limited to just that - artistic visions about reality.

I.E. If you are training AI for safe driving i bet you won't want "fake" metadata from AI images because it will corrupt the learn of AI itself. In this case the learning curve of AI will be something called "false positive learning" or "false negative learning" depending on the measures of safe drive attributes established primarily.

However, the actual value of each Real image will be less as there is more and more about the subject portrayed in the image. As it becomes increasingly easier to produce generative AI images and their volume increases exponentially, the values of real images will be greater than those of AI images because they got real data and metadata about reality.

The good news is that the research and development industry is far superior to the Hollywood industry. To give you a clue European Commission Spends Trillions in research and only some hundred millions in programmes for Media. In this sense one of the paths for Microstock contributors will not be so much an artistic vision of reality, but rather a perspective of reality like documentary/news and that serves or has potential to be used for AI learning.

I'm not psychic but I think that in the near future AI images are here to stay but Real Images will not disappear - only part will be substituted.

In short: adapt your work/portfolio for this new reality.

You say that but as has already been shown across various media outlets one of the legal cases centres around a simple request ... write a chapter of a novel in the style that I would write it. And it did. Worryingly well and in the vlog the writer said I found it hard to tell it wasn't me. Similarly a photographer asked it to create a photo of something in his style. And it did. Even at this stage. So as a buyer I can ask it ro create a photo in the style of an artist that is popular and it will. I can then attach that to as many tshirts as I wish. Nothing stopping me. I can piggy back off that person's success. Because their work is popular but they didn't make it . Like Banksy. Now he's a singular example but I could be more subtle. Please don't ask me ro believe if I am specific about my requirements that the A.I. isn't going to dip into his data sets and pluck out all images of a girl with a red balloon and generically create something because I won't believe you. Its going to use barely two images because it's also been trained to be fast and accurate. What's more accurate and fast than a direct copyslightly adjusted to swerve copywrite claims.

You say that the meta data will be hallmark of quality and that its that that will keep true work afloat. I'd call cobblers on that too. If it can fake a style it will fake metadata. Maybe for a photo of a Banksy. But Olivier Crapston ... housewife and part time photographer isn't ever going to have a chance.

Which brings me to your final point. I'd already worked out the area it will fall down on is media events, social gatherings and current affairs generically .... protest outside Walmart etc. Pride event etc. But it's awful arrogant of anyone to say change your area of photography and suceed or don't snd fall by the wayside.

It will not only kill the artistic world it will kill creativity full stop. Pushing all people into narrow cracks it can't cope with or is prevented to by legislation.

As an aside I wouldn't be rushing to buy and collect save NFTs any time soon they'll be worth dirt.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 21, 2023, 02:19 »

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 20, 2023, 20:29

In short: adapt your work/portfolio for this new reality.

How are you going to adapt?

stoker2014 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 21, 2023, 02:23 »

Quote from: oooo on May 20, 2023, 16:26

in short, as soon as "this thing" is trained one will get 0,00000000...
same like it was with enough images video etc

Ps: may i ask what you define with good money and do you know
how often and how many images are used and where the outlet goes?

People take photos, videos and earn money. The growth of the stock base does not reduce their income. At least everything works.

Good money, AI paid me an amount that is equal to my monthly income. If the AI keeps doing this all the time, I like this customer. As for the statistics, I don't know them; how can I know it.

gameover · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2023, 09:14 »

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/13morhd/chief_ai_scientist_at_meta/

Reminds me of something...

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2023, 11:09 »

Quote from: gameover on May 21, 2023, 09:14

There is no more fight needed, just let he speak!

Try again Chief!!!, and call it "ballpoint pen" instead!

Comments on reddit are excellent! Childish, immature, nothing to do with science here. His intelligence is to know that he does not need to use intelligence to talk to sheeps.

What about Sam Altman last statements? propaganda? conspiracy theorist?

all this is so low level...
Perfect invention here... of running knote! by Yann The Gun, I say

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #32 on:** May 21, 2023, 13:01 »

Lowls,
What prevented anyone before AI from writing their own ideas in one style or another? In fact, all artists start by absorbing styles from other artists that they like and influence them to write. Isn't that the normal learning process for humans?

Taking the example of music. How many bands exist and still exists with a Beatles-style sound all over the world? I would say hundreds if not thousands.I remember the first time I heard the band Oasis and I felt a kind of revival of the Beatles sound. Naturally there were particularities such as themes, some writing and type of voice but in essence it reminds me a lot of the Beatles.
Guitarist Van Halen developed the unique style of "Fingertap" on the guitar. Among others Steve Vai or Joe Satriani use this style in their music/songs. If we are going to talk about good BB King then practically most guitarists use the famous "bending" style which makes the guitar seem to cry especially in Blues, Rock or variants...

Jumping to graffiti how many artists "imitate" banksy?
Despite the Stencil technique, the Grunge style of drawing, and the Transformism of images such as the Clown Ronald Macdonalds and Mickey Mouse holding hands with the Napalm Girl are not his, the originality in the portrait subject marks his authorship.

If you look at Andy Warhol's work well then he took pictures that weren't of him and painted over them (i.e. Marilyn Monroe) Warhol created this masterpiece which consists of 50 images of Marilyn using the same publicity photograph from the film titled Niagara.

So nothing stopped any of them from absorbing and learning styles and bringing originality to our world, right?
AI will not kill creativity. In fact, it will do the opposite. It allow you to explore and develop many more styles or combinations of styles than any artist could do in his lifetime. This is where originality and a sense of art are born. So AI can help you to perform a better drawing, painting, writing or re-write your work. Also can bring new things to your creative table that you may include or not. It's really up to you. If you are having trouble in understand if AI can substitute the artist it can not. AI is only an excellent performer. Do not forget who write the prompt.

On the other hand of course you can use AI to just copycat but we don't need AI for that we've been living with this problem for decades and normally they don't go so far without being noticed.

I will not extend my post any longer since i find you were more interest in AI for Artistic vision which is a small water drop in the AI ocean. AI will assist you in everything you do - literally everything! You cannot use fake data/metadata for research. The first augmented reality device was invented in 1835. It was a telescopic sight for firearms. You cannot use false data to calibrate the aim because the probability of missing the target is high. The more likely thing would be to miss and hit something else or someone's foot. So the redundancy, entropy and risk is too high but you can run simulations based on real data/metadata to help you with accuracy for some diagnosis.

gameover · « **Reply #33 on:** May 21, 2023, 13:27 »

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 21, 2023, 13:01

Lowls,
What prevented anyone before AI from writing their own ideas in one style or another? In fact, all artists start by absorbing styles from other artists that they like and influence them to write. Isn't that the normal learning process for humans?

Taking the example of music. How many bands exist and still exists with a Beatles-style sound all over the world? I would say hundreds if not thousands.I remember the first time I heard the band Oasis and I felt a kind of revival of the Beatles sound. Naturally there were particularities such as themes, some writing and type of voice but in essence it reminds me a lot of the Beatles.
Guitarist Van Halen developed the unique style of "Fingertap" on the guitar. Among others Steve Vai or Joe Satriani use this style in their music/songs. If we are going to talk about good BB King then practically most guitarists use the famous "bending" style which makes the guitar seem to cry especially in Blues, Rock or variants...

Jumping to graffiti how many artists "imitate" banksy?
Despite the Stencil technique, the Grunge style of drawing, and the Transformism of images such as the Clown Ronald Macdonalds and Mickey Mouse holding hands with the Napalm Girl are not his, the originality in the portrait subject marks his authorship.

If you look at Andy Warhol's work well then he took pictures that weren't of him and painted over them (i.e. Marilyn Monroe) Warhol created this masterpiece which consists of 50 images of Marilyn using the same publicity photograph from the film titled Niagara.

So nothing stopped any of them from absorbing and learning styles and bringing originality to our world, right?
AI will not kill creativity. In fact, it will do the opposite. It allow you to explore and develop many more styles or combinations of styles than any artist could do in his lifetime. This is where originality and a sense of art are born. So AI can help you to perform a better drawing, painting, writing or re-write your work. Also can bring new things to your creative table that you may include or not. It's really up to you. If you are having trouble in understand if AI can substitute the artist it can not. AI is only an excellent performer. Do not forget who write the prompt.

On the other hand of course you can use AI to just copycat but we don't need AI for that we've been living with this problem for decades and normally they don't go so far without being noticed.

I will not extend my post any longer since i find you were more interest in AI for Artistic vision which is a small water drop in the AI ocean. AI will assist you in everything you do - literally everything! You cannot use fake data/metadata for research. The redundancy, entropy and risk is too high but you can run simulations based on real data/metadata to help you with accuracy for some diagnosis.

It is a great relief to read again a voice of reason in here! I was afraid all reasonable souls had run away scared by the Bandar-log

Lowls · « **Reply #34 on:** May 21, 2023, 14:28 »

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 21, 2023, 13:01

Lowls,
What prevented anyone before AI from writing their own ideas in one style or another? In fact, all artists start by absorbing styles from other artists that they like and influence them to write. Isn't that the normal learning process for humans?

Taking the example of music. How many bands exist and still exists with a Beatles-style sound all over the world? I would say hundreds if not thousands.I remember the first time I heard the band Oasis and I felt a kind of revival of the Beatles sound. Naturally there were particularities such as themes, some writing and type of voice but in essence it reminds me a lot of the Beatles.
Guitarist Van Halen developed the unique style of "Fingertap" on the guitar. Among others Steve Vai or Joe Satriani use this style in their music/songs. If we are going to talk about good BB King then practically most guitarists use the famous "bending" style which makes the guitar seem to cry especially in Blues, Rock or variants...

Jumping to graffiti how many artists "imitate" banksy?
Despite the Stencil technique, the Grunge style of drawing, and the Transformism of images such as the Clown Ronald Macdonalds and Mickey Mouse holding hands with the Napalm Girl are not his, the originality in the portrait subject marks his authorship.

If you look at Andy Warhol's work well then he took pictures that weren't of him and painted over them (i.e. Marilyn Monroe) Warhol created this masterpiece which consists of 50 images of Marilyn using the same publicity photograph from the film titled Niagara.

So nothing stopped any of them from absorbing and learning styles and bringing originality to our world, right?
AI will not kill creativity. In fact, it will do the opposite. It allow you to explore and develop many more styles or combinations of styles than any artist could do in his lifetime. This is where originality and a sense of art are born. So AI can help you to perform a better drawing, painting, writing or re-write your work. Also can bring new things to your creative table that you may include or not. It's really up to you. If you are having trouble in understand if AI can substitute the artist it can not. AI is only an excellent performer. Do not forget who write the prompt.

On the other hand of course you can use AI to just copycat but we don't need AI for that we've been living with this problem for decades and normally they don't go so far without being noticed.

I will not extend my post any longer since i find you were more interest in AI for Artistic vision which is a small water drop in the AI ocean. AI will assist you in everything you do - literally everything! You cannot use fake data/metadata for research. The first augmented reality device was invented in 1835. It was a telescopic sight for firearms. You cannot use false data to calibrate the aim because the probability of missing the target is high. The more likely thing would be to miss and hit something else or someone's foot. So the redundancy, entropy and risk is too high but you can run simulations based on real data/metadata to help you with accuracy for some diagnosis.

Thank you for taking the time to respond firstly. I will say that although on the face of it your post is obvious and many would agree but I believe it is shallow in the reality.

Firstly you cannot count music. Music is extremely limited ro scales, chords and melodies. This is very finite which is why Ed Sheeran keeps finding himself in court as do many others. Only tempo and lyrics can have enough variety as to emote different music and then after that comes melody. But it's limited.

Artists that exist and are recognisable do get copied but they are also chased. Not just the usual aspects but patterns etc. BUT and this was my point. Banksy isn't having his artwork yoinked for free is he. We are.

and you are incorrect about it killing creativity. It will. I'll give you an example. Mobile phone cameras. Now everyone is an artist, content creator etc etc. Whilst this hasn't killed it at all it has expanded it massively ... which killed the money which has killed motivation which will kill creativity because why bother for peanuts. The only way to win is to be creative in areas that it cannot yet.

Why get a massive student debt to become a designer of anything. A writer. And that brings me to writing because I don't write anything influenced by anyone. I've never had that issue. I remember going to college and the first week was learning about the American system of plagiarism lol. Because and I quote "no thought is original" so I must research to find where my thoughts have been used before so that I can credit the original authors lol. Utter boll@x. Regarding research of course. Theories on research certainly. But on a fkin story about my experiences in the world lol. Er no. My words are my own from my own experiences and you know that because it has my name on it. Just vecause someone else had the same thought perhaps in a slightly different way ... Good for them that makes two of us. But with A.I. it's got no rules at all. Yet. But they can already see the dollar signs.

Finally the only thing in your post that I found offensive was Oasis had a Beatles vibe. Oasis ... jesus... I don't think we could accuse them of making unique music. Or music. Stereophonics or Crowded House = music. Loic Nottet = masterpieces 🙌

cascoly · « **Reply #35 on:** May 21, 2023, 18:52 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 21, 2023, 01:29

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 20, 2023, 20:29

Don't get me wrong but i think your perspective is limited to the perception of Knowledge you have about AI.
...

... Please don't ask me ro believe if I am specific about my requirements that the A.I. isn't going to dip into his data sets and pluck out all images of a girl with a red balloon and generically create something because I won't believe you. Its going to use barely two images because it's also been trained to be fast and accurate. What's more accurate and fast than a direct copyslightly adjusted to swerve copywrite claims....

we dont ask you to believe because you continue to prove E.T.'s point and show you dont understand the basics of generative AI. if you don't want to believe the facts, that's of course your choice, but you're then just making things up as you go. the datasets DO NOT contain any images to pluck out, so your example is nonsense. you obviously haven't read the many posts that have explained how gen-AI actually works.

HalfFull · « **Reply #36 on:** May 22, 2023, 02:04 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 21, 2023, 18:52

Quote from: Lowls on May 21, 2023, 01:29
Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 20, 2023, 20:29

Don't get me wrong but i think your perspective is limited to the perception of Knowledge you have about AI.
...

... Please don't ask me ro believe if I am specific about my requirements that the A.I. isn't going to dip into his data sets and pluck out all images of a girl with a red balloon and generically create something because I won't believe you. Its going to use barely two images because it's also been trained to be fast and accurate. What's more accurate and fast than a direct copyslightly adjusted to swerve copywrite claims....

we dont ask you to believe because you continue to prove E.T.'s point and show you dont understand the basics of generative AI. if you don't want to believe the facts, that's of course your choice, but you're then just making things up as you go. the datasets DO NOT contain any images to pluck out, so your example is nonsense. you obviously haven't read the many posts that have explained how gen-AI actually works.

Would the Datasheets exist without our images?

Doesn't matter how much you try to defend them, it's still the case they took the imagery of millions to make a stack of money for a few which could put the us all out of business and just because you suddenly can use this to submit work you couldn't do before, eventually they will bypass you and you'll find yourself out of pocket, work as well.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #37 on:** May 22, 2023, 03:47 »

Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

HalfFull · « **Reply #38 on:** May 22, 2023, 04:52 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47

Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

That makes it even worse then... in other words, they're going to make a lot of people redundant for nothing!

Trust me though, they're not doing it for the good of their health, they're doing it as they know they can make a lot of money from it but first, they need to eliminate the competition so they have a monopoly and can charge what they want.

However, who is going to create the new images, styles and trends needed to create the datasets of the future? Eventually it'll be learning from it's own images / mistakes.

Thankfully, the music industry as well as others who have louder voices than illustrators/photographers etc have also seen the danger and are pushing for regulation and challenging the minority seeking to gain at the expense of the many. Even lawyers are now looking over their shoulder.

I'd love to know what the creators of AI and politicians think is going to happen when millions upon millions of jobs are lost with minimal new jobs in return. How is the state going to support them? Who is going to buy the products and services that companies manufacture when people no longer have the work and therefor money to buy what they produce?!?

There are so many things AI can be used for and have a positive effect but I really do think they need to take a step back and fully consider the implications of what may be about to happen. I retire in 10 years or less so for me it's less of a concern but for the younger generation... well, the list of jobs to be replaced by AI is growing by the day and a lot of people are finishing their degrees and finding their chosen jobs are at risk or will be taken by AI. Interesting times indeed.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #39 on:** May 22, 2023, 06:26 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47

Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 22, 2023, 07:19 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 22, 2023, 06:26

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.

A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.

cascoly · « **Reply #41 on:** May 22, 2023, 10:13 »

Quote from: HalfFull on May 22, 2023, 02:04

Quote from: cascoly on May 21, 2023, 18:52
Quote from: Lowls on May 21, 2023, 01:29
Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 20, 2023, 20:29

Don't get me wrong but i think your perspective is limited to the perception of Knowledge you have about AI.
...

... Please don't ask me ro believe if I am specific about my requirements that the A.I. isn't going to dip into his data sets and pluck out all images of a girl with a red balloon and generically create something because I won't believe you. Its going to use barely two images because it's also been trained to be fast and accurate. What's more accurate and fast than a direct copyslightly adjusted to swerve copywrite claims....

we dont ask you to believe because you continue to prove E.T.'s point and show you dont understand the basics of generative AI. if you don't want to believe the facts, that's of course your choice, but you're then just making things up as you go. the datasets DO NOT contain any images to pluck out, so your example is nonsense. you obviously haven't read the many posts that have explained how gen-AI actually works.

Would the Datasheets exist without our images?

Doesn't matter how much you try to defend them, it's still the case they took the imagery of millions to make a stack of money for a few which could put the us all out of business and just because you suddenly can use this to submit work you couldn't do before, eventually they will bypass you and you'll find yourself out of pocket, work as well.

irrelevant - i was specifically calling them out on their uninformed view of gen AI - completely apart from the copyright issue. if they're going to make an argument - get the facts right!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #42 on:** May 22, 2023, 12:32 »

Quote from: Lowls on May 21, 2023, 01:29

Now he's a singular example but I could be more subtle. Please don't ask me ro believe if I am specific about my requirements that the A.I. isn't going to dip into his data sets and pluck out all images of a girl with a red balloon and generically create something because I won't believe you. Its going to use barely two images because it's also been trained to be fast and accurate. What's more accurate and fast than a direct copyslightly adjusted to swerve copywrite claims.

As an aside I wouldn't be rushing to buy and collect save NFTs any time soon they'll be worth dirt.

NFT should have a different meaning with No F'ing Tokens

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #43 on:** May 22, 2023, 13:03 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 07:19

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 22, 2023, 06:26
Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.
A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.

Probably one of these people who claim that letting AI generate images is sooooo~ complicated, and takes soooo~ much skill and sooo~ much time and apparently also sooooo much money.

Sorry, but nope, $28 a month for unlimited images, that's really all it costs. 8$ only if 200 images per month is enough for you.
Maybe also a softwear to upscale images if you don't have one already, but even these aren't so expensive that you could not earn back the money within a month and there are also some free options out there that work, though with limitations.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #44 on:** May 22, 2023, 13:51 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 22, 2023, 13:03

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 07:19
Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 22, 2023, 06:26
Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.
A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.

Probably one of these people who claim that letting AI generate images is sooooo~ complicated, and takes soooo~ much skill and sooo~ much time and apparently also sooooo much money.

Sorry, but nope, $28 a month for unlimited images, that's really all it costs. 8$ only if 200 images per month is enough for you.
Maybe also a softwear to upscale images if you don't have one already, but even these aren't so expensive that you could not earn back the money within a month and there are also some free options out there that work, though with limitations.

https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-the-adobe-stock-policy-on-generative-ai-content/200/

Post 213. We are talking about 1000 euros.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #45 on:** May 22, 2023, 15:06 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 13:51

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 22, 2023, 13:03
Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 07:19
Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 22, 2023, 06:26
Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

You're guessing without actualy knowing again, right?
Midjourney for example let's you create 200 images for $8 per month and for only $28 you can create an unlimited amount of images.
A man recently wrote his costs on the forum, there were much more.

Probably one of these people who claim that letting AI generate images is sooooo~ complicated, and takes soooo~ much skill and sooo~ much time and apparently also sooooo much money.

Sorry, but nope, $28 a month for unlimited images, that's really all it costs. 8$ only if 200 images per month is enough for you.
Maybe also a softwear to upscale images if you don't have one already, but even these aren't so expensive that you could not earn back the money within a month and there are also some free options out there that work, though with limitations.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-the-adobe-stock-policy-on-generative-ai-content/200/

Post 213. We are talking about 1000 euros.

1000€ spent, 278 accepted gen ai files, 31 downloads ?! These are his numbers? Very obviously this person is not a good example on how to do this with these high costs and small acceptance and download number. Why would anyone even spent 1000€ on credit when there are AI that let you create unlimited images of good quality and with commercial usage rights for a few bucks?
That's a rate of 3,50€ per image created! I don't know of any such expensice AI generator.

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #46 on:** May 23, 2023, 00:56 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 22, 2023, 03:47

Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.

I think you are misinformed. I cannot understand how to spend huge amounts to generate AI images. Perhaps the user who wrote can explain better because the value is much higher than practiced by AI generators. You have essentially 3 Ai generators in first league: Stable diffusion, Midjourney and Dall-e 2.

1) Stable diffusion - You can use it for free. There are a lot ways to use it:

a) They got a friendly website but you can also go to NightCafe Creator which essential is the stable diffusion too

b) you can install in your PC with auto1111 and use your GPU.

c) Download from github and huggingface and use it with google colab to use their GPU. You got a lot youtube tutorials on how to do it.
Also you can add models that people train by install them. it's free and available for everyone. although you have to pay gpu google
from colab after a while.

2) Midjourney. You have a website but You need Discord to generate. A lot of tutorials in youtube. it's free first images but after you pay 8$, 24$ or 48$(pro plan).

3) Dalle 2,When you first sign up for DALL-E, you’ll receive 50 free credits that are valid for 1 month. These credits will allow you to generate up to 200 images and get a feeling for all of the features that DALL-E 2 has to offer. Once your initial trial credits expire, you’ll receive 15 new credits every month. So technically, you could continue to use DALL-E 2 forever at absolutely no cost to you.

Once you’ve used up all your free credits, you can purchase additional credits in incremental packs of 115, which cost $15. 115 credits give you 460 images, which sounds like a lot. But remember, every single action you do in DALL-E 2 will cost you 1 credit, so those 115 credits are a lot less than you might think. If you use some of DALL-E 2’s special features such as Inpainting or Outpainting, your credits are going to evaporate into thin air. Also bear in mind that your purchased credits will expire after 12 months.

In short you can try all for free at the beginning but if you install Stable diffusion in your pc you won't pay.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #47 on:** May 23, 2023, 03:56 »

Here are two images created by AI. How long does it take the author to create these images? How difficult is this process?

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #48 on:** May 23, 2023, 04:37 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 03:56

Here are two images created by AI. How long does it take the author to create these images? How difficult is this process?

I do not know the author of these and what Ai generator he or she used.

For me, for the first image it would take me as long as it takes me to write "Photographed Golden retriever dog on blue background with copy space --ar 4:2", so maybe 3 or 4 seconds?

stoker2014 · « **Reply #49 on:** May 23, 2023, 05:02 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 23, 2023, 04:37

For me, for the first image it would take me as long as it takes me to write "Photographed Golden retriever dog on blue background with copy space --ar 4:2", so maybe 3 or 4 seconds?

If everything is so simple and fast, then what's the point of wasting time on AI. Any buyer will soon enter these programs on stock agencies, write such a phrase and download the finished image. A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #50 on:** May 23, 2023, 05:21 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 05:02

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 23, 2023, 04:37
For me, for the first image it would take me as long as it takes me to write "Photographed Golden retriever dog on blue background with copy space --ar 4:2", so maybe 3 or 4 seconds?
If everything is so simple and fast, then what's the point of wasting time on AI. Any buyer will soon enter these programs on stock agencies, write such a phrase and download the finished image. A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

That's EXACTLY what I keep saying! At one point buyers will not need us.

The only point to do it right now is that a lot of customers simply haven't figured out how easy it is yet. A lot of people I talked to didn't even know that AIs were already so advanced that they could create images that looked like real photos. Humans are slower than technology. They need time to catch up with the new development and many haven't yet.
But yes, at some point in the future customers will simply enter what they need into an AI image generator promt bar instead of a microstock image search bar.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 23, 2023, 06:16 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 23, 2023, 05:21

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 05:02
Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 23, 2023, 04:37
For me, for the first image it would take me as long as it takes me to write "Photographed Golden retriever dog on blue background with copy space --ar 4:2", so maybe 3 or 4 seconds?
If everything is so simple and fast, then what's the point of wasting time on AI. Any buyer will soon enter these programs on stock agencies, write such a phrase and download the finished image. A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

That's EXACTLY what I keep saying! At one point buyers will not need us.

The only point to do it right now is that a lot of customers simply haven't figured out how easy it is yet. A lot of people I talked to didn't even know that AIs were already so advanced that they could create images that looked like real photos. Humans are slower than technology. They need time to catch up with the new development and many haven't yet.
But yes, at some point in the future customers will simply enter what they need into an AI image generator promt bar instead of a microstock image search bar.

AI image generator will soon be on adobe, and will probably appear on other stock sites as well.
But that's not what I'm writing about. At the expense of buyers, it is a personal matter for everyone what to buy, an artificial image created by AI or buying a non-artificial image. I don't think all buyers will want to buy artificial content. An example of this is, for example, an e-book, how many shouts there were when it appeared, but as a result, people continue to buy a lot of paper books.
I am writing that it makes no sense for us authors to generate images in AI, because. competition in this sector will be so huge and high-quality that in the end it will hardly be possible to earn anything. Plus, the AI image generator on the stock site will also compete. Therefore, why now spend money on some subscriptions, all this, at best, will allow you to earn something in this sector in the near future at best. I see no prospects in this regard.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #52 on:** May 23, 2023, 06:35 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 06:16

But that's not what I'm writing about. At the expense of buyers, it is a personal matter for everyone what to buy, an artificial image created by AI or buying a non-artificial image. I don't think all buyers will want to buy artificial content. An example of this is, for example, an e-book, how many shouts there were when it appeared, but as a result, people continue to buy a lot of paper books.

That's all sound as well, but reaches its limitation at the point where you cannot tell whether an image is AI generated or not. I accidentally submitted an AI generated image to Adobe as photo without checking the AI image box - was reviewed and appoved. I thought you could tell it was an AI image in full size, the reviewer apparently couldn't tell it from a real photo. (I deleted the image and re-submitted it properly as an AI image, of course).
I also submittd many AI images to Alamy when they didn't have any rule about it. In some I wrote "Ai generated in the title, in some I didn't. Then Alamy released a statement that they would not accept AI content and delete all existing AI content. They deleted the content where I had stated in the title that it was AI generated. With the ones where I didn't they could not recognize that they were AI images and did not delete any of them. (I then deleted them myself, don't anat any trouble).

So far only very few agencies accept AI images. What do you think how many people keep submitting AI content to the agencies that don't accept them and simply claim they are human created photos and illustrations and the agencies apparently cannot spot the difference? We have already reached the point where a customer might buy AI content without even KNOWING it. The lines will blur further and further. Soon no one will be able to tell what is AI generated and what not. No one will be upset about illustrations of some book being created with AI or a book written by AI when they simply WON'T KNOW that it's AI created.

(And that's a huge problem in my opinion, but one I do not have a solution for)

stoker2014 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 23, 2023, 07:26 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 23, 2023, 06:35

(And that's a huge problem in my opinion, but one I do not have a solution for)

I think you are over complicating things. Nowadays, you can download a lot of content for free on torrents, but our buyers do not do this, obviously there are legal requirements in civilized countries and this is being checked. I think soon the world will learn to check the content for its artificiality. In any case, self-respecting authors will not deceive the buyer. Therefore, yes, there will certainly be some kind of fraud, but I do not think that its scale will be too large.
Personally, I am most concerned about video content, because I mainly shoot it.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #54 on:** May 23, 2023, 10:57 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 07:26

I think you are over complicating things. Nowadays, you can download a lot of content for free on torrents, but our buyers do not do this, obviously there are legal requirements in civilized countries and this is being checked. I think soon the world will learn to check the content for its artificiality. In any case, self-respecting authors will not deceive the buyer. Therefore, yes, there will certainly be some kind of fraud, but I do not think that its scale will be too large.
Personally, I am most concerned about video content, because I mainly shoot it.

I don't think customers buying images and not stealing them via torrents has anything to do with the issue, as it is something completely different alltogether. (And, of course, a lot of people DO steal images. I had my images stolen countless times without anyone paying for them).

I can assure you that all agencies are already full of AI generated content, even the ones that don't allow it.

The world will learn to check the content for its artificiality? I wish you were right about this, but how? There are already sites that claim they could check it now, but various tests have shown that the results are random and the sites flag real photos as artificial and think artificial content was human generated. I can't imagine of any way to check whether an image is AI or human created without also thinking of a hundred easy ways to work around it. I do not think this will ever be possible in the future, but as AIs get even better, it will be more and more impossible.

But all we can do right now is really speculate. No one really knows how things will develope. Lots of people are more optimistic than I am. But seeing how easy, fast and cheap AI images can be created and that they actually do sell, I am having a hard time seeing a real future for human photography in microstock.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 23, 2023, 11:59 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 23, 2023, 10:57

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 07:26
I think you are over complicating things. Nowadays, you can download a lot of content for free on torrents, but our buyers do not do this, obviously there are legal requirements in civilized countries and this is being checked. I think soon the world will learn to check the content for its artificiality. In any case, self-respecting authors will not deceive the buyer. Therefore, yes, there will certainly be some kind of fraud, but I do not think that its scale will be too large.
Personally, I am most concerned about video content, because I mainly shoot it.

I don't think customers buying images and not stealing them via torrents has anything to do with the issue, as it is something completely different alltogether. (And, of course, a lot of people DO steal images. I had my images stolen countless times without anyone paying for them).

I can assure you that all agencies are already full of AI generated content, even the ones that don't allow it.

The world will learn to check the content for its artificiality? I wish you were right about this, but how? There are already sites that claim they could check it now, but various tests have shown that the results are random and the sites flag real photos as artificial and think artificial content was human generated. I can't imagine of any way to check whether an image is AI or human created without also thinking of a hundred easy ways to work around it. I do not think this will ever be possible in the future, but as AIs get even better, it will be more and more impossible.

But all we can do right now is really speculate. No one really knows how things will develope. Lots of people are more optimistic than I am. But seeing how easy, fast and cheap AI images can be created and that they actually do sell, I am having a hard time seeing a real future for human photography in microstock.

Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple. It is also possible that programs generating content in AI will be required to add some metadata.
Are there any statistics for today, how many images created in AI are upload per day for the same adobe. I remember for a while it was popular to generate fractals, and people put in 10, 20, 30 computers and they were generated. All this reminds me of a mining farm. I personally am not interested in sitting and generating images in AI yet, I think that this is stupid, stupid and not a promising waste of time. Let those who do not know how to create content do it. Well, I think that the competition in this light niche will be enormous in the end.
It would be nice to create a topic on the forum so that the authors who upload such content write how much they uploaded and how much they earn on it.

cascoly · « **Reply #56 on:** May 23, 2023, 12:44 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 05:02

... A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

and how is that different from camera generated images?

cascoly · « **Reply #57 on:** May 23, 2023, 13:14 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 11:59

...
Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple. It is also possible that programs generating content in AI will be required to add some metadata....

yes, DALL-E inserts some information that only shows up if you dig deep into the PS 'raw data' XML. but all you have to do is erase that. or you could easily use a simple exiftool script to spoof the camera source. scans of slides have no camera info at all.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 23, 2023, 13:43 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 23, 2023, 12:44

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 05:02
... A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

and how is that different from camera generated images?

Many different.
1. AI does only what is already in its database, on which it is trained, which means it will create something very similar. Everyone will have almost identical results.
2. AI makes it easy to create any images on various topics, but it is unlikely that it will be able to do something new, creative, often, if at all.
3. Even now, stock sites separate AI and natural images. I talked about those niches in which it is worth working.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 23, 2023, 14:02 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 23, 2023, 13:14

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 11:59
...
Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple. It is also possible that programs generating content in AI will be required to add some metadata....

yes, DALL-E inserts some information that only shows up if you dig deep into the PS 'raw data' XML. but all you have to do is erase that. or you could easily use a simple exiftool script to spoof the camera source. scans of slides have no camera info at all.

EXIF photo file contains information about shutter speed, aperture, focal length, camera model, lens model. Can you create the same EXIF for artificial AI images? I don't think there will be many such authors.
And if an AI image generation program adds metadata that the image is made by AI, I don't think there are many authors who can remove that information. I don't think at all that the authors will post images from AI in the natural images section. This is risky and will result in a ban sooner or later.

cascoly · « **Reply #60 on:** May 23, 2023, 14:26 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 13:43

Quote from: cascoly on May 23, 2023, 12:44
Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 05:02
... A lot of authors will soon make a lot of similar images. In my opinion, in such an easy niche, it makes no sense to even try to compete.

and how is that different from camera generated images?
Many different.
1. AI does only what is already in its database, on which it is trained, which means it will create something very similar. Everyone will have almost identical results.
2. AI makes it easy to create any images on various topics, but it is unlikely that it will be able to do something new, creative, often, if at all.
3. Even now, stock sites separate AI and natural images. I talked about those niches in which it is worth working.

besides the fact that 1 & 2 have been repeatedly shown to be false, you're missing the point

what is natural about cameras that interpret light differently from humans and that use AI to process, edit and create HDR (even in phones)

the forum is filled with posts about similars and copying of ideas & images - all before AI arrived. there are ongoing concerns about AI, but this isn't one of them

cascoly · « **Reply #61 on:** May 23, 2023, 14:32 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 14:02

EXIF photo file contains information about shutter speed, aperture, focal length, camera model, lens model. Can you create the same EXIF for artificial AI images? I don't think there will be many such authors.

And if an AI image generation program adds metadata that the image is made by AI, I don't think there are many authors who can remove that information.

no, not many, since it requires actual knowledge, not uninformed conjecture or opinions. i can easily replace those EXIF data and most tech savvy folk can do so too.

perhaps chatbots can also supply the code to do this (i've used chatGPT to write java snippets for me for handling 404 error responses on my website)

Just_to_inform_people2 · « **Reply #62 on:** May 23, 2023, 14:49 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 23, 2023, 14:32

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 14:02

EXIF photo file contains information about shutter speed, aperture, focal length, camera model, lens model. Can you create the same EXIF for artificial AI images? I don't think there will be many such authors.

And if an AI image generation program adds metadata that the image is made by AI, I don't think there are many authors who can remove that information.

no, not many, since it requires actual knowledge, not uninformed conjecture or opinions. i can easily replace those EXIF data and most tech savvy folk can do so too.

perhaps chatbots can also supply the code to do this (i've used chatGPT to write java snippets for me for handling 404 error responses on my website)

The end game, Cascoly, is that whatever AI will bring or replace, do you think you can benefit from it as an photographer? If you are not a good one and think it will benefit you, because you think you can prompt a few words together, then why do you think you are needed at all in the near future? Why do you think that you will be needed to bring AI photos accross?
The question is, can AI really replace excellent photography? Mediocre photography, I am sure of, and it will be done by everyone if they have the app. Give it a few months/years. There is really no need for people that think they can create a better AI picture then another person as it might seem now. It will not be relevant.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #63 on:** May 24, 2023, 01:08 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 11:59

Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple..

No it's not simple. Just open a real photo with an EXIF file. Open an AI photo. Copy the AI image over into the photo in a new layer in Adobe. Save image. There, your AI image now has the EXIF file of the real photo.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 24, 2023, 05:53 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 24, 2023, 01:08

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 23, 2023, 11:59

Any photo has EXIF, it contains shooting parameters. This is the source, as is the RAW file. If the stock does not see the EXIF in the photo, it may require the author to provide the original with EXIF. Everything is very simple..

No it's not simple. Just open a real photo with an EXIF file. Open an AI photo. Copy the AI image over into the photo in a new layer in Adobe. Save image. There, your AI image now has the EXIF file of the real photo.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #65 on:** May 25, 2023, 05:01 »

This is not exactly a legal case, but maybe still worth mentioning:

The European Union is planning AI regulations that will require developers of AI to make the information of every piece of copyrighted work that was used to train an AI public. The regulation is just a draft right now, but ChatGPT has announced that, should this regulation be put into effect without changes to that rule, they would withdraw from the European market.

Right now we all know that our copyrighted work has been used to train AIs, but we can't prove it for individual pieces of works, so photographers, illustrators and authors who want to sue AI companies have a hard time proving their case. If AI developers had to admit which pieces were used, that would make sueing much easier and would probably open a Pandora's box of lawsuits for AI developers. So no wonder ChatGPT would rather leave the huge European market than make that information available.
Of course if they knew for sure they hadn't done anything wrong, they'd had nothing to fear.

The article is in German:
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/openai-eu-100.html?fbclid=IwAR0sVil1O_G4hKj28WVxME2zzo10IRmoAHNiukNeLnKQKJD2iKP7gLVVf7I

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #66 on:** May 25, 2023, 12:13 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 25, 2023, 05:01

This is not exactly a legal case, but maybe still worth mentioning:

The European Union is planning AI regulations that will require developers of AI to make the information of every piece of copyrighted work that was used to train an AI public. The regulation is just a draft right now, but ChatGPT has announced that, should this regulation be put into effect without changes to that rule, they would withdraw from the European market.

Right now we all know that our copyrighted work has been used to train AIs, but we can't prove it for individual pieces of works, so photographers, illustrators and authors who want to sue AI companies have a hard time proving their case. If AI developers had to admit which pieces were used, that would make sueing much easier and would probably open a Pandora's box of lawsuits for AI developers. So no wonder ChatGPT would rather leave the huge European market than make that information available.

The article is in German:
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/openai-eu-100.html?fbclid=IwAR0sVil1O_G4hKj28WVxME2zzo10IRmoAHNiukNeLnKQKJD2iKP7gLVVf7I

Thanks for information. I went directly to the source (News European Parliament) to find more about it. This is big! it's the Artificial Intelligence Act - regulation proposal! Maybe EU countries will be the first to have legislation regarding AI after all. Before negotiations with the Council on the final form of the law can begin, this draft negotiating mandate needs to be endorsed by the whole Parliament, with the vote expected during the 12-15 June session. There are some things written that already think about the near future:

“Real-time” remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces;
“Post” remote biometric identification systems, with the only exception of law enforcement for the prosecution of serious crimes and only after judicial authorization;
Biometric categorisation systems using sensitive characteristics (e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship status, religion, political orientation);
Predictive policing systems (based on profiling, location or past criminal behaviour);
Emotion recognition systems in law enforcement, border management, workplace, and educational institutions; and
Indiscriminate scraping of biometric data from social media or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases (violating human rights and right to privacy).

General-purpose AI - transparency measures

"MEPs included obligations for providers of foundation models - a new and fast evolving development in the field of AI - who would have to guarantee robust protection of fundamental rights, health and safety and the environment, democracy and rule of law. They would need to assess and mitigate risks, comply with design, information and environmental requirements and register in the EU database.

Generative foundation models, like GPT, would have to comply with additional transparency requirements, like disclosing that the content was generated by AI, designing the model to prevent it from generating illegal content and publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training."

Personally i don't think this will pass without amendments (never did). if anyone is interested grab the pop corn and read draft...115 pages!

here are the links
For EP news link:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230505IPR84904/ai-act-a-step-closer-to-the-first-rules-on-artificial-intelligence

For the proposal of EC: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0206

Lowls · « **Reply #67 on:** May 28, 2023, 04:56 »

And then of course we have this ....

https://youtu.be/ll49tu5cEIc

DragGAN

stoker2014 · « **Reply #68 on:** May 28, 2023, 15:46 »

Soon this AI will be so regulated that no one will sell it, let alone buy it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: A.I. Legal cases (Read 10098 times)

Just_to_inform_people2

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors