MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: A.I. Legal cases  (Read 9323 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2023, 05:21 »
0
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.


« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2023, 06:16 »
0
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.

« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2023, 06:35 »
0

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)
« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 06:37 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2023, 07:26 »
0
(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.

« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2023, 10:57 »
0
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.

« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2023, 11:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2023, 12:44 »
0
... 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?

« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2023, 13:14 »
0
...
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.

« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2023, 13:43 »
0
... 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.

« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2023, 14:02 »
0
...
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.

« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2023, 14:26 »
0
... 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

« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2023, 14:32 »
0

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 »
0

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.

« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2023, 01:08 »
0

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.

« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2023, 05:53 »
0

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.
:o 8) ::)

« Reply #65 on: May 25, 2023, 05:01 »
+6
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
« Last Edit: May 25, 2023, 14:52 by Her Ugliness »

« Reply #66 on: May 25, 2023, 12:13 »
0
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


« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2023, 04:56 »
0
And then of course we have this ....

https://youtu.be/ll49tu5cEIc

DragGAN

« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2023, 15:46 »
0
Soon this AI will be so regulated that no one will sell it, let alone buy it.  8) ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
12198 Views
Last post March 11, 2008, 02:53
by leaf
8 Replies
3834 Views
Last post March 28, 2014, 06:40
by Bibi
9 Replies
8696 Views
Last post January 17, 2017, 11:47
by Jafo2016
298 Replies
55673 Views
Last post March 01, 2024, 03:03
by Andrej.S.
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