I am trying to understand the theoretical reasons why some agencies accept AI generated imagery and others don't. Meanwhile, Adobe is one of the few (and the largest platform) that does accept this type of content for sale. And then Getty (iStock), Shutterstock (Pond5), Alamy, and some others don't accept it. Or if they do accept it then it has to be imagery created with their own native AI generators that are controlled by that platform.

The basis for not accepting and licensing the content for sale for most of them is that AI image generating models/platforms scrape millions of copyrighted images from the internet in order to source ideas and, thus the content being used to generate the AI imagery is not free from rights.

So is the reason that sites like Adobe, Dreamstime, 123RF and others do accept AI generated content is that they see the AI platforms as only gaining "creative inspiration" and taking "creative license" from all the copyright content that is being scraped by the AI image generators and thus making it a non-violation of usage rights?

I am not sure what the right answer is here, but I guess theoretically these AI models using copyright content to generate their own images would be no different than a photographer looking at an existing copyrighted photo of an apple and then photographing their own apple in the same spirit with similar lighting and composition to the copyrighted image they saw.

An interesting debate.

The way I see it the legal issue of this is not sorted out yet, with several ongoing lawsuits and the agencies like Adobe and Dreamstime that allow AI content stimply trust that the outcome will be in their favor.

And if it turns out to be otherwise they will still not really have lost anything. They might remove AI content again, but I doubt they'd compensate any customers or contributors for any damage, just like it is done with millions of stolen images. Agencies sell stolen content, someone finds their artwork in a port full of stolen images and all the agencies do is remove that single one image and keep the port open, knowing very well that the chance just one stolen image found its way into that port "by accident" is extremely unlikely and all the images are stolen.
But they make money from it, so what do they care? Has anyone ever heard of them contacting a customer telling him "Sorry, you have to stop using that image and we will refund you, because we didn't have the right to sell this image" or have they ever contacted a contributor telling him "hey, we sold this image stolen by someone from you, we have removed it, closed the port and here is the money  the thief made from that sale that should be rightfully yours".  Nope. Not happening. They keep the money even from illegally sold content, so even in the unlikely case that it turns out microstock agencies had no right to sell AI content, they will keep the millions that are rolling it with sales from it now.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 06, 2023, 11:31
But they make money from it, so what do they care? Has anyone ever heard of them contacting a customer telling him "Sorry, you have to stop using that image and we will refund you, because we didn't have the right to sell this image" or have they ever contacted a contributor telling him "hey, we sold this image stolen by someone from you, we have removed it, closed the port and here is the money  the thief made from that sale that should be rightfully yours".

But if you were the buyer then you probably wouldn't want to continue using some stolen imagery you bought. You rather have a refund because, as a buyer of stolen copyright content, you could still face penalties for a rights violation if you continue using the stolen imagery.

Quote from: iFlop on May 06, 2023, 12:16

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 06, 2023, 11:31
But they make money from it, so what do they care? Has anyone ever heard of them contacting a customer telling him "Sorry, you have to stop using that image and we will refund you, because we didn't have the right to sell this image" or have they ever contacted a contributor telling him "hey, we sold this image stolen by someone from you, we have removed it, closed the port and here is the money  the thief made from that sale that should be rightfully yours".

But if you were the buyer then you probably wouldn't want to continue using some stolen imagery you bought. You rather have a refund because, as a buyer of stolen copyright content, you could still face penalties for a rights violation if you continue using the stolen imagery.

Sure, but what does it matter in regards to this discussion? Do you think the customer is ever told by any of the agencies that the image he bought was stolen?

My  point was: Agencies do not care about legal aspects, as long as they make a profit and can get away with what they are doing and I think that's the stance of the agencies that allow AI images while some others don't.

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
AI Generated Imagery, Is It OK To Sell It?

You can't sell them. This is copyright infringement. You can not take someone else's work and redo it without the permission of the author. And even more so you can not sell this work later as your own.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 06, 2023, 16:26

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
AI Generated Imagery, Is It OK To Sell It?

You can't sell them. This is copyright infringement. You can not take someone else's work and redo it without the permission of the author. And even more so you can not sell this work later as your own.

Tell us you don't understand AI imagery without telling us.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 06, 2023, 16:26

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
AI Generated Imagery, Is It OK To Sell It?

You can't sell them. This is copyright infringement. You can not take someone else's work and redo it without the permission of the author. And even more so you can not sell this work later as your own.

of course you can,  same as i can sell stolen goods.  you still have to prove that i did it.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on May 06, 2023, 11:31
Sure, but what does it matter in regards to this discussion? Do you think the customer is ever told by any of the agencies that the image he bought was stolen?

My  point was: Agencies do not care about legal aspects, as long as they make a profit and can get away with what they are doing and I think that's the stance of the agencies that allow AI images while some others don't.

No, they do care about legal liability and less about keeping a bit of money that they earned on an illegal stock content sale. So, buyers should be given a refund and told the content they bought does not have legal copyright and that they should stop using it for that reason. But the stock sites usually won't tell them as you said, which is really bad business practice. But it is for different reasons. 

Stock sites give refunds all the time. The real issue in a situation like this is that the stock sites would open themselves up to lots of questions and legal liability if they told a buyer that the content they licensed to the buyer was wrongfully licensed. Questions such as how could the stock site unknowingly be selling content that they don't have correct copyright license on. And then, if the buyer already used the content for a large commercial campaign, the buyer will be worried about their own copyright liability and could even take legal action against the stock site for their blunder. Plus, all around, the optics aren't good with such a clumsy admission like this to a buyer from a stock site.

Anyway, this is all really off-topic and doesn't address the OP's points about why some agencies do license AI generated content and other's don't. Again, I don't think it is about something as simple as trying to make extra profit doing something wrong and getting away with it. The sites that don't license AI content are probably more concerned about potential legal liability down the line because the copyright laws on AI content are still in flux and the stock sites that do license it probably don't think there will be any liability with it later. Different views on it from different stock sites and I think that was part of what the OP was trying to express.

Quote from: ouatedeP on May 07, 2023, 12:30

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 06, 2023, 16:26

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
AI Generated Imagery, Is It OK To Sell It?

You can't sell them. This is copyright infringement. You can not take someone else's work and redo it without the permission of the author. And even more so you can not sell this work later as your own.

of course you can,  same as i can sell stolen goods.  you still have to prove that i did it.

Fortunately, buyers are not thieves, unlike you. Buyers do not steal, buyers pay money for legally clean content. But yes, thieves never pay anywhere, they download any content from torrent sites.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 06, 2023, 21:37

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 06, 2023, 16:26

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
AI Generated Imagery, Is It OK To Sell It?

You can't sell them. This is copyright infringement. You can not take someone else's work and redo it without the permission of the author. And even more so you can not sell this work later as your own.

Tell us you don't understand AI imagery without telling us.

Why should I say something? Better than all my words - lawsuits that have already sued websites selling AI-generated content.
I don't know what kind of responsibility specifically stock agencies will bear, but the "authors" who sell such things may well be made extreme, banned and held accountable.

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 07, 2023, 14:42

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 06, 2023, 21:37

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 06, 2023, 16:26

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
AI Generated Imagery, Is It OK To Sell It?

You can't sell them. This is copyright infringement. You can not take someone else's work and redo it without the permission of the author. And even more so you can not sell this work later as your own.

Tell us you don't understand AI imagery without telling us.

Why should I say something? Better than all my words - lawsuits that have already sued websites selling AI-generated content.
I don't know what kind of responsibility specifically stock agencies will bear, but the "authors" who sell such things may well be made extreme, banned and held accountable.

tell me you don't understand the legal system without telling me you don't understand the legal system.  lawsuits in one jurisdiction doesn't make it a crime. 
in fact the only Stock Agency that has stated wrong in contributor uploading AI images, Alamy, used the contractual obligation of of contributor of owning all rights to the image as the reason, nothing to do with legality of AI images.

Quote from: NewStocker on May 06, 2023, 11:19
I am trying to understand the theoretical reasons why some agencies accept AI generated imagery and others don't. Meanwhile, Adobe is one of the few (and the largest platform) that does accept this type of content for sale. And then Getty (iStock), Shutterstock (Pond5), Alamy, and some others don't accept it. Or if they do accept it then it has to be imagery created with their own native AI generators that are controlled by that platform.

The basis for not accepting and licensing the content for sale for most of them is that AI image generating models/platforms scrape millions of copyrighted images from the internet in order to source ideas and, thus the content being used to generate the AI imagery is not free from rights.

So is the reason that sites like Adobe, Dreamstime, 123RF and others do accept AI generated content is that they see the AI platforms as only gaining "creative inspiration" and taking "creative license" from all the copyright content that is being scraped by the AI image generators and thus making it a non-violation of usage rights?

I am not sure what the right answer is here, but I guess theoretically these AI models using copyright content to generate their own images would be no different than a photographer looking at an existing copyrighted photo of an apple and then photographing their own apple in the same spirit with similar lighting and composition to the copyrighted image they saw.

An interesting debate.

In theory, an AI which operates in the way you describe is possible. However, to have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of the popular engines like Dall-e and Midjourney, you'd have to analyze the code they're running. They could as well be taking bits and pieces from multiple images, and mangling them together. This would make the output so obfuscated, that you'd never be able to tell what source images were used.

On top of that, anyone could create a collage of other peoples images, then upload it on a stock agency claiming that it was created by AI.

Quote from: Digital on May 08, 2023, 13:33...;. However, to have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of the popular engines like Dall-e and Midjourney, you'd have to analyze the code they're running. They could as well be taking bits and pieces from multiple images, and mangling them together. This would make the output so obfuscated, that you'd never be able to tell what source images were used.

On top of that, anyone could create a collage of other peoples images, then upload it on a stock agency claiming that it was created by AI.

no need to know their algorithms - as has been shown MANY times here, no images are used in creation of new images - the training set collects information about the image - no pixels from the original images are saved, so there is no question of copyright in generation of new images and the results are new images automatically covered by copyright under US law

the point in contention by some is whether scraping the web is a copyright violation

Quote from: cascoly on May 11, 2023, 15:52
and the results are new images automatically covered by copyright under US law

Uhm. So far the US copyright law does not agree with you.

Quote from: cascoly on May 11, 2023, 15:52

Quote from: Digital on May 08, 2023, 13:33...;. However, to have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of the popular engines like Dall-e and Midjourney, you'd have to analyze the code they're running. They could as well be taking bits and pieces from multiple images, and mangling them together. This would make the output so obfuscated, that you'd never be able to tell what source images were used.

On top of that, anyone could create a collage of other peoples images, then upload it on a stock agency claiming that it was created by AI.

no need to know their algorithms - as has been shown MANY times here, no images are used in creation of new images - the training set collects information about the image - no pixels from the original images are saved, so there is no question of copyright in generation of new images and the results are new images automatically covered by copyright under US law

the point in contention by some is whether scraping the web is a copyright violation

This information is false. They specifically refused to cover A.I. generated images because in order to benefit from copywrite the copywrite office stated it must have a human element in its creation. It stated that because A.I. generated images have no human element they cannot benefit from copywrite law SPECIFICALLY IN THE US.

Quote from: cascoly on May 11, 2023, 15:52
...
no need to know their algorithms - as has been shown MANY times here, no images are used in creation of new images...

No they haven't.

Quite the opposite. In fact a link to a white paper was posted here showing that scraped images can be extracted with the right prompt. You are choosing to ignore it.

Not sure what you mean. Of course images are used. How is the AI trained if images aren't "used" to train it.

Quote from: Lowls on May 12, 2023, 10:37

Quote from: cascoly on May 11, 2023, 15:52

Quote from: Digital on May 08, 2023, 13:33...;. However, to have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of the popular engines like Dall-e and Midjourney, you'd have to analyze the code they're running. They could as well be taking bits and pieces from multiple images, and mangling them together. This would make the output so obfuscated, that you'd never be able to tell what source images were used.

On top of that, anyone could create a collage of other peoples images, then upload it on a stock agency claiming that it was created by AI.

no need to know their algorithms - as has been shown MANY times here, no images are used in creation of new images - the training set collects information about the image - no pixels from the original images are saved, so there is no question of copyright in generation of new images and the results are new images automatically covered by copyright under US law

the point in contention by some is whether scraping the web is a copyright violation

This information is false. They specifically refused to cover A.I. generated images because in order to benefit from copywrite the copywrite office stated it must have a human element in its creation. It stated that because A.I. generated images have no human element they cannot benefit from copywrite law SPECIFICALLY IN THE US.

wrong -; the copyright office issued an opinion, but the copyright LAW hasn't changed

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 12, 2023, 11:52

Quote from: cascoly on May 11, 2023, 15:52
...
no need to know their algorithms - as has been shown MANY times here, no images are used in creation of new images...

No they haven't.

Quite the opposite. In fact a link to a white paper was posted here showing that scraped images can be extracted with the right prompt. You are choosing to ignore it.

Not sure what you mean. Of course images are used. How is the AI trained if images aren't "used" to train it.

you're confusing training & generation - once the images are used in training, the bots do not reference any parts of the original images when generating new art.  references to how th is works have been posted many times if you really want to know how this works

Quote from: cascoly on May 13, 2023, 13:53

you're confusing training & generation - once the images are used in training, the bots do not reference any parts of the original images when generating new art.  references to how th is works have been posted many times if you really want to know how this works

What's your point? The images are still used to create the product, which is actually the AI application (the thing you pay to access/ use). I appreciate how it has been sold, but it doesn't have any "personhood".

The programmers have appropriated copyright work to make their product, and as proved in the paper I referenced that work is still accessible using the right prompts (though this is not all that relevant as the issue is the appropriation of the work for commercial purposes without the copyright owner's consent).

EDITED TO ADD: Not sure I even agree with your basic point. Again it has been shown that training images can be extracted from the database given the correct prompts, so they clearly do store original images in some circumstances (all be it in a compressed form).

"...do not access any part of the original images" is pretty meaningless when talking about digital images, they don't "exist" like paint on paper. I can change their form completely by simply saving as a new file format. I can even change a photo into a vector by auto-tracing it. The important thing (to your argument, not mine; see above) is whether it has stored the image's likeness in some way, and again it very much has been shown that it does (see the white paper I referenced).

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 13, 2023, 15:09

The programmers have appropriated copyright work to make their product, and as proved in the paper I referenced that work is still accessible using the right prompts (though this is not all that relevant as the issue is the appropriation of the work for commercial purposes without the copyright owner's consent).

Although legally there may be loose details that programmers have infringed upon, the point of AI image creation, as a concept, is exactly the same one that we have all learned to read, write, draw or photograph. I have read dozens of books by cartier bresson, Avedon, Erwit, Leibovitz... and seeing their photos is how I have learned to photograph, and I have created my own photographs with theirs in my mind.
That's the same thing they do, and it can't be avoided, because the photos are published, open to anyone's eye.

Years ago you had to pay to enter the museums, now it's not even necessary.

Quote from: Yakystockero on May 13, 2023, 20:44
... is exactly the same one that we have all learned to read, write, draw or photograph...

It really isn't. The AI isn't a person. It is a soft AI app built by using lots of people's copyright material. That's all it is. You are just being swayed by how great the quality of the output is and anthropomorphising it.

As far as "it can't be avoided", it could easily be avoided, theoretically, by simply ruling that it is copyright infringement for an AI app to ingest people's work. It isn't choosing to look at stuff by itself like a person would. It is fed a dataset by programmers. I am in no way implying this will happen, photographers and artists don't have the power in this dynamic, Silicon Valley does.

All we can do is adapt.

Quote from: Yakystockero on May 13, 2023, 20:44

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 13, 2023, 15:09

The programmers have appropriated copyright work to make their product, and as proved in the paper I referenced that work is still accessible using the right prompts (though this is not all that relevant as the issue is the appropriation of the work for commercial purposes without the copyright owner's consent).

Although legally there may be loose details that programmers have infringed upon, the point of AI image creation, as a concept, is exactly the same one that we have all learned to read, write, draw or photograph. I have read dozens of books by cartier bresson, Avedon, Erwit, Leibovitz... and seeing their photos is how I have learned to photograph, and I have created my own photographs with theirs in my mind.
That's the same thing they do, and it can't be avoided, because the photos are published, open to anyone's eye.

Years ago you had to pay to enter the museums, now it's not even necessary.

tell that to the musicians who got sued after listening to others work and using it it as "inspiration". 

fascinating how many stock photographer seem to have an international law degree.

Quote from: ouatedeP on May 14, 2023, 11:44

Quote from: Yakystockero on May 13, 2023, 20:44

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 13, 2023, 15:09

The programmers have appropriated copyright work to make their product, and as proved in the paper I referenced that work is still accessible using the right prompts (though this is not all that relevant as the issue is the appropriation of the work for commercial purposes without the copyright owner's consent).

Although legally there may be loose details that programmers have infringed upon, the point of AI image creation, as a concept, is exactly the same one that we have all learned to read, write, draw or photograph. I have read dozens of books by cartier bresson, Avedon, Erwit, Leibovitz... and seeing their photos is how I have learned to photograph, and I have created my own photographs with theirs in my mind.
That's the same thing they do, and it can't be avoided, because the photos are published, open to anyone's eye.

Years ago you had to pay to enter the museums, now it's not even necessary.

tell that to the musicians who got sued after listening to others work and using it it as "inspiration". 

fascinating how many stock photographer seem to have an international law degree.

I think there is a difference between inspiring and plagiarizing, in many cases separated by a fine line. That is why there are thousands of music plagiarism accusation cases that are resolved in favor of the plaintiff and many thousands more in favor of the defendant.

I'm just saying that things are not absolute black or white. And personally I have not seen any cases of plagiarism by AIs yet. It is like saying that the first photographer who took a photo of an apple on a white background has the right to accuse the next 30,000 photos of apples on a white background that are in the SS catalog.

Quote from: Yakystockero on May 15, 2023, 09:07

And personally I have not seen any cases of plagiarism by AIs yet.

Now you have.

https://gizmodo.com/ai-art-generators-ai-copyright-stable-diffusion-1850060656

Quote from: Yakystockero on May 15, 2023, 09:07
I think there is a difference between inspiring and plagiarizing, in many cases separated by a fine line. That is why there are thousands of music plagiarism accusation cases that are resolved in favor of the plaintiff and many thousands more in favor of the defendant.

I'm just saying that things are not absolute black or white. And personally I have not seen any cases of plagiarism by AIs yet. It is like saying that the first photographer who took a photo of an apple on a white background has the right to accuse the next 30,000 photos of apples on a white background that are in the SS catalog.

AI isn't a person. It isn't being inspired, or even "copying" in the way a person would. It can't even commit "plagiarism" in the traditional sense. It's creators can, however, infringe another people's copyright.

Again, it doesn't have a "personhood". It isn't even an "author" in any meaningful sense, as that, again implies it is a person. The companies/ programmers are the people infringing copyright. It's all just smoke and mirrors.

The creators of the apps have helped themselves to masses of copyright work to build the programs. If you take step back, there's just no way to argue that these apps aren't based on work copied for commercial purposes without copyright holders consent. And also that far and away most of the work involved in making the apps has been by the millions of artists who created and key-worded the images. A few hundred or thousands of hours to program these apps pales into insignificance.