All Midjourney have to do is to add this text to their End User License Agreement:

"By downloading this image you agree not to sell/distribute it through stock agencies."

If the customer doesn't agree, he/she simply won't be able to download the generated image.

Sorry but this is not a solution.
First, it's simply a gift for dozens of other engines that give commercial use. 
Second, it has already discussed, it's not so clear how to distinguish what you can and cannot do with your own images.
Someone gave examples with the restriction for the buyers who license content, but these are not relevant. These are restrictions for buyers, not for the copyright owner.

If it were simple as you said it would have already been done.

Force AI engine to pay the source IS the problem, not to lock the engine itself. AI is between us and obviously nothing will stop it to work

Quote from: Digital on January 31, 2023, 06:19

All Midjourney have to do is to add this text to their End User License Agreement:

"By downloading this image you agree not to sell/distribute it through stock agencies."

If the customer doesn't agree, he/she simply won't be able to download the generated image.

No copyright doesn't work that way.

they need explicit permission of the copyrightholders to start training their ais and remixing their pixels.

They cannot make any claims inlcuding limits on content they simply don't own.

It is just like in the music world. Look at how extremely expensive it can be if an artist even accidentally somewhere has a riff from a song of a well known band. They will get sued to hell and back.

"Oh, I heard it on the internet somewhere, so I just included it"..and I don't allow you to sell my remixed song commercially...

Does not work.

If you steal, you don't own.

End of story.

I'm not talking about copyright here, but getting access to their AI generator. They have the right to grant access to the people who promise not to upload the generated images on stock sites, and deny access to those who don't.

And as a customer you can't have copyright over images that you've never been allowed to generate in the first place, because you refused to agree to the company's terms.

(But if you have generated images in the past, they can't limit the way you can use those images retroactively, of course.)

Quote from: cascoly on January 30, 2023, 14:30

Quote from: cobalt on January 30, 2023, 10:25

They could have easily licensed files for training, paid for it and gotten beautiful images without a watermark.
 
...

It is a solvable problem. they need to license files properly and when they make people pay to create files for commercial use, make sure the remixed pixels only come from licensed files.

if it's so solvable why have none of the critics actually proposed how such a system might work?

• how do you find out who owns the rights to each image?
• how do you contact the owners, if any?
• how do you track owners' responses? ie, how do you create a database of artists? attaching a copyright doesn't usually include contact info, and few images even have that minimal information.
• how much should be paid to artists?
• how are payments calculated? per image at tiny fractions of pennies?
• how is payment made with knowing details such as paypal, bank acct or physical address?  will a bank process checks for < a penny?

if you're going to complain and allege criminal liability you need to at least make a minimal effort to present a solution than can actually be discussed otherwise it's just more (redundant) hot air adding nothing to a conversation.  and it is th e responsibility of the plaintiff to prove they have a case with hard evidence of wrongdoing

Uhm. The solution is: License images from microstock agencies.
Or are you trolling? Because it's hard to imagine you could not come up with that solution yourself. As a microstock contributor. In a microstock forum.

ROFL!  i don't need no stinkin' solutions because i never claimed there was a need for them! i accept the current situation re ML & creation of datasets.    it's your cohort that demand payment - yet you haven't shown any way this could be done. it's content free - just 'sound & fury, signifying nothing' 

i gave a list of serious questions that need to be addressed in order to meet your demands but you ignored all of them & just left insults

DALL-E could be use for Adobe Stock or another agency? 
i only see this about.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/usage-policies/disallowed-usage

Quote from: alexandersr on February 26, 2023, 19:33

DALL-E could be use for Adobe Stock or another agency? 
i only see this about.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/usage-policies/disallowed-usage

Not my field of expertise, but I guess it can get you, theoretically, in trouble.

You generate an AI image, submit it to Adobe Stock, where it finds it's way to a customer who uses it for political campaigning.
Sure, how the image is used is beyond your control as you cannot specify the usage conditions or context, but it's still an image that you generated via OpenAI and your responsibility to make sure it's usage is not in violation with the openAI policies?

 Same goes for this:
"Consumer-facing uses of our models in medical, financial, and legal industries; in news generation or news summarization; and where else warranted, must provide a disclaimer to users informing them that AI is being used and of its potential limitations"

Consumer-facing means dealing with people who buy products or services, so this includes a lot of commercial usage in medical, financial, legal, & news fields - That's quite a broad field of usage where DALL requires a note that the content is AI generated. But how do you make sure customers who buy the image from an agency add that note, when the agencies themselves do not require such a note from the customers, so the customers would not even know about this?

lets face it we are witnessing the death of picture copyright (may be except editorial)
even today you can put a picture as a prompt and get back a similar but different picture copyright free, think what will happen in another couple of years

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 27, 2023, 10:20

Quote from: Roscoe on February 27, 2023, 07:05

Quote from: alexandersr on February 26, 2023, 19:33

DALL-E could be use for Adobe Stock or another agency? 
i only see this about.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/usage-policies/disallowed-usage

Not my field of expertise, but I guess it can get you, theoretically, in trouble.

You generate an AI image, submit it to Adobe Stock, where it finds it's way to a customer who uses it for political campaigning.
Sure, how the image is used is beyond your control as you cannot specify the usage conditions or context, but it's still an image that you generated via OpenAI and your responsibility to make sure it's usage is not in violation with the openAI policies?

I'd say everyone is correct, just one emphasis: "We don�t allow the use of our models for the following:"

No models, no problem?

Hm. Interesting. I did not interpret "models" as "people", I thought they refered to their AI APs as "models", because that's what they call them here:
https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/overview
And if that's what they mean by models then it's rather "no models, no DALL-E, no problem".

I'm not sure, but that's the way I read it. Mostly because of the parts like not for politics, not for medical and not for testimonial type of use. I was thinking images. But further reading, you're right. I'm wrong.

Yes in that section for text and code, it lists:

We don�t allow the use of our models for the following:
Illegal activity
Child Sexual Abuse Material or any content that exploits or harms children
Generation of hateful, harassing, or violent content
Generation of malware
Activity that has high risk of physical harm
Activity that has high risk of economic harm
Fraudulent or deceptive activity
Adult content, adult industries, and dating apps
Political campaigning or lobbying
Activity that violates people�s privacy
Engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, or offering tailored legal advice without a qualified person reviewing the information
Offering tailored financial advice without a qualified person reviewing the information
Telling someone that they have or do not have a certain health condition, or providing instructions on how to cure or treat a health condition
High risk government decision-making

While DALL-E says:

You are not allowed to use DALL-E to generate any of the following types of content:

    Hate
    Harassment
    Violence
    Self-harm
    Sexual
    Shocking
    Illegal activity
    Deception
    Political
    Public and personal health
    Spam

So OK back to...

You generate an AI image, submit it to Adobe Stock, where it finds it's way to a customer who uses it for political campaigning.
Sure, how the image is used is beyond your control as you cannot specify the usage conditions or context, but it's still an image that you generated via OpenAI and your responsibility to make sure it's usage is not in violation with the openAI policies?

Open AI would have to object and go to the user and then the agency and then back to the innocent artist. I wonder if the terms of use on Adobe and SSTK, for example, also say you can't use them for the above proposes that Open-AI doesn't allow? What if the images aren't marked created by AI or created by Open AI / DALL-E? Very complicated.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 28, 2023, 12:38

Open AI would have to object and go to the user and then the agency and then back to the innocent artist. I wonder if the terms of use on Adobe and SSTK, for example, also say you can't use them for the above proposes that Open-AI doesn't allow? What if the images aren't marked created by AI or created by Open AI / DALL-E? Very complicated.

True, it's quite a chain a complaint would have to follow, but in the end, if it's a serious complaint, it will land on the contributor's desk. In most cases, chances are small anyone would really take the effort to sit it through I guess, but the problem with political campaigns for instance is that they have a high visibility and a potential debatable and polarizing exposure. We already had cases of political parties using editorial stock images pulled out of context for political campaigning. Media and independent journalists were very fast in identifying where the image came from and clarifying correct usage conditions.

Personally I'd like to steer away from any use of my content for certain use-cases like political campaigning for instance, but that option is not available when submitting content.
We cannot exclude certain context.

Again, not my field of expertise here, but to me, it sounds like the usage conditions for AI generated content by DALL-E or OpenAI are not in line with the usage conditions that stock agencies apply. Or they must have different usage conditions for AI generated content to their customers.

BINGO! 🔔 🔔 🔔

We are not responsible for the license terms, nor are we allowed to add conditions like the restrictions that Open-AI and others have placed on use for images we have created using their system.

Telling the person who wants to license images, that there are restrictions, is the duty of the agency.

No the complaint will not come back to the contributor. First off the person using the image, and then the agency, and then a slim possibility that someone from the AI company would try to chase down an artist. They would go for deep pockets first, not after the little that we have.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 01, 2023, 12:44

We are not responsible for the license terms

That's a strange view of things. You think because you are not the one who made the license terms you bear no responsibility? ...

No, you are not responsible for the license terms, but you are responsible for following them if you want to use and sell DALL-E images. You agreed to these terms.
And if DALL-E says "This image must not be used in political/medical/news content" and you agreed to that, then you can't sell them to customers who use them in political/medical/news content and really claim that you bear no responsibility in this and there was nothing you could have done to prevent this?

but that's the point - if we do follow the guidelines & our images are sold to someone who violates the license terms, how are we responsible?

a bigger issue is there's no way to tell which AI engine was used

Quote from: Roscoe on March 01, 2023, 03:40

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 28, 2023, 12:38

Open AI would have to object and go to the user and then the agency and then back to the innocent artist. I wonder if the terms of use on Adobe and SSTK, for example, also say you can't use them for the above proposes that Open-AI doesn't allow? What if the images aren't marked created by AI or created by Open AI / DALL-E? Very complicated.

True, it's quite a chain a complaint would have to follow, but in the end, if it's a serious complaint, it will land on the contributor's desk. In most cases, chances are small anyone would really take the effort to sit it through I guess, but the problem with political campaigns for instance is that they have a high visibility and a potential debatable and polarizing exposure. We already had cases of political parties using editorial stock images pulled out of context for political campaigning. Media and independent journalists were very fast in identifying where the image came from and clarifying correct usage conditions.

Personally I'd like to steer away from any use of my content for certain use-cases like political campaigning for instance, but that option is not available when submitting content.
We cannot exclude certain context.

Again, not my field of expertise here, but to me, it sounds like the usage conditions for AI generated content by DALL-E or OpenAI are not in line with the usage conditions that stock agencies apply. Or they must have different usage conditions for AI generated content to their customers.

BINGO! 🔔 🔔 🔔

We are not responsible for the license terms, nor are we allowed to add conditions like the restrictions that Open-AI and others have placed on use for images we have created using their system.

Telling the person who wants to license images, that there are restrictions, is the duty of the agency.

No the complaint will not come back to the contributor. First off the person using the image, and then the agency, and then a slim possibility that someone from the AI company would try to chase down an artist. They would go for deep pockets first, not after the little that we have.

I don't know Pete. This is what's written in Adobe Stock's Generative AI requirements:

You must have all the necessary rights to submit generative AI illustrations to Adobe Stock for licensing and use as described in our contributor terms (e.g., broad commercial use).  You must review the terms of any generative AI tools that you use to confirm that this is the case before you submit any AI-generated content.

Do: Read the terms and conditions for generative AI tools that you use to ensure that you have the right to license all generative AI content that you submit to Adobe Stock under the contributor terms. For example, you cannot submit any content if you are not permitted to license it for commercial purposes.

Don�t: Use generative AI tools that are known or recognized as having serious flaws in their design or outputs (for example, tools which generate identifiable people or property from generic prompts).

Don�t: Submit works depicting real places, identifiable property (e.g., famous characters or logos), or notable people (whether photorealistic or - even caricatures)

So you must have the full rights to submit it for "broad commercial use".
I assume (again, not my fleld of expertise) that this also means: political campaigning or other contexts which are excluded from DALL-E or OpenAI's terms of conditions.

So I see that as a responsibility of the contributor: make sure you have the full rights before submitting.

Admittedly, agencies are on the lazy side here as they can easily identify AI generated content, and they can apply different customer terms on them if they would want to. And they can whitelist certain AI Generative Tools which terms are in line with the agencies terms.

It all sounds like a theoretical discussion and complaints in this area feel like a rather unlikely event to happen, but it's not impossible either. Remember Alex and his news stand images receiving a complaint via Alamy.

You're talking about something that has nothing to do with AI
It's called "sensitive use", and it's a well know issue, it's absolutely managed on agency side and has nothing to do with the content.

The "not allowed" list of DALL-E (and other engines) is made to prevent the creation of the content; at the contrary, the sensitive use of ANY content (AI generated or not) is an agency side problem

Quote from: Her Ugliness on March 01, 2023, 13:13

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 01, 2023, 12:44

We are not responsible for the license terms

That's a strange view of things. You think because you are not the one who made the license terms you bear no responsibility?

Absolutely yes. The creator is resposible of content copyright, absolutely not of the terms of license given to the buyer.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 01, 2023, 12:44

Telling the person who wants to license images, that there are restrictions, is the duty of the agency.

This is absolutely correct, this is the truth, no way to say that's not the case!
My opinion, of course 

Interesting points. I wonder how this is different than submitting an editorial image as commercial, or an image without model release, which the agency lets slip through? Who's responsible for the error? The contributor for having made an incorrect submission, or the agency for letting it slip through and offering it with wrong license terms?

I always thought that the contributor was still responsible in such cases.

Quote from: Roscoe on March 01, 2023, 15:51

Interesting points. I wonder how this is different than submitting an editorial image as commercial, or an image without model release, which the agency lets slip through? Who's responsible for the error? The contributor for having made an incorrect submission, or the agency for letting it slip through and offering it with wrong license terms?

I always thought that the contributor was still responsible in such cases.

Good question!
In this case I would say the author is resposable, because he does not own the copyright.

But you're still not considering the other side, the use of image:
Following your example, if I should put for commercial use something like, let's say, a well known and famous car...
The legal problem would eventually rise only and when the image would be used for commercial.
In other words, it's not the image that break the rules, it's the use of it that could do

Still trying to wrap my head around this.
I understand that there's a difference in having copyrights and terms of conditions.
Thanks for clarifying that.

I guess the latter, violating terms and conditions, would generally mean less trouble than violating copyright?
In the case of selling an AI Generated image that ends up in a political campaign... copyright is not the issue here, but terms and conditions might be? I mean: the contributor generated the image and made it possible to be used in a context that violates the terms and conditions of the AI Generative Tool?