Author Topic: Anybody using ChatGPT for microstock? (Read 5740 times)

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #50 on:** February 02, 2024, 03:58 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 01, 2024, 22:21

I had a look at the mage page.

In the terms of service it says that everything created is public domain.

Not sure if that is ideal.

You mean this passage here from their Terms & Conditions?

"All users, by use of Mage and the Mage Discord service hereby acknowledge having read and accepted the full CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (available at https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/), which includes, but is not limited to, the foregoing waiver of intellectual property rights with respect to any Content. User, by use of Mage and the Mage service, acknowledges understanding that such waiver also includes waiver of any such user’s expectation and/or claim to any absolute, unconditional right to reproduce, copy, prepare derivate works, distribute, sell, perform, and/or display, as applicable, and further that any such user acknowledges no authority or right to deny permission to others to do the same with respect to the Content. Any such user hereby waives and does not hold any rights whatsoever and regardless of legal jurisdiction to or in the Content. Further, all such users hereby acknowledge that this Terms of Use will be binding upon any of the user’s successors, heirs, agents, affiliates, administrators, representatives, attorneys, executors, divisions, and assigns, now and forever. This waiver further irrevocably and forever releases, acquits, and discharges Ollano Inc. from any and all claims, demands, charges, complaints, controversies, agreements, promises, and causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever, both at law and in equity, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising out of and relating in any way to the Content.

Note, that while users have forfeited copyright (and any/all intellectual property right claims) on these images, they are still public domain and can be used by anyone for any purpose, including by the user. Feel free to use images from Mage and the Mage Discord service for anything, including commercial purposes."

I would say that anything posted without being hidden in private mode is automatically considered as "public good".
Since there is no direct passage prohibiting the use of commercial projects, I would assume that it can be used for this purpose.

Year of the Dog · « **Reply #51 on:** February 02, 2024, 07:04 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 01, 2024, 22:21

I had a look at the mage page.

In the terms of service it says that everything created is public domain.

Not sure if that is ideal.

Everything created is public domain because AI can't be copyrighted. A machine is not a human mind.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #52 on:** February 02, 2024, 08:30 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on February 01, 2024, 18:45

@Uncle Pete
Interesting, I didn't know about the token length restriction in Stable Diffusion. Thanks for the info!
I'll try it out with longer, detailed prompts.

Which online provider do you use?
Or do you generate locally on your own machine?

I currently use Mage.Space. Can't complain. For 15 USD / month unlimited generation with private mode and many pre-installed models / loras.

The cool thing is that in combination with precise prompts and special models, you can maintain character continuity quite well without too much deviation.
So it has potential for image series. I haven't seen sofar Midjourney users using this, but maybe nobody thinks about it.

I'm currently trying to generate colorful portraits with African-American models:
https://ibb.co/PhRSgNN
https://ibb.co/PTkRFZZ

And also the current body positivity, female sexual wellness trend:

https://ibb.co/f1sWkQR
https://ibb.co/1J0f0mM

Oh and yoga in a more "raw" style:
https://ibb.co/nLPSjnw

yes, the hands and minor artifacts are still really annoying at the moment ...

But as I said, I see much more potential in Stable Diffusion than Midjourney to stand out through individualization from the huge same-looking crowd. The buyers will be soon so pissed off because of millions of same looking stuff.

Just a commentary on the 'body posivitity' thing. It's funny how the tell-a-vision & media has convinced people being "fat" and "obese" is a "good thing" when it's actually very, very bad, by inventing new words & garbage phrases like "body positivity", when it's actually very, very bad to be that disgustingly overweight and fat. Being fat & overweight is not something to be proud of. It means you need to stop eating the potato chips, refined sugar, canola oil products, get off the sofa, get some exercise, stop taking meds & injecting yourself with crap. It means you are sick, because you have a bunch of parasites & crap inside of you that your body can't get rid of.

Pretty messed up how "they" (the people who own/run the wef/imf/UN/etc) appear to have confused so many people.

If I uploaded a picture like that, I'd be tempted to call it "Fat slob pretending to be happy by being slothful". It's a much more accurate description.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #53 on:** February 02, 2024, 09:10 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 02, 2024, 08:30

Quote from: Andrej.S. on February 01, 2024, 18:45
@Uncle Pete
Interesting, I didn't know about the token length restriction in Stable Diffusion. Thanks for the info!
I'll try it out with longer, detailed prompts.

Which online provider do you use?
Or do you generate locally on your own machine?

I currently use Mage.Space. Can't complain. For 15 USD / month unlimited generation with private mode and many pre-installed models / loras.

The cool thing is that in combination with precise prompts and special models, you can maintain character continuity quite well without too much deviation.
So it has potential for image series. I haven't seen sofar Midjourney users using this, but maybe nobody thinks about it.

I'm currently trying to generate colorful portraits with African-American models:
https://ibb.co/PhRSgNN
https://ibb.co/PTkRFZZ

And also the current body positivity, female sexual wellness trend:

https://ibb.co/f1sWkQR
https://ibb.co/1J0f0mM

Oh and yoga in a more "raw" style:
https://ibb.co/nLPSjnw

yes, the hands and minor artifacts are still really annoying at the moment ...

But as I said, I see much more potential in Stable Diffusion than Midjourney to stand out through individualization from the huge same-looking crowd. The buyers will be soon so pissed off because of millions of same looking stuff.

Just a commentary on the 'body posivitity' thing. It's funny how the tell-a-vision & media has convinced people being "fat" and "obese" is a "good thing" when it's actually very, very bad, by inventing new words & garbage phrases like "body positivity", when it's actually very, very bad to be that disgustingly overweight and fat. Being fat & overweight is not something to be proud of. It means you need to stop eating the potato chips, refined sugar, canola oil products, get off the sofa, get some exercise, stop taking meds & injecting yourself with crap. It means you are sick, because you have a bunch of parasites & crap inside of you that your body can't get rid of.

Pretty messed up how "they" (the people who own/run the wef/imf/UN/etc) appear to have confused so many people.

If I uploaded a picture like that, I'd be tempted to call it "Fat slob pretending to be happy by being slothful". It's a much more accurate description.

Absolutely agree. I like your straight thinking and cynical manner. Yeah the sheep mass mob, which we call people (in German we would say "das gemeine Volk") are just trend runners. Of course, being overweight is no reason to be proud of a fat body.
After years of vomiting in order to be slim, women are now encouraged to guzzle and swallow themselves healthy.
And why the heck there is no body positivity for men? Or do you see any posters with happy curly men?

The same applies to sustainability, diversity, etc. ... Things, which will vanish in 10 to 15 years and have no real inherent, long-lasting values, because they come from outside and not from the thinking of society itself.

cascoly · « **Reply #54 on:** February 02, 2024, 14:43 »

Quote from: Year of the Dog on February 02, 2024, 07:04

Quote from: cobalt on February 01, 2024, 22:21
I had a look at the mage page.

In the terms of service it says that everything created is public domain.

Not sure if that is ideal.

Everything created is public domain because AI can't be copyrighted. A machine is not a human mind.

not true - the basic law hasn't changed so images are copyrighted by their creators (humans using tools) and there are cases i n several jurisdictions pending - even there, a decision on one US circuit does not apply to others. and EU and th er countries may have differing standards.

AI gen is not a 'machine' but software , the same as PS or others. the mind doesn't creates ideas, but it takes a tool/machine whether pencil or camera or computer to create the expression of that idea which is automatically grantved copyright

Diana Herrmann · « **Reply #55 on:** February 02, 2024, 16:15 »

Quote from: cascoly on February 02, 2024, 14:43

Quote from: Year of the Dog on February 02, 2024, 07:04
Quote from: cobalt on February 01, 2024, 22:21
I had a look at the mage page.

In the terms of service it says that everything created is public domain.

Not sure if that is ideal.

Everything created is public domain because AI can't be copyrighted. A machine is not a human mind.

not true - the basic law hasn't changed so images are copyrighted by their creators (humans using tools) and there are cases i n several jurisdictions pending - even there, a decision on one US circuit does not apply to others. and EU and th er countries may have differing standards.

AI gen is not a 'machine' but software , the same as PS or others. the mind doesn't creates ideas, but it takes a tool/machine whether pencil or camera or computer to create the expression of that idea which is automatically grantved copyright

US copyright office disagrees with you, and contradicts itself, but China says they are protected. The EU doesn't know what they think. There's no unity to the union. When the supreme court decides we'll know.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #56 on:** February 02, 2024, 17:48 »

A new topic today:
Horse riding lessons for rich kids.

Took quite a while to find good seeds and settings because of the braids.
Here are some unretouched images with minor artifacts from the set:

https://ibb.co/MfzhXFk
https://ibb.co/RQzNsp0
https://ibb.co/2n6TMrp
https://ibb.co/F53jz67

In a few years, when diffusion models are even more advanced, hardly anyone will be shooting photos anymore.

I mean what an effort it would have been for such a set.
If you're not really experienced, I am sure over 90% of the shots would have been ruined by the sun backlight.
I have to admit, somehow it makes you feel like worthless crap with just prompting images.

korner83 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2024, 09:27 »

Read this thread about it:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/keywording-and-meta-data-gpt/

https://www.reddit.com/r/stockphotography/comments/17yd2ek/stock_photo_metadata_guru_gpt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

cascoly · « **Reply #58 on:** February 03, 2024, 14:13 »

Quote from: Diana Herrmann on February 02, 2024, 16:15

Quote from: cascoly on February 02, 2024, 14:43
Quote from: Year of the Dog on February 02, 2024, 07:04
Quote from: cobalt on February 01, 2024, 22:21
I had a look at the mage page.

In the terms of service it says that everything created is public domain.

Not sure if that is ideal.

Everything created is public domain because AI can't be copyrighted. A machine is not a human mind.

not true - the basic law hasn't changed so images are copyrighted by their creators (humans using tools) and there are cases i n several jurisdictions pending - even there, a decision on one US circuit does not apply to others. and EU and th er countries may have differing standards.

AI gen is not a 'machine' but software , the same as PS or others. the mind doesn't creates ideas, but it takes a tool/machine whether pencil or camera or computer to create the expression of that idea which is automatically grantved copyright

US copyright office disagrees with you, and contradicts itself, but China says they are protected. The EU doesn't know what they think. There's no unity to the union. When the supreme court decides we'll know.

true, but the copyright office is not he law, but offers its opinion on whether a partivcular work is covered. and only congress can change the udnerlying war. . the copyright office is currently conducting a review of the issue.

in an often cited case, they rejected a copyright when the owner oddly claimed the ai was the creator and he owned the copyright as a 'work for hire' - the office rejected these arguments, which is not the same as saying an artist cannot copyright a work they CREATED using a computer program.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/us-cross-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf

the core of the decision was the Office “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that
operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human
author.” and the applicant undermined his case by declaring the work was “created autonomously by machine.”. this judgment was different from declaring ai assisted works cannot be copywrote.

my emphasis shows the issue that remains to be directly litigated or legislated.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #59 on:** February 04, 2024, 12:05 »

Quote from: cascoly on February 03, 2024, 14:13

in an often cited case, they rejected a copyright when the owner oddly claimed the ai was the creator and he owned the copyright as a 'work for hire' - the office rejected these arguments, which is not the same as saying an artist cannot copyright a work they CREATED using a computer program.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/us-cross-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf

the core of the decision was the Office “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that
operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human
author.” and the applicant undermined his case by declaring the work was “created autonomously by machine.”. this judgment was different from declaring ai assisted works cannot be copywrote.

my emphasis shows the issue that remains to be directly litigated or legislated.

Yes, but you are biased towards one side of the decision and cherry-picking your defense.

https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/08/insights-technology-aiml-thaler-v-copyright-register-gen-ai

So I'll do the same:

When an AI “receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, … users do not exercise ultimate creative control” and the resulting work is not copyrightable

When a human selects, arranges, or modifies AI generated material in a sufficiently creative way, the work may be copyrightable

Yes, AI work can be copyrighted, if a human selects, arranges or modifies... Thaler could have said, he edited the output and then what?

Courts in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, have all held that only natural persons can be considered inventors.

Yes there is investigation and there will be more cases, but I don't think this is going to be as simple as, someone typed the prompt, so it's something that can be protected. Will AI chat text and articles be protected, because someone asked for the subject?

My best argument in favor of our work being protected would be, I generate the prompt, and there's an image, which, after that, I the human, edited and altered into a new work, which therefore means I can protect my human creation, based upon an AI, public domain image.

A “guiding human hand” is necessary for authorship, and I am that human.

cascoly · « **Reply #60 on:** February 04, 2024, 14:21 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 04, 2024, 12:05

Quote from: cascoly on February 03, 2024, 14:13

in an often cited case, they rejected a copyright when the owner oddly claimed the ai was the creator and he owned the copyright as a 'work for hire' - the office rejected these arguments, which is not the same as saying an artist cannot copyright a work they CREATED using a computer program.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/us-cross-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf

the core of the decision was the Office “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that
operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human
author.” and the applicant undermined his case by declaring the work was “created autonomously by machine.”. this judgment was different from declaring ai assisted works cannot be copywrote.

my emphasis shows the issue that remains to be directly litigated or legislated.

Yes, but you are biased towards one side of the decision and cherry-picking your defense.

When an AI “receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, … users do not exercise ultimate creative control” and the resulting work is not copyrightable

When a human selects, arranges, or modifies AI generated material in a sufficiently creative way, the work may be copyrightable

Yes, AI work can be copyrighted, if a human selects, arranges or modifies... Thaler could have said, he edited the output and then what?

yes, that's my biased opinion - your 'biased' is my ' intelligently informed opinion'

Quote

Courts in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, have all held that only natural persons can be considered inventors.

Yes there is investigation and there will be more cases, but I don't think this is going to be as simple as, someone typed the prompt, so it's something that can be protected. Will AI chat text and articles be protected, because someone asked for the subject?

My best argument in favor of our work being protected would be, I generate the prompt, and there's an image, which, after that, I the human, edited and altered into a new work, which therefore means I can protect my human creation, based upon an AI, public domain image.

A “guiding human hand” is necessary for authorship, and I am that human.

you keep agreeing with me! another point is that the court has no way to know what the creative process was & how creative the artist was - they can only look at the work. what's their opinion when the work alone is submitted with no indication it was ai generative?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #61 on:** February 05, 2024, 15:23 »

Quote from: cascoly on February 04, 2024, 14:21

yes, that's my biased opinion - your 'biased' is my ' intelligently informed opinion'

Thanks for understanding that I'm also intelligently informed and just came to a different biased conclusion.

Two very simple points, as the laws are now.
1) Only natural persons can be considered inventors
2) AI creations from scraping the web for training, are fair use.

For #1 copyright will be rejected, no matter how intricate the whole creation process may be, or whether it can be detected as AI or not. #2 the current laws defend the right of the AI companies to look at images and use that to create training.

For myself, on the other side, I still say, we added the captions, or some human did. (unless someone uses AI keywording) The text, description and keywords, included in the images, is our work and individual writing, which can't be used for training as fair use. That's my data and I own the right to that. The keywords are being illegally appropriated.

cascoly · « **Reply #62 on:** February 06, 2024, 14:34 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 05, 2024, 15:23

Quote from: cascoly on February 04, 2024, 14:21

yes, that's my biased opinion - your 'biased' is my ' intelligently informed opinion'

Thanks for understanding that I'm also intelligently informed and just came to a different biased conclusion.

Two very simple points, as the laws are now.
1) Only natural persons can be considered inventors
2) AI creations from scraping the web for training, are fair use.

For #1 copyright will be rejected, no matter how intricate the whole creation process may be, or whether it can be detected as AI or not. #2 the current laws defend the right of the AI companies to look at images and use that to create training.

For myself, on the other side, I still say, we added the captions, or some human did. (unless someone uses AI keywording) The text, description and keywords, included in the images, is our work and individual writing, which can't be used for training as fair use. That's my data and I own the right to that. The keywords are being illegally appropriated.

detail #1 - inventions can't be copyrighted but can be patented, so the question comes back to creation. i spent an afternoon earlier and my initial prompt didnt give what i asked for, but eventually used it to springboard & eventually ended up with 6 distinct series - it was not a simple prompt = final image; instead using a tool to refine whhat the tool gave me

individual keywords can be copyrighted,. and since the training only uses individual words, there's no violation.

the main claim for fair use is that by scraping billions of images, no individual image is copied. instead each image is broken down to tokens and there's no way to reverse the process to identify where a token came from

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #63 on:** February 07, 2024, 13:21 »

Quote from: cascoly on February 06, 2024, 14:34

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 05, 2024, 15:23
Quote from: cascoly on February 04, 2024, 14:21

yes, that's my biased opinion - your 'biased' is my ' intelligently informed opinion'

Thanks for understanding that I'm also intelligently informed and just came to a different biased conclusion.

Two very simple points, as the laws are now.
1) Only natural persons can be considered inventors
2) AI creations from scraping the web for training, are fair use.

For #1 copyright will be rejected, no matter how intricate the whole creation process may be, or whether it can be detected as AI or not. #2 the current laws defend the right of the AI companies to look at images and use that to create training.

For myself, on the other side, I still say, we added the captions, or some human did. (unless someone uses AI keywording) The text, description and keywords, included in the images, is our work and individual writing, which can't be used for training as fair use. That's my data and I own the right to that. The keywords are being illegally appropriated.

detail #1 - inventions can't be copyrighted but can be patented, so the question comes back to creation. i spent an afternoon earlier and my initial prompt didnt give what i asked for, but eventually used it to springboard & eventually ended up with 6 distinct series - it was not a simple prompt = final image; instead using a tool to refine whhat the tool gave me

individual keywords can be copyrighted,. and since the training only uses individual words, there's no violation.

the main claim for fair use is that by scraping billions of images, no individual image is copied. instead each image is broken down to tokens and there's no way to reverse the process to identify where a token came from

The word inventor applies to art, music and everything, in this context, not just "inventions". Think of it as creators or creations. I didn't write that, I quoted it. Natural persons excludes machines, monkeys, and everything else, except humans.

Yes, we can't copyright a single word or idea. But a set of words, like keywords are not the same as one word. You can't copyright a recipe, but you can copyright a book of recipes, as a collection. A set of words is not just a word, or no book could be protected, because it's just a bunch of words. My argument would be, that the description and keywords are ours and applied to a specific image. By scraping the images, they are just viewing them, but by using the associated words, that we created, to describe the image, there's something beyond fair use. (and yes I admit it's a stretch)

"each image is broken down to tokens and there's no way to reverse the process to identify where a token came from" Yes, and that's why we can't get credit for each new image. There is no one to one relationship from the original images to connect to the AI creations. Once trained the AI is on it's own.

I think Thaler intentionally went this way and more than once, has challenged, to cause a decision and bring Machine Learning into the court system as a test case. No one would try to register an art work as created by a machine, when they know the laws say, that can't be approved.

cascoly · « **Reply #64 on:** February 07, 2024, 17:32 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 07, 2024, 13:21

...
"each image is broken down to tokens and there's no way to reverse the process to identify where a token came from" Yes, and that's why we can't get credit for each new image. There is no one to one relationship from the original images to connect to the AI creations. Once trained the AI is on it's own.

I think Thaler intentionally went this way and more than once, has challenged, to cause a decision and bring Machine Learning into the court system as a test case. No one would try to register an art work as created by a machine, when they know the laws say, that can't be approved.

yes, that's the distinction most of the anti-ai faction fail to understand -- that scraping for training may have copyright violation implications., but is not relevant for the second component - making a new work

thaler's rejected case was provocative =- claiming the ai software was the creator.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/arts/design/copyright-ai-artwork.html

but that ruling goes against the copyright office (CO) view that ai gen is the creator and thus the human can't register a copyright. So thaler was actually helpful by getting a legal decision that rejects the CO claim. And if the AI is not the creator, then the human must be!

unfortunately, thalers case is mistakenly quoted to support the opposite of the ruling (by those who didn't read it, or misunderstood it or purposely choose to misconstrue it) -- claiming that his loss means AI work is not copyrightable when it actually means the opposite

the other point they ignore by claiming that the CO ruling means AI gen work is public domain is that a work is still copyrighted, by law, on creation. the overwhelming number of copyrights never go to the CO but are never 'public domain' and that can only be changed by congress changing the law.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #65 on:** February 08, 2024, 11:56 »

No I don't pay for the NY Times, sorry. But yes, all of the points are going to be decided in the future and should be interesting.

Oh good, I found a free version: https://artdaily.cc/news/161538/As-fight-over-AI-artwork-unfolds--judge-rejects-copyright-claim

Quote from: cascoly on February 07, 2024, 17:32

thaler's rejected case was provocative =- claiming the ai software was the creator.

Someone had to start the ball rolling. With no case law, there wouldn't be any review or appeals and it would probably just go down as, USCO says so. Because that's the way they interpret the laws. There needs to be a challenge to create change.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Anybody using ChatGPT for microstock? (Read 5740 times)

Andrej.S.

Year of the Dog

SuperPhoto

Andrej.S.

cascoly

Diana Herrmann

Andrej.S.

korner83

cascoly

Uncle Pete

cascoly

Uncle Pete

cascoly

Uncle Pete

cascoly

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors