Here is an article I found with some other artists involved.
https://www.creativebloq.com/news/adobe-copyright-ai
Apparently Adobe is aware of this.

That is just wrong. I am surprised Adobe does not have a warning system for famous artists names.

Is this not easy to implement?

Then people would just not mention the artist name in the title - They'd still use it for promting. Same difference.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on August 19, 2023, 00:46

Then people would just not mention the artist name in the title - They'd still use it for promting. Same difference.

Exactly, they will acknowledge that it�s wrong to use those names in titles and tags but won�t acknowledge that is wrong to copy all those artists.

And you think that human illustrators or photographers do not copy other artists?

And you think that human illustrators or photographers do not copy other artists?

I think that by now this has been chewed over a million times and it would be impossible to convince you of anything, maybe if you were one of those artists it would have been different.

"A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

Howell is the judge in the case.

"The question presented in the suit was whether a work generated solely by a computer falls under the protection of copyright law.

�In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No,� Howell wrote.

U.S. copyright law, she underscored, �protects only works of human creation� and is �designed to adapt with the times.� There�s been a consistent understanding that human creativity is �at the core of copyrightability, even as that human creativity is channeled through new tools or into new media,� the ruling stated.

While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a �mental conception� of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.

�Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright,� Howell wrote."

https://mashable.com/article/ai-art-copyright-debate
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/19/23838458/ai-generated-art-no-copyright-district-court

"Nobody really knows how things will shake out around US copyright law and artificial intelligence, but the court cases have been piling up. Sarah Silverman and two other authors filed suit against OpenAI and Meta earlier this year over their models� data scraping practices, for instance, while another lawsuit by programmer and lawyer Matthew Butterick alleges that data scraping by Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI amounted to software piracy."

further muddies rather than clarifying the problem

first, this is a different case than the general question of whether ai gen copyright is held by its creator.  in this case the plaintiff specifically claimed there was no human involvement In 2018, he listed an AI system, the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was described as �autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.�  but then confused the issue further by claiming he owned the copyright since it was a work-for-hire (was the computer paid in megawatts?)

interesting decision, but seems to be yet another decision by someone who doesn't understand the technology

While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a �mental conception� of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.

What if the AI is only the starting point and the artist does substantial work on the image?


so the millions of cell phone pix shouldnt have copyrighted since all the user does is click a button with less decision making than a well-designed prompt?   

the judge then weakened h er case "The judge also explored the purpose of copyright law, which she said is to encourage �human individuals to engage in� creation. Copyrights and patents, she said, were conceived as �forms of property that the government was established to protect, and it was understood that recognizing exclusive rights in that property would further the public good by incentivizing individuals to create and invent.�  since  the use of ai as another tool with input & modification by the artist is a way to 'incentivize...'

more from the article "in March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren�t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human �selected or arranged� it in a �sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,�   so this becomes a subjective question of which images can be copyrighted.

finally, the last paragraph is irrelevant to this decision as it concerns the entirely separate, important and serious, question of creating the dataset, not the creation of images from it.

A separate issue will be how they can determine if an image was created by an AI?  already AI illustrations can be difficult to separate from human creation, and the quality will only improve.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/22/23841822/google-youtube-ai-copyright-umg-scraping-universal

This article is primarily covering the use of AI generated sound-alikes in YouTube videos, but does talk more broadly about the issues (and lack of transparency) in scraping data for AI training.

It also talks about web traffic, search and what content creators can do to deal with wholesale scraping of their work. Interesting (if depressing) read

In a German article about what can artists do to protect themselves from ai, they mentioned �glaze�, a software that slightly changes your images and males them a lottle soft or fuzzy but renders them unusable for ai.

https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/

This is maybe something agencies could use to prevent the data scraping of our work without proper licensing of data sets.

And that we might use on our own websites.

Will try to learn more about this.

https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-use-glaze-protect-art-from-ai/

I wasn't planning to use it to treat my stock images.

I think agencies should use this treatment on the preview images. In addition to a watermark. Also for the small preview downloads that are sometimes without watermarks.

It will not help the older images that have already been scraped, but it could help with all new content going forward.

If the ai companies realise simply scraping the agencies then trying to remove the watermarks doesn't give them content usable for ai training...they will be forced to license content properly.

At least that is the idea.

"Glazing" should become a standard treatment for everything you put on the web. In addition to the watermarks.

eta

If this really works, then protecting images from ai abuse will be much easier than protecting written content.

The ai companies needs foremost our content for training because we have correct descriptions.

You can read more on the page of the team working and developing glaze.

I am not a computer person, I really couldn't explain or understand it.

https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/what-is-glaze.html

Also I am sure this is a work in progress, perhaps there are many more universities or companies working on something similar.

How much risk does a contributor actually face when uploading generative AI content?

I recently uploaded some AI images (nothing special, more to test if they would be accepted), but not before I had read the terms of the respective AI generators to see if I could use the content for commercial purposes. Furthermore, I adhered to all the guidelines that Adobe Stock imposes on gen-AI content. However, I did use generators that are currently being addressed by Getty Images and are not from one of the "ethical" generators (such as Firefly presents itself, aside from the fact that you can't use it for commercial purposes due to its beta status anyway). So, I tried to "play by the rules" as far as they are currently clear and thus attempted to limit my risks. But how do you view this? Aside from the question of whether you are in favor of or against AI content for stock purposes.

Thank you for your response. Because I don't feel very comfortable with it, I have removed the AI content from the review phase on Adobe Stock and deleted the already accepted images on Dreamstime. I'd rather wait and see how this discussion develops and, in the meantime, I'll just use the AI generators for personal inspiration for real photos.

You can check if a file was created using gen ai tools in this link.

https://verify.contentauthenticity.org/inspect

All I see in the description is that they use "history and identity data attached to images". If there is nothing attached, they can't check anything. I just tried with both one of my real photos (that actually had Exif and metadata attached!) and then with an AI image. Results for both images: "No results found".

So much about that....


I doubt there will ever be a relyable tool for detecting AI. Open Source had developed a tool to detect AI text. They abandoned the project 1 or 2 months ago, because it only had a sucess rate of like 40%. That's worse than guessing.

Dall-e3 will allow artists to opt out

https://openai.com/dall-e-3