https://investors.gettyimages.com/news-releases/news-release-details/getty-images-launches-commercially-safe-generative-ai-offering
https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about

"Customers creating and downloading visuals through the tool will receive Getty Images� standard royalty-free license, which includes representations and warranties, uncapped indemnification, and the right to perpetual, worldwide, nonexclusive use in all media. Content generated through the tool will not be added into existing Getty Images and iStock content libraries for others to license. Further, contributors will be compensated for any inclusion of their content in the training set."

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23884679/getty-ai-generative-image-platform-launch

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/09/getty-images-subscribers-to-get-access-to-ai-image-generator/

https://gizmodo.com/getty-new-art-generator-trained-on-contributors-1850866540

"On an annual recurring basis, we will share in the revenues generated from the Getty Images AI Generator with contributors whose content was used to train the AI Generator, allocating both a pro rata share in respect of every file and allocating a share based on traditional licensing revenue. The first payment is expected to be in late 2024 for the year October 2023-September 2024.

We expect this to represent a new revenue stream for contributors that is additive to the licensing benefits you already enjoy with Getty Images."

From the FAQ:

"What are Getty Images� rights to use my/contributor content for AI training?
Our contributor agreements enable Getty Images to license your content in a broad range of uses, existing or emerging, including training data for AI and machine learning uses."

https://apnews.com/article/getty-images-artificial-intelligence-ai-image-generator-stable-diffusion-a98eeaaeb2bf13c5e8874ceb6a8ce196

The Verge article talks about the quality of the results - they got to try it out - and their screen shot looks miles better than Shutterstock's DALL-E 2 equivalent, at least based on what shows up in the generative AI collection on SS.

"I got a hands-on look at Generative AI by Getty Images and got to play around with the tool for a bit. I mainly wanted to see how it generates photos, rather than illustrations, to test out how close to an actual Getty-watermarked picture it can get. And the photos look better than expected. Stock photos already have an artificial, soulless quality to them, and I was not surprised that some of the first few images the tool generated also felt... devoid of feeling. ...

Getty�s tool did well at rendering realistic-feeling human figures. I prompted it to create a photo of a ballerina in an arabesque position (standing on one leg with the other lifted behind) on a stage with a slightly blurred background. The photos I got felt more human than when I tried the same prompt with Stable Diffusion, and the Getty image fooled my friends when I texted it to them. It's clear Getty�s model trained not just on illustrated art but on actual photos. "

https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-launches-an-ai-powered-image-generator/
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-ai-creation-tool
https://fortune.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-launches-ai-image-generator-1-8-trillion-lawsuit/

"The difference, said Getty Images CEO Craig Peters, is this new service is �commercially viable� for business clients and �wasn�t trained on the open internet with stolen imagery.�
He contrasted that with some of the first movers in AI-generated imagery, such as OpenAI�s DALL-E, Midjourney and Stability AI, maker of Stable Diffusion.
�We have issues with those services, how they were built, what they were built upon, how they respect creator rights or not, and how they actually feed into deepfakes and other things like that,� Peters said in an interview."

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-makes-u-turn-as-it-launches-its-own-ai-image-generator/
(emphasis mine) - I like that way of putting the difference between generative AI and photographs
"However, Getty Images will not allow the material made on its new generative AI tool into its content libraries which will be reserved for �real people doing real things in real places.� "

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/getty-images-working-with-nvidia-to-debut-its-own-ai-image-generator-123092501302_1.html
https://www.engadget.com/getty-is-going-to-offer-ai-generated-images-after-all-140138829.html
https://www.zdnet.com/article/can-microsoft-recover-from-the-collapse-of-its-surface-business/

Edited Sep 26 to add a few more links to press coverage of this announcement

https://decrypt.co/198660/getty-images-launches-safe-generative-ai-image-tool

From the context, "user-generated" is referring to Getty's customers for their AI tool, not contributors to their "pre-shot" collection

"Getty Images says user-generated images and prompts will train its AI models. Still, as Peters explained, user-generated images will not be uploaded to the Getty Images website or licensed by the company.

�So what you generate and the corresponding outputs are yours to decide whether you want to use or not, but we are not bringing those images back into what we call our pre-shot catalog,� Peters said. �And we don't accept AI-generated images into our pre-shot catalog because we don't know the provenance of what it was created with.� "

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/25/1080231/getty-images-promises-its-new-ai-doesnt-contain-copyrighted-art/

"Tech companies claim that AI models are complex and can�t be built without copyrighted content and point out that artists can opt out of AI models, but Peters calls those arguments �crap.�

�I think there are some really sincere people that are actually being thoughtful about this,� he says. �But I also think there�s some hooligans that just want to go for that gold rush.� "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johanmoreno/2023/09/25/getty-images-debuts-generative-ai-solution-for-copyright-safe-image-generation/

https://digiday.com/media/getty-images-gets-into-the-generative-ai-race-with-its-own-image-platform/

"�There�s technology for technology�s sake, there�s break things and move fast and ignore other people�s rights � and this doesn�t do [any of] that,� Getty Images CEO Craig Peters told Digiday. �It presents a real meaningful, high-quality solution to customers, which is what they�ve been asking for.�

Similar to competitors like Shutterstock and Adobe, Getty Images offers full indemnification for commercial use of AI-generated images. However, unlike some others, Getty�s AI model is trained on only its own licensed content � a selling point for anyone worried about the range of copyright concerns that plague some other AI platforms.

Customers want to embrace generative AI without having to �absorb a massive amount of IP risk in doing that,� Peters said. He added that the plan isn�t to replace human contributors, but rather to �index on creativity� with �another tool in the creator�s toolbox.�"

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/getty-releases-ai-image-maker-trained-on-own-data-1234680408/
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/09/25/getty-images-generative-ai-platform-music-speculation/

"The concept of unleashing machine learning on a controlled copyright collection is interesting � with a very similar concept rumbling in the music industry. That music-focused model is expected to debut within several weeks, with DMN prepping the story now (stay tuned)."

  sorry but I really have to say:"I told you,they are hypocrites!"
I said it just two days ago!

Edit:"contributors will be compensated for any inclusion of their content in the training set"

Here's another prediction I'll make,but you probably already know this:
the compensation model adopted by Getty Istock will be significantly lower than Adobe,probably even lower than Shutterstock.

Then it seems that they already used their library to train their AI,has anyone received any bonuses?

Getty Istock the hopeless hypocrites!

sorry but I really have to say:"I told you,they are hypocrites!"
I said it just two days ago!

Edit:"contributors will be compensated for any inclusion of their content in the training set"

Here's another prediction I'll make,but you probably already know this:
the compensation model adopted by Getty Istock will be significantly lower than Adobe,probably even lower than Shutterstock.

Then it seems that they already used their library to train their AI,has anyone received any bonuses?

Getty Istock the hopeless hypocrites!

Unlike Adobe, Getty will pay authors for life for sales of generated content.

Quote

Unlike Adobe, Getty will pay authors for life for sales of generated content.

With 0.000000000000001$.....

 

Getty does not write such figures. How much money will be depends on the sales that will happen in the future. But Adobe is not going to pay authors anything from sales at all. Adobe will pay $0.

If generative content is the future, it is better to remove the portfolio from Adobe and not upload anything to Adobe. Getty offers better and fairer payment terms.

Getty does not write such figures. How much money will be depends on the sales that will happen in the future. But Adobe is not going to pay authors anything from sales at all. Adobe will pay $0.

If generative content is the future, it is better to remove the portfolio from Adobe and not upload anything to Adobe. Getty offers better and fairer payment terms.

Ok.. 0.02$..
But we cannot know how much we will receive. And if we get $0.02 now... something tells me the amount for using our pictures for AI will be less than $0.02.

Maybe I'm wrong, but either way, I've lost interest in sending pictures to such agencies...

Quote from: Sebastian Radu on September 26, 2023, 02:58

Quote

Unlike Adobe, Getty will pay authors for life for sales of generated content.

With 0.000000000000001$.....

 

Getty does not write such figures. How much money will be depends on the sales that will happen in the future. But Adobe is not going to pay authors anything from sales at all. Adobe will pay $0.

If generative content is the future, it is better to remove the portfolio from Adobe and not upload anything to Adobe. Getty offers better and fairer payment terms.

Mat wrote this:"We plan to base potential subsequent bonuses on new approved images and licenses they generate annually".

So as you can see Adobe will continue to issue the bonus every year.

I don't know how you can think that Getty,which offers a paltry 15% as non-exclusive,and which increases the minimum requirements for royalty percentages every year for exclusive,could ever pay you more than Adobe which pays 33% from the first sale.

Getty Istock also gives away your entire portfolio for nothing every year with connect sales....I must continue?

you confuse wool with silk,Adobe Stock is the most fair agency,best in every way,and there is no doubt about this.

Mat wrote this:"We plan to base potential subsequent bonuses on new approved images and licenses they generate annually".

So as you can see Adobe will continue to issue the bonus every year.

It is not clear what bonuses Mat wrote about. Adobe paid only once this year and paid for the use of the authors� photos to train its artificial intelligence program.
As I understand it, Adobe will continue to use new photos of authors to train its program. This is the only thing Adobe plans to pay authors for. I haven't read anywhere that Adobe plans to share revenue with authors from the sale of customer-generated images in the adobe program..

[deleted]

"The biggest issue with AI is permission. If it is not obtained or if it has been implied to be obtained through coercion or other nefarious ways, it is even legal, let alone ethical? "

Fully agree with that. A truly ethical ai would be trained with an opt in only, in addition to old art that is out of copyright.

But the technology will not go away, no matter how much backward dreaming you apply.

It is like the internet, it is here forever.

And the opt in training problem applies to everything - training of writing for chatgpt, voice actors who have their voices stolen, music ripped, software taken etc..

Engineering, patents, science...how do you train the ai...is the main issue for everything.

But as you can see with the french proposal..governments are first thinking about how to tax it all...

It is the biggest change in everything for humanity ever.

eta

And of course now that ai tools are available in the new photoshop all those moaning how horrible ai is are all happily using it while the souls of millions of tortured artists cry out in pain...

Who will stick to old Photoshop forever in support of artists??

Noone...

[deleted]

There is no point spending another second on this crap. The stock sites have always screwed contributors and this is the endgame. Even their 'perceived' ethics is as fake as their AI images. I'm walking away from this stupid game with my dignity intact. When there are laws that are in our favor and there are stock sites that are fair, just and respect people's work, I will only come back to it then (which will be never). I am not going to contribute to something that takes money from workers to line the pocket of lazy deceiving cunts.

Adios Muchachos

Eventually, in approximately two years, the client will enter the keywords they currently use in the search engine, and as a result, pages and pages of images automatically just created by AI will appear, just like it happens now with photos. However, this time, no contributor will receive anything; everything will stay in Getty's bank account. That's the plan. That's the future.

Exactly,so what are you still doing here?
Come on,everyone,go away so you don't compete with me anymore!

Everything has already been in Getty's bank account,so what's new? 

But how do these customers purchase content that cannot be generated by AI?

And who wants real content?Don�t assume that everyone wants content generated by AI,and then,once again,there is an infinite amount of content that can be made that AI just can't do for practical and legal reasons.

Quote from: ADH on September 26, 2023, 15:57

Eventually, in approximately two years, the client will enter the keywords they currently use in the search engine, and as a result, pages and pages of images automatically just created by AI will appear, just like it happens now with photos. However, this time, no contributor will receive anything; everything will stay in Getty's bank account. That's the plan. That's the future.

And who wants real content?Don�t assume that everyone wants content generated by AI,and then,once again,there is an infinite amount of content that can be made that AI just can't do for practical and legal reasons.

Many image buyers want newsworthy content and editorials. Those, for journalistic integrity reasons, will/should not be manipulated in any way by Ai.

Just because news can be made from Ai, doesn't mean it should. We'll have a mess in our hands if some end-users go down this path, which is only inevitable for complex ends.

Agencies must fight tooth and nail to protect "reality".

. double post sorry