MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Lowls on January 20, 2023, 11:45
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64285227.amp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64285227.amp)
-
Interesting. But SS is now paying contributors (in my case a whopping $40 per year) for inclusion in such datasets. Is that enough? I'd be surprised if the courts give an opinion on this. No one asked me, but I'd like a bit more please.
-
Interesting. But SS is now paying contributors (in my case a whopping $40 per year) for inclusion in such datasets. Is that enough? I'd be surprised if the courts give an opinion on this. No one asked me, but I'd like a bit more please.
given that hundreds of millions of images were used, that amount's not unreasonable - and it confirms what many of us having been saying in response to those who think they'll get a windfall for being in a training set - t's a minuscule amount. there are better battles to fight
-
Interesting. But SS is now paying contributors (in my case a whopping $40 per year) for inclusion in such datasets. Is that enough? I'd be surprised if the courts give an opinion on this. No one asked me, but I'd like a bit more please.
given that hundreds of millions of images were used, that amount's not unreasonable - and it confirms what many of us having been saying in response to those who think they'll get a windfall for being in a training set - t's a minuscule amount. there are better battles to fight
With that argument downloading millions of images that don't belong to you and making a portfolio for yourself would be OK.
That's not how copywrite works. SS used the images and still are without permission. You can't opt out unless you delete your portfolio. So as long as I throw a few pennies in an artists hat I can use their work to make money for myself?
-
Shutterstock announces it will be expanding its relationship with facebook/meta to expand its A.I. and its been going on anyway since 2021??? And my money is where.
"On the other hand, just a few days ago, Shutterstock announced it was expanding its relationship with Meta to “use its datasets to develop, train and evaluate its machine learning capabilities.” This followed the company’s announcement in October that it was partnering with OpenAI to integrate DALL-E 2 into its offerings, with plans to offer compensation to artists — and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman revealed that the firm licensed imagery from Shutterstock to train DALL-E beginning in 2021."
Source- https://www.google.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/ai/why-are-getty-and-shutterstock-on-opposite-sides-of-the-ai-legal-debate/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/ai/why-are-getty-and-shutterstock-on-opposite-sides-of-the-ai-legal-debate/amp/)
-
Interesting. But SS is now paying contributors (in my case a whopping $40 per year) for inclusion in such datasets. Is that enough? I'd be surprised if the courts give an opinion on this. No one asked me, but I'd like a bit more please.
given that hundreds of millions of images were used, that amount's not unreasonable - and it confirms what many of us having been saying in response to those who think they'll get a windfall for being in a training set - t's a minuscule amount. there are better battles to fight
With that argument downloading millions of images that don't belong to you and making a portfolio for yourself would be OK.
That's not how copywrite works. SS used the images and still are without permission. You can't opt out unless you delete your portfolio. So as long as I throw a few pennies in an artists hat I can use their work to make money for myself?
nope - you're specifically forbidden by SS license terms to make someone else's work into a compilation.
2nd nope - you gave permissionto SS - RYFM the TOS