SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the artificial-artificial-intelligence dept.
On Monday, Adobe announced that its stock photography service, Adobe Stock, would begin allowing artists to submit AI-generated imagery for sale, Axios reports. The move comes during Adobe's embrace of image synthesis and also during industry-wide efforts to deal with the rapidly growing field of AI artwork in the stock art business, including earlier announcements from Shutterstock and Getty Images.
Submitting AI-generated imagery to Adobe Stock comes with a few restrictions. The artist must own (or have the rights to use) the image, AI-synthesized artwork must be submitted as an illustration (even if photorealistic), and it must be labeled with "Generative AI" in the title.
Further, each AI artwork must adhere to Adobe's new Generative AI Content Guidelines, which require the artist to include a model release for any real person depicted realistically in the artwork. Artworks that incorporate illustrations of people or fictional brands, characters, or properties require a property release that attests the artist owns all necessary rights to license the content to Adobe Stock.
[...]
AI-generated artwork has proven ethically problematic among artists. Some criticized the ability of image synthesis models to reproduce artwork in the styles of living artists, especially since the AI models gained that ability from unauthorized scrapes of websites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2022, @06:49AM (10 children)
Especially if they are trying to profit from this.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday December 10 2022, @08:37AM (9 children)
It's highly questionable that any sort of license would even be needed other than permission to view. AI image generators train a neural net on many images (with descriptive text encoded in the inputs) in order to do what they do. They do not 'sample' like in some forms of music. The generated images contain no pixels from the training set. If I don't need a licence beyond a license to view (implied if it's on the web) a bunch of images to train myself to paint/draw/photograph better, why would the AI?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2022, @09:34AM (8 children)
People have been successfully sued for derivative works.
Those people didn't need a license to view copyrighted work but they sure needed to pay to produce derivative works.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday December 10 2022, @04:04PM (1 child)
>they sure needed pay to produce derivative works.
Why?
Such a requirement just gums up the works. When did you have in mind that payment should be made? Likely, you thought of it as a "sale", to be paid at the point of sale? If so, it puts a lot of risk and burden on the buyers. They don't know if their expenses will ever be recovered. If there is to be any payment at all, maybe it should be a cut of the profits, if any of those are made?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2022, @04:44PM
I used past tense for a reason. Go ask the judges why or read the judgement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2022, @05:01PM
Fonts are a bit weird when it comes to copyright. As usual, rules vary between countries. In the US, the actual appearance of a typeface is not eligible for copyright protection so in the US such images will not be any problem at all.
What is copyrightable are the font files since Type 1, TrueType, etc. font files are actually computer programs (and software is subject to copyright). But once text is rasterized/printed/whatever, the resulting images are not.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 11 2022, @01:25AM (4 children)
What if it does? As long as they're not copies. Are you saying there can be one and only one painting of a cowboy riding an ostrich in the entire world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2022, @04:42PM (3 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 11 2022, @11:37PM (2 children)
That's not quite the same issue. Koons made an actual intentional copy of Rogers' specific photo. Had he just taken a different picture of a man and woman holding puppies, there wouldn't have been an issue. Had the sculpture been meant as a parody of that picture in particular, his parody defense would have held up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2022, @05:50AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday December 15 2022, @08:57AM
So I guess you're all out of ammo? If you can site something that might show there can be only one picture of a cowboy riding an ostrich in the whole wide world, please present it. If you can present something where there was an award for something not a deliberate copy of the original work, please do present it.