Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.

Adobe Stock Begins Selling AI-Generated Artwork

posted by hubie on Saturday December 10 2022, @03:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the artificial-artificial-intelligence dept.

Freeman writes:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/12/adobe-stock-begins-selling-ai-generated-artwork/

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Adobe Stock Begins Selling AI-Generated Artwork | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 15 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2022, @04:42PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2022, @04:42PM (#1282015)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 11 2022, @11:37PM (2 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 11 2022, @11:37PM (#1282063) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2022, @05:50AM (#1282250)
      Yeah you're right. The only possible scenario where the courts would award money would be Rogers vs Koons, there are no other cases and scenarios in between your example and mine where the courts would have awarded money. Therefore it's impossible for there to be any such issues when it's AI involved even though the AIs have "viewed" the works.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday December 15 2022, @08:57AM

        by sjames (2882) on Thursday December 15 2022, @08:57AM (#1282482) Journal

        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.