7 ms·

This company may get sued out of existence thanks to Getty Images. I think those advocating for responsible AI should root for Getty in their lawsuit. https://

This company may get sued out of existence thanks to Getty Images. I think those advocating for responsible AI should root for Getty in their lawsuit. https://www.reuters.com/legal/getty-images-lawsuit-says-stability-ai-misused-photos-train-ai-2023-02-06/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/getty-images-lawsuit-says-stab...

jrflowers 3y ago
This is a good point. “Responsible AI” in practice means “Closed boxes created and rented out by Sam Altman’s companies” Not “Semi-open boxes created by Some Other Guys that people can use on their own hardware” and we should be glad that the big stock photo site can afford expensive lawyers to codify this natural truth into law.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  Why shouldn’t I be allowed to use these models on my own hardware for personal use and experimentation?
  - mvandermeulen 3y ago
    I think the parent commenter is being appropriately facetious…
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    According to many op eds that I have read, we should not even consider running models without paying Mr. Altman because there is a mean guy that works on the other models
astrange 3y ago
I think you should not because I would like Google Image Search to remain legal.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Google Image Search reads images in order to index and create thumbnails. And similar to Google Search clearly falls within the fair use doctrine. Stable Diffusion and other AI models however create unauthorised derivative works.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Stable Diffusion and other AI models however create unauthorised derivative works. This is a conclusion of law for which neither relevant facts nor legal analysis reaching the conclusion from the facts is presented. Its not even clear what the alleged “unauthorized derivative works” would be; it clearly can’t be images created by the model through prompting alone, since the copyright office determination that they lack the requisite human creativity to be works within the scope of copyright law necessarily means they cannot be derivative works.
  - reissbaker 3y ago
    Can you point to where in the Copyright Law of 1976 (which was the codification of the fair use doctrine) it states that an AI creating new images after being exposed to copyrighted images during training means the new images are "unauthorized derivative works" even if they do not resemble the original copyrighted image? (Let me remind you that what the act states is that fair use explicitly applies to, but is not limited to: "criticism, news reporting, teaching [emphasis mine], scholarship, or research purposes.") Or perhaps you can point to settled case law on the subject?
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    I create images in my head all the time after looking at art. Am I creating unauthorized derivative works?
    - lolc 3y ago
      Yes. You shouldn't distribute your mind!
  - astrange 3y ago
LordShredda 3y ago
Stable Diffusion might suck but getty is infinitely much more worse since theyre basically rent seeking
- lolc 3y ago
  Getty is rent privateering.
caslon 3y ago
Getty will send you a threatening letter demanding payment if you use a public domain image. They were previously sued by someone who received one of these letters for their own photograph. It is worth taking a long and hard look at whether Getty is who you want by your side.
dylan604 3y ago
Talking about picking the lesser of two evils if I've ever heard of an example. It's like watching ManU and Everton play against each other. You just want both teams to lose.
bradley13 3y ago
Never root for Getty. What an evil company. Many years ago, we licensed some pics from a small studio. Getty bought them. Claimed the pics were unlicensed (they apparently didn't keep the records of the studio), refused to believe our receipts, and threatened to sue us. Our lawyer said that the costs of defense would exceed the amount they wanted, so we should just pay. Turns out we were an early victim in a major campaign throughout Europe. They never took anyone to court - just blackmailed a lot of little companies for what they could get. Evil.

jrflowers 3y ago

This is a good point. “Responsible AI” in practice means “Closed boxes created and rented out by Sam Altman’s companies” Not “Semi-open boxes created by Some Other Guys that people can use on their own hardware” and we should be glad that the big stock photo site can afford expensive lawyers to codify this natural truth into law.

throwaway5959 3y ago
Why shouldn’t I be allowed to use these models on my own hardware for personal use and experimentation?
- mvandermeulen 3y ago
  I think the parent commenter is being appropriately facetious…
- jrflowers 3y ago
  According to many op eds that I have read, we should not even consider running models without paying Mr. Altman because there is a mean guy that works on the other models

astrange 3y ago

I think you should not because I would like Google Image Search to remain legal.

threeseed 3y ago
Google Image Search reads images in order to index and create thumbnails. And similar to Google Search clearly falls within the fair use doctrine. Stable Diffusion and other AI models however create unauthorised derivative works.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Stable Diffusion and other AI models however create unauthorised derivative works. This is a conclusion of law for which neither relevant facts nor legal analysis reaching the conclusion from the facts is presented. Its not even clear what the alleged “unauthorized derivative works” would be; it clearly can’t be images created by the model through prompting alone, since the copyright office determination that they lack the requisite human creativity to be works within the scope of copyright law necessarily means they cannot be derivative works.
- reissbaker 3y ago
  Can you point to where in the Copyright Law of 1976 (which was the codification of the fair use doctrine) it states that an AI creating new images after being exposed to copyrighted images during training means the new images are "unauthorized derivative works" even if they do not resemble the original copyrighted image? (Let me remind you that what the act states is that fair use explicitly applies to, but is not limited to: "criticism, news reporting, teaching [emphasis mine], scholarship, or research purposes.") Or perhaps you can point to settled case law on the subject?
- qingcharles 3y ago
  I create images in my head all the time after looking at art. Am I creating unauthorized derivative works?
  - lolc 3y ago
    Yes. You shouldn't distribute your mind!
- astrange 3y ago

LordShredda 3y ago

Stable Diffusion might suck but getty is infinitely much more worse since theyre basically rent seeking

lolc 3y ago
Getty is rent privateering.

caslon 3y ago

Getty will send you a threatening letter demanding payment if you use a public domain image. They were previously sued by someone who received one of these letters for their own photograph. It is worth taking a long and hard look at whether Getty is who you want by your side.

dylan604 3y ago

Talking about picking the lesser of two evils if I've ever heard of an example. It's like watching ManU and Everton play against each other. You just want both teams to lose.

bradley13 3y ago

Never root for Getty. What an evil company. Many years ago, we licensed some pics from a small studio. Getty bought them. Claimed the pics were unlicensed (they apparently didn't keep the records of the studio), refused to believe our receipts, and threatened to sue us. Our lawyer said that the costs of defense would exceed the amount they wanted, so we should just pay. Turns out we were an early victim in a major campaign throughout Europe. They never took anyone to court - just blackmailed a lot of little companies for what they could get. Evil.