6 ms·

> By using the Services, you grant to VectorArt.ai, its successors, and assigns a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable, no-charge, royalty-free, i

by mkreis 3y ago

> By using the Services, you grant to VectorArt.ai, its successors, and assigns a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and/or distribute text prompts and images you input into the Services, or Assets produced by the Service at your direction. -> even to images I upload? This is a no go. As a paid subscriber, I would expect to a) not automatically give a license for everything I UPLOAD B) not automatically give a license for content I created myself

leptons 3y ago
Yet this is essentially the same kind of license Facebook has when you upload any image to Facebook. And billions of people still upload content to them every day.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
  Key difference that you don't have to pay a monthly subscription to use FB
jahewson 3y ago
Yeah this is excessive in the extreme. Wave goodbye to your copyright if you upload images to this service. The other thing is that they want you to pay to use the generated images commercially - but (as far as we know) purely AI generated images are not subject to copyright, so such licensing restrictions can’t exist.
- alexchamberlain 3y ago
  > purely AI generated images are not subject to copyright, so such licensing restrictions can’t exist. This doesn't feel right, similar to how it doesn't feel right that the companies are hoovering up copyrighted data. The company has invested in creating a cool product here, and it's reasonable for them to be able to license that work when used commercially.
  - free_bip 3y ago
    They created a product and they definitely have copyright over that product. However, what the product is creating, the output, is an AI generated Image... Which because it wasn't human authored, is automatically put into the public domain the moment it's created. The product is copyrighted, the output is not.
    - tensor 3y ago
      I really don't think this has been legally established, especially not in the case that AI is being used in conjunction with a copyright base image that it uses as a scaffold. It's incredibly hard to see the result as anything but a derived work of the original and being copyright by the author of the original in a similar way to applying a digital filter would. The courts will sort out the boundaries of copyright here, but I'll eat my shorts if it's as extreme as the "all things that come out of AI are public domain" crowd thinks.
      - swatcoder 3y ago
        The gist of guidance from the US Copyright Office is that it's relative to what was put in. If your input was a six word prompt of everyday langhage and the widely available magic box decompressed that into a cool picture, nobody produced anything copyrightable. And most of us wouldn't want that to be different. You'd just have squatters racing to claim copyright over every Midjourney prompt they can generate. But if someone put what's clearly a demonstrably significant amount of commercial direction or artisanal effort into producing a original work while using generative tools, that direction/effort is what earns your copyright. The same would likely apply when using the tech to further "work" some already-copyrighted material of your own. You're right that most of this stuff hasn't been tested by the courts when the tools are called "AI", but many of the underlying questions have decades and decades of precedent behind them (music sampling, collage and assemblage in visual art, monkeys taking snapshots, etc). Regulators do and lawyers will be making their cases about AI copyright in reference to those earlier, analogous, cases.
      - jahewson 3y ago
- 4death4 3y ago
  The images themselves may not be subject to copyright, but you can still enter into a contract that says you won’t use generated images without paying for them.
  - jahewson 3y ago
    You can’t because copyright law supersedes contract law and copyright law states that such rights are exclusive - thus contract law cannot be used to usurp or invent a copying restriction. Licensing is the exclusive right of the copyright owner and when no copyright exists there can be no license (or de facto equivalent).
    - 4death4 3y ago
      It’s not a copyright restriction. It’s a restriction on using the service.
      - jahewson 3y ago
        It’s not though, it’s a restriction on using the material produced by the service. Any contract terms regarding such are superseded by copyright law - the only rights belonging to the owner are those granted by copyright law and the only restrictions that may be placed are those that copyright law permits.
        4death4 3y ago
        No, the rights are not superseded by copyright law. Why do you think that? Your agreement with the service provider is just like any other contractual agreement. Should you use one of the generated images (that you generated and used outside the terms of your agreement), you would not be sued for copyright infringement. You would be sued for breach of contract. What you're saying is akin to signing an NDA, violating it, and then saying your First Amendment right supersedes the NDA. It doesn't.
        jahewson 3y ago
tm11zz 3y ago
Thanks for surfacing this. I'll work to improve this to reflect reality - your prompts and images are private and owned by you.
- graypegg 3y ago
  Reality is whatever is in your terms of use agreement. Who wrote it?
  - waihtis 3y ago
    AI, of course
    - graypegg 3y ago
      Haha, I wonder if we’re ever going to see a litigation over a EULA, where the service provider is trying to nullify some duty based on the fact they used AI to write the agreement which swapped Provider and User in a sentence. Great era to be EULA hunting!
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        I'm sure it will happen. However, I'm also fairly confident that whoever is the first to try it will be ripped to shreds by the judge:)
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      Those AI lawyers play hardball
amluto 3y ago
How would VectorArt.ai even believe that their user has the rights to do so? If (for example) I upload some stock photo off the Internet, I absolutely do not have the right to grant such a license.
- colejohnson66 3y ago
  They don’t. It’s a CYA in case they’re sued. If/when that happens, they can point the finger at you the uploader.

by mkreis 3y ago

leptons 3y ago

Yet this is essentially the same kind of license Facebook has when you upload any image to Facebook. And billions of people still upload content to them every day.

8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
Key difference that you don't have to pay a monthly subscription to use FB

jahewson 3y ago

Yeah this is excessive in the extreme. Wave goodbye to your copyright if you upload images to this service. The other thing is that they want you to pay to use the generated images commercially - but (as far as we know) purely AI generated images are not subject to copyright, so such licensing restrictions can’t exist.

alexchamberlain 3y ago
> purely AI generated images are not subject to copyright, so such licensing restrictions can’t exist. This doesn't feel right, similar to how it doesn't feel right that the companies are hoovering up copyrighted data. The company has invested in creating a cool product here, and it's reasonable for them to be able to license that work when used commercially.
- free_bip 3y ago
  They created a product and they definitely have copyright over that product. However, what the product is creating, the output, is an AI generated Image... Which because it wasn't human authored, is automatically put into the public domain the moment it's created. The product is copyrighted, the output is not.
  - tensor 3y ago
    I really don't think this has been legally established, especially not in the case that AI is being used in conjunction with a copyright base image that it uses as a scaffold. It's incredibly hard to see the result as anything but a derived work of the original and being copyright by the author of the original in a similar way to applying a digital filter would. The courts will sort out the boundaries of copyright here, but I'll eat my shorts if it's as extreme as the "all things that come out of AI are public domain" crowd thinks.
    - swatcoder 3y ago
      The gist of guidance from the US Copyright Office is that it's relative to what was put in. If your input was a six word prompt of everyday langhage and the widely available magic box decompressed that into a cool picture, nobody produced anything copyrightable. And most of us wouldn't want that to be different. You'd just have squatters racing to claim copyright over every Midjourney prompt they can generate. But if someone put what's clearly a demonstrably significant amount of commercial direction or artisanal effort into producing a original work while using generative tools, that direction/effort is what earns your copyright. The same would likely apply when using the tech to further "work" some already-copyrighted material of your own. You're right that most of this stuff hasn't been tested by the courts when the tools are called "AI", but many of the underlying questions have decades and decades of precedent behind them (music sampling, collage and assemblage in visual art, monkeys taking snapshots, etc). Regulators do and lawyers will be making their cases about AI copyright in reference to those earlier, analogous, cases.
    - jahewson 3y ago
4death4 3y ago
The images themselves may not be subject to copyright, but you can still enter into a contract that says you won’t use generated images without paying for them.
- jahewson 3y ago
  You can’t because copyright law supersedes contract law and copyright law states that such rights are exclusive - thus contract law cannot be used to usurp or invent a copying restriction. Licensing is the exclusive right of the copyright owner and when no copyright exists there can be no license (or de facto equivalent).
  - 4death4 3y ago
    It’s not a copyright restriction. It’s a restriction on using the service.
    - jahewson 3y ago
      It’s not though, it’s a restriction on using the material produced by the service. Any contract terms regarding such are superseded by copyright law - the only rights belonging to the owner are those granted by copyright law and the only restrictions that may be placed are those that copyright law permits.
      - 4death4 3y ago
        No, the rights are not superseded by copyright law. Why do you think that? Your agreement with the service provider is just like any other contractual agreement. Should you use one of the generated images (that you generated and used outside the terms of your agreement), you would not be sued for copyright infringement. You would be sued for breach of contract. What you're saying is akin to signing an NDA, violating it, and then saying your First Amendment right supersedes the NDA. It doesn't.
        jahewson 3y ago

tm11zz 3y ago

Thanks for surfacing this. I'll work to improve this to reflect reality - your prompts and images are private and owned by you.

graypegg 3y ago
Reality is whatever is in your terms of use agreement. Who wrote it?
- waihtis 3y ago
  AI, of course
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Haha, I wonder if we’re ever going to see a litigation over a EULA, where the service provider is trying to nullify some duty based on the fact they used AI to write the agreement which swapped Provider and User in a sentence. Great era to be EULA hunting!
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      I'm sure it will happen. However, I'm also fairly confident that whoever is the first to try it will be ripped to shreds by the judge:)
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Those AI lawyers play hardball

amluto 3y ago

How would VectorArt.ai even believe that their user has the rights to do so? If (for example) I upload some stock photo off the Internet, I absolutely do not have the right to grant such a license.

colejohnson66 3y ago
They don’t. It’s a CYA in case they’re sued. If/when that happens, they can point the finger at you the uploader.