Known Participant

Resuelto

Which tools in Photoshop can we use without losing copyright to our images?

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
June 30, 2023
6 respuestas
7577 visualizaciones

Which photshop tools can we use and retain full rights to our images? which tools are machine learning and using pixels from my image ? which are AI and use pixels it generated?

If a tool is using pixels from my images to generate the requseted area ( when tidying up an edge or extending my back ground) as in content aware fill it is my work. If it uses the crop extend and fill still my work or not? is that content aware fill or AI at work? what about Gaussian blur, hue saturation etc ? Its clear AI when using stock to generate fill thats my creativiity but not my pixels so not my copyright? AI shared pixels my creativity? shared copyright? do i copyright the promt?

I would like to know if the tools I use in Photoshop are now taking my image and creating somthing I cant claim is my own? and which are giving me tools to retouch re-position edit and improve? Ive always thought of photoshop as a way to develop my photographs and improve them. Inow shoot knowing i will .. just whip that out in photshop etc.. Now I wonder is the new remove tool AI or Machine learning if i remove a person a tree a piece of the image i dont want ?? is it replaceing it with my pixels or is it deciding to use AI?

I need to know which tool is using which system so i can choose what to do when editing my photos and know there usage prior to completing the edit ? not what i do now now i make my photo the best it can be based on my mood and creativity on the day.... I sell if i want i keep it on disk if i want i dont have to con sider do i own it when some one asks to buy it I know. Im making hundreds of assests for a guitar teacher based on one or two origional photos... they have to be copyrighted. Do I have to do everything maualy to be sure? or stop using photo shop for a few months till is clear? Any body know the answer already?

Este tema ha sido cerrado para respuestas.

Mejor respuesta de Conrad_C

For the time being of course Adobe's AI generated images cannot be used for commercial use (that is in the terms of the beta) so until full release the point on AI generated elements is moot.
By @davescm

I think that is the guideline that you might be looking for, @DaBee: If you want to know which tools are going to be legally “commercial safe” then maybe the rule is to use only features that are in the public production release of Photoshop. Those are already in use by thousands of businesses. The features to avoid are the ones in the public beta, like Generative Fill, which are still labeled “not for commercial use.” It is easy to avoid those, because the public beta version is not what is normally installed…you have to intentionally go get it. If you use the normally available version, it should be no problem to use any of the features. Generative Fill is getting a massive amount of publicity, so people are talking about it as if everyone is using it, but Generative Fill is really only available for beta testing right now. Stick to the regular production release and you should have no problems with copyright, because of the ways Adobe sources the images it uses for machine learning (see next paragraph).

You are not alone in these concerns, and so there are much larger entities who need this question resolved just as much as you do: For Adobe to be a successful business, their customers, including large businesses and governments, need to be able to use Adobe tools without fear of legal problems with copyrights and such. To avoid copyright problems with their machine learning, Adobe says it does not use the kind of “no rules” training that scoops up any image on the Internet regardless of rights. Instead, they say they train machine learning in a way that’s “safe for commercial use” by using images they already have usage rights for, like Adobe Stock, or images where the copyrights already expired. Another example of “safe for commercial use” is this month’s announcement that Adobe will “offer financial indemnity for copyright challenges involving content made with the tools.” (Link goes to a Reuters news story) Although that is only available for large business customers, it does indicate how “safe” they think their machine learning will be. The story says:

"We financially are standing behind all of the content that is produced by Firefly for use either internally or externally by our customers," Ashley Still, senior vice president of digital media at Adobe, told Reuters.

It’s a good question though. I could only write that reply after doing some web searches on why we should think Adobe machine learning is OK to use. Before that, I was not aware of the indemnification announcement.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems like, assuming Adobe is doing this properly, if you create a work that you want to copyright, using a machine learning feature trained on a “commercially safe” image set, that should work as well as copyrighting a design where you used typefaces and legal stock art that other people created. But to be sure it will work under the laws of your country, it would be best to consult a copyright attorney.

T

timc34852236

Participating Frequently

Actually DaBee I've just spent the evening talking to a guy who works in IT, a senior programmer in a large company connected to Microsoft, and the conclusion is AI is VERY different from everyday software. It's machine learning that's both very exciting and very unknown even to people in the tech world. The fact that Adobe are absorbing it into their software should be a concern to photographer who wants to retain total control over their own creative work.

D

DaBeeAutor

Known Participant

here are a couple of links that might help there are a ton on line.

https://research.adobe.com/research/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/#:~:text=At%20Adobe%2C%20we%20use%20AI,%2C%20and%20generation%3B%20and%20more.

and this one from Dave up above https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/creative-cloud/help/content-credentials.html

LATEST

You might want to read this:

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/creative-cloud/help/content-credentials.html

T

timc34852236

Participating Frequently

Totally with you DaBee, and it seems Adobe's in danger of ignoring the photographers that helped make the platform such a success. But my worry is not AI, which is probably ubiquitous already (we just aren't always told) but GenAI - that's where it sounds like we lose complete control of our own work. If AI is now part of Camera Raw is it ethically any different from basic computer software? Not a techie so I'm asking the question...

There is other photo editing software out there but the chances are they're going to be chasing the tails of Adobe and also incorporating AI as quickly as they can to keep up, if they aren't ahead already. Non smiley face.

T

timc34852236

Participating Frequently

I'm in total agreement with DaBee here. I want to know absolutely which tools are just dealing with my work. I don't want input from external imagery as I often work in news/features/documentary. Would I be correct in assuming there are pieces of AI already incorporated into Photoshop? I wouldn't be surprised but the danger to the traditional photographer (as opposed to the artist or creator-photographer who may be using Photoshop as an artistic tool) is Generative AI I think? I'd like to know from Adobe how they're going to ensure my pixels aren't taken and used by GenAI tools in Photoshop in future. Do photographers have any say in this, or will editorial photographers of the future have to declare their work has not been put through Adobe Photoshop?

D

DaBeeAutor

Known Participant

Hi Tim, Yes I agree with your points, how do I develop or enhance my photos without steping into the relm of uncertainty today? I belive we need to have the freedom to to choose how we want to work on any given task. To be able to switch and use the appropriate tools for our chosen tasks and to atribute it accordingly is important I feel, for both my work driven and my personal projects. If I work on my images I want full creative control of the result regardless. I dont like working on my images and find I have stop to think how do I do this now? Do I use the pen tool because i dont know if the wonderful "remove background" results in metedata with adobe credentials does it belong to me or to the machine. I dont want to think of anything along those lines want to enjoy editing my photo's or creating with AI which ever.

Another issue is How do I save my stuff now? creative cloud wants me to keep copies in the cloud and add credentials Preferences > History & Content Credentials do I have to buy more space for that? If i dont do that is my image unprotected... opensource? unspecified? eventualy unable to share or upload or provide to clients.... dont get me wrong im in favour of and love some of the AI toy tips tricks and workflows ...Amazing and here to stay. I aim to get good at it too.... but i want to choose and create with out having to take a degree in copyright law around the world or coding or.......copy promts and styles and become gerneric and ultimately bord fed up and frustated. Because im working out the program usage rather than getting my edits done or creating . Do I change to other editing programs and be limited by sofware that cant do what photoshop could do ...prior to ai. The machine rolls on and i fear i will miss out on the fun because i will have to find an alternative if i cant solve it

davescm

Community Expert

@D Fosse said '......Is there any genuine human creativity going on in the image?'

Exactly this. It was tested in a US court which allowed copyright on the text and on the layout but not on the AI generated images. Critically, to quote the article linked below, the issue was that the 'specific output cannot be predicted by users'. That falls right in line with D Fosse's comments above.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copyrights-test-new-technology-2023-02-22/

If AI generated elements had formed part of a larger image rather than being the main element, and had been further manipulated under direct human control, then maybe the court would have come to a different conclusion on the images (I am not a lawyer).

For the time being of course Adobe's AI generated images cannot be used for commercial use (that is in the terms of the beta) so until full release the point on AI generated elements is moot.

Dave

D Fosse

Community Expert

It will be very interesting to watch the development in the art world. Working at an art museum I'm right in the middle of that, and offhand I can think of several contemporary artists who are probably itching to get into this 😉

One thing is certain: they will not simply "push a button". They will put it into contexts none of us had ever thought of 😉

davescm

Community Expert

Here is an example of an image in which I used generative AI fill, on a semi-opaque selection from my own windmill image, to generate layers of textures. I then combined these layers usings masks and blend modes and traditional filters. At present I could not use this image commercially as Adobe Generative AI stipluates no commercial use. However, I believe that once AI output is cleared for use, then an image such as this would be OK and I would have copyright on the finished image, as my manual input was extensive. So not much different to the position if I had used licensed texture images. Again though, I am not a lawyer.

....and another - this one using 7 generated texture layers - each based on a partial transparent selection from my original image then blended with that original)

:

Dave

c.pfaffenbichler

Community Expert

what about Gaussian blur, hue saturation etc ?

I fail to see a connection to AI so what makes you even ask about those functions?

D

DaBeeAutor

Known Participant

these tools and most of the others use machine learning not AI , im not sure if the new remove tool which is also amazing is Machine learning or AI.

If D. Fosse is correct then it dosent mater perhaps? Untill Generative fill comes out of beta and becomes high resolution.

c.pfaffenbichler

Community Expert

these tools and most of the others use machine learning not AI , im not sure if the new remove tool which is also amazing is Machine learning or AI.

Filters like Gaussian Blur and Adjustments like Hue/Saturation do not employ machine learning.

D Fosse

Community Expert

In principle, it's pretty simple: Is there any genuine human creativity going on in the image?

If the image is mainly AI-generated, by typing in a prompt, there isn't. So you can't claim copyright. That seems to be the general legal consensus. It doesn't qualify as intellectual property, so copyright simply doesn't apply.

In other words, it's not about the tools used. It's about the result.

Everywhere else nowadays, including here in the forum, you see a lot of complaining about restrictions on AI hindering people's "creativity". What creativity? Is pushing a button "creative"?

I'm sure you can use AI to create genuine art, and I'm sure we will soon start seeing professional artists using it for their own purposes. The question is whether it is used within a creative framework. The result, not the tools.

It's basically the same discussion we had twenty years ago with music and sampling. If done intelligently, it can be a work of art in its own right. If done mindlessly, it's not. In most cases we can easily separate the two.

D

DaBeeAutor

Known Participant

oh I have no doubt it will work! The creativity to use the AI to make what we have in our minds is indisputable, its amazing the question comes more about the legal use. If i make a photo using Ai i created the concept the art work so to speak but the AI used input from a variety of sources just like my brain does it creates too so the use of data source comes into the equation. My data source is my lifes experiance all ive seen and done that give me my direction choices , along with a few happy accidents which i choose to keep or loose. Ai is provided with a data source in adobes case its stock photos and licence free photos that feeds the AI. so if i generate a background the AI sees my trees,sky, ocean light direction what ever and matches it, it uses sources other than whats availablein the image it has brought something new to the image thats great, time saving, amazing increadable all of that, however it is no longer my creation it is a joint creation. If i use content aware fill it brings my pixels to bear on the image, same if I hand cut copy paste its still my creation. I need to know which tools I want to pick up and use so i dont infringe copywrite or accidently make a claim that is not quite accurate. All tools are good tools Its how we use them that matters the creativity is not in question, just the law. I just took 7 days to photograph cut out, colour precisely postion and execute a piece that will be used comercialy. if i then geratativly fill the background with a white wall ? i would say the creativity is mine but generative fill is not my work not my pixels i would be afraid to use it. ...... but happy to open a new doccument fill with white? Im worried about the way we decide what is creative , I think the AI can definitley create.

c.pfaffenbichler

Community Expert

Well, Generative Fill is still in beta and I expect Adobe (respectively its legal team) to figure s…t out and make their position known before/when it actually gets released.

And that position can probably be taken fairly seriously.

What I wonder is whether the people that use AI to upsample an image, for example, are aware that the result is not really a photograph anymore but essentially artwork?

Regístrese

Social Login

Bienvenido

Social Login

Escaneando el archivo en busca de virus

Este archivo no se puede descargar