Copyright Protection from AI

[ZALEZPHOTO]

I received this link via Getty Images, and it very much  concern the entire industry.

It's one thing to take your own photo then enhance it with AI, a complete other thing for someone to steal our work and try to make it their own.  

I encourage everyone to send this petion to congress.

Francisco

https://copyrightalliance.org/get-involved/take-action/

[Abambo]

It's one thing to take your own photo then enhance it with AI, (...)

By @ZALEZPHOTO

How did that AI get trained? Even if you enhance your own assets with AI, if the AI has been trained using unlicensed assets, then you conflict with the copyright. Adobe's Firefly has been trained with Adobe stock assets, and the contributors have been indemnified for this.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

My post is about signing a petition for our own good, despite were we sell our assets.

Not sure what your point is, but thank you for taking the time to comment.

have an awesome day 

[Abambo]

Not sure what your point is,

By @ZALEZPHOTO

The point is this one: It's one thing to take your own photo then enhance it with AI, 

If you enhance your image with generative AI and that is OK, how did your AI get the training? I don't see much of a difference between creating an asset with generative AI and enhancing an asset with generative AI. 

[daniellei4510]

I'm no expert on how generative AI works, but in my experience, I think the program takes one's original image into account first and foremost, be it a photograph or AI, before relying on other trained assets. For example, if I start with an image where the pant leg of one pair of pants is paisley, and the other pant leg is white, and I want both legs to be paisley, generative AI is often (but not always) intelligent enough to use the paisley pant leg of the original to generate another paisley pant leg. It's like Content Aware Fill on steroids. And Content Aware Fill was first introduced in Photoshop in 2010, long before AI came into the picture. This is probably why Adobe doesn't require a contributor to label a photograph EDITED with AI as an AI image unless something entirely new has been added. The same would apply to Generative Expand. If I were to use Generative Expand on a photograph to add more area to a brick wall, the brick wall of the original image is given precedence and thus did not rely on exterior trained assets. In theory.

[daniellei4510]

Sounds like Getty is losing business due to AI.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

In September 2023, Getty Images reversed this stance and launched their own AI tool, "Generative AI by Getty Images," developed in partnership with NVIDIA. This tool is trained exclusively on Getty’s licensed image library, ensuring commercial safety with full copyright indemnification for users. AI content creators benefit as much as all the stock agencies. 

It's not a debate or matter of opinions that everyone who are not exclusively creating AI content should sign the petition Getty is promoting. 

https://copyrightalliance.org/get-involved/take-action/

[daniellei4510]

Then that's good news. 

[daniellei4510]

Wow. Those prices, though.

[Nancy OShea]

I share your concerns. However, things are much, MUCH worse right now.  Congress is on the verge of approving a 934-page Budget Reconciliation Bill which threatens to undermine every safety net program that millions of people rely on.  Also wrapped in this "Big... Bill" is a small but dangerous provision that removes all restrictions on the use of AI— for the next 10 YEARS!  

If this horrific bill passes, there'll be no way for Congress, or anyone else, to stop AI until the year 2036. The urgency has never been greater than right NOW!

Don't write.  CALL your Congressional Reps in Washington, DC.

202-224-3121

Demand a Senate Conference.
The Big, Budget Betrayal Bill must not pass. 

[daniellei4510]

Unbelievable. Nothing grounds my beef more than AI designers who lack so much imagination that they have to rely on using artist's or cartoonist's names in prompts, or who create Disney, Marvel, or DC characters (thank you, Disney, for coming after Midjourney on this issue). I've made it no secret that I'm a former photographer who now uses AI (blame my bad back and weak knees at least in part for that), but for a tool that allows virtually unlimited creativity, it astounds me that people think that creating known characters or real actors (poor Scarlett Johansen) is being unique and original. 

[ZALEZPHOTO]

I've embraced technology fully. AI is the kind of machine that it's to imagine how it will evolve and change e the world for better or worse:

 And I know that it's here to stay, including in our industry. But I feel just like you, I think in the rush to market, people are losing sight of what is original and ethical... That's an area Adobe has a huge challenge and I sense they are trying to do the right thing.

No room for moral relativism here, what's wrong is wrong and everyone knows when it's wrong, no matter how much they try to avoid seeing it's wrong.