[LOCKED] May I steal AI generated images from AS?

[oleschwander]

I just read about AI generated images and I came up with a tricky question. I discovered that the product of generative AI images cannot be copyrighted. Does this mean that people are really free to steal and use AI generated images from AS and elsewhere? 

[Jill_C]

Yes, it's true that Generative AI assets are not eligible for copyright protection. But that doesn't mean that people are free to steal them from Adobe Stock. Indeed Adobe makes it difficult to steal an image because only small versions with very noticeable watermarks are presented in the Buyer portal. Regarding whether people are free to steal such assets from other websites, I'll leave that up to their own conscience. 

[oleschwander]

"But that doesn't mean that people are free to steal them from Adobe Stock." - Why not Jill ..?

There are no watermarks on these images. They are perpecly good to use - or reuse ...

[Jill_C]

If you click on any of those images to get a larger preview, the Adobe stock logo is visible, plus the asset number. I suppose you could do a screen grab from the screen that you showed, but when you crop down to isolate a single image you're going to find that the file is very small with poor quality. No reputable designer, nor their clients, are going to be satisfied with such stolen images. 

[oleschwander]

I agree that the images are small, but the quality with a screen grab would be just fine for most purposes - epecially on a homepage or SoMe.

[Jill_C]

Well, you're certainly not going to get my permission to steal anything !

[Abambo]

"But that doesn't mean that people are free to steal them from Adobe Stock." - Why not Jill ..?

There are no watermarks on these images. They are perpecly good to use - or reuse ...

By @oleschwander

In a supermarket, all items are perfectly presented, free for you to grab? To use without paying? The missing watermark is no argument.

[oleschwander]

You're missing the point.

[Abambo]

You're missing the point.

By @oleschwander

No. Absence of the watermark and fitness to use the asset and availability for use does not grant you a licence to use the asset. You missed the point.

[RALPH_L]

I dont believe you used the term steal in your question. No one is free to steal anything. Usage is only allowed when granted. Even in the internet. Property laws have priority.

[Abambo]

I dont believe you used the term steal in your question.

By @RALPH_L

The question was: “May I steal AI generated images from AS?”

The term “steal” is obviously used by @oleschwander.

[George_F]

I don't think this has fully played out yet, if you are referring the the US court ruling that is currently in the news.  There is still an appeals process, and other legal avenues to pursue.

I don't believe there is zero recourse for someone creating and selling a product.

[oleschwander]

All this AI business is a total mess in my view. I think it shoud not be legal to sell these images commercial. Just my view.

[Abambo]

All this AI business is a total mess in my view. I think it shoud not be legal to sell these images commercial. Just my view.

By @oleschwander

That was what painters thought about photographers at the time. 😂

[daniellei4510]

I have to wonder how many photographers who are or were against AI are now using Generative Fill in Photoshop to fix or improve their photos? 🙂 And let's not forget there was a time when traditional artists felt that photography was cheating and should not be taken seriously as an art form. It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in the long run..

[oleschwander]

I have no doubt that AI is here to stay and that it will be a huge challenge for traditional photography. But the photographers did not cannibalize other people's work in his time. I guess it will also require that new photographs are still sent to the market - if there aren't already enough images to feed the AI monster ..! 

[daniellei4510]

"Good writers imitate, great writers steal." --T.S. Elliott

Actually, Picasso was said to have appropriated the style of many lesser known painters but, due to his fame, he was more likely to receive credit for his "innovations."

[Abambo]

I have no doubt that AI is here to stay and that it will be a huge challenge for traditional photography. But the photographers did not cannibalize other people's work in his time. I guess it will also require that new photographs are still sent to the market - if there aren't already enough images to feed the AI monster ..! 

By @oleschwander

Portrait painters went (nearly) out of business because of photographers. 

[daniellei4510]

No doubt. And models and photographers alike will have a more difficult time finding work. Self-driving cars will put pizza deliverers out of work. Self-checkout and ATMs put some cashiers and tellers out of work. Electric light bulbs put candle makers out of work. It goes on and on. The serious side of all this progress is that it is happening so rapidly that many people aren't afforded the time to switch jobs or adapt to the changes. And that's a problem.

[oleschwander]

Of course, I am aware that new techniques are constantly being developed, which make old ones redundant. But the invention of photography was not - like AI - the result of theft from an entire industry. But on the whole, copyright protection is under pressure, among other things, in line with the development of social media.

[Abambo]

Of course, I am aware that new techniques are constantly being developed, which make old ones redundant. But the invention of photography was not - like AI - the result of theft from an entire industry. But on the whole, copyright protection is under pressure, among other things, in line with the development of social media.

By @oleschwander

You do not know how these systems work. It's only theft, when it is copied, not inspired. This issue is not what you think it is. The issue is more: are those companies allowed to scan the freely available internet assets and store those in a database to be used as a reference. It's not that an AI-generated asset can be used for reverse image search on the internet, and you find it's twin. That's stealing an image.

Now is it stealing, when I scan the internet and use Photoshop to paint something where I go inspired from the internet? That's basically what the generative AI industry is doing.

[RALPH_L]

Shutterstock is selling photos that are marked suitable for "AI monster food". 

After review, the accepted photo is either marked or not marked by the reviewer.

[Abambo]

I just read about AI generated images and I came up with a tricky question. I discovered that the product of generative AI images cannot be copyrighted. Does this mean that people are really free to steal and use AI generated images from AS and elsewhere? 

By @oleschwander

As I'm not American, my AI images are copyrighted according to the Geneva convention, also in Anerica. If you are not in the USA, you are using the assets according to your copyright law. That law may protect the assets.

If, however, you are using the thumbnails from the Adobe site, you may be in violation of the licence agreement with Adobe. The licensing law is complicated. If you are not a licence lawyer, you should be careful with stealing something. Even if there is no copyright protection, you may still be in breach of your licencing agreement with Adobe.

[Nancy OShea]

YOU MAY NOT STEAL another contributor's property ever!!

That's a blatant violation of Adobe Stock's Contributor Terms that will result in termination of your account and forfeiture of  royalty payments & bonuses.

In addition, stealing could result in possible legal & financial penalties.  Are you equipped to deal with all that?

[oleschwander]

The point is that you cannot copyright AI-generated images. The images used by AI are already stolen images.