Generate 120 words Introduction Paragraph :
Hot Question: For the second time this week, Stability AI, the creator of the Stable Diffusion painting tool, is being sued for alleged copyright infringement for cleaning up content to train its systems. This time, stock image/video/music provider Getty Images has “launched legal proceedings in the High Court of London” against Stability AI.
In a statement, Getty Images said Stability AI illegally copied and processed millions of copyrighted images “in the absence of a license in the interests of Stability AI’s commercial interests and to the detriment of content creators”.
Getty Images CEO Craig Peters told The Verge that the company has notified Stability AI of an upcoming lawsuit in the UK. It is not known whether the case will follow in the US.
“[Stability AI] has not asked Getty Images to use our material or the material of our authors, so we are taking steps to protect our rights and the intellectual property rights of our authors,” Peters said.
It seems that Stability AI lawyers have several months or years of work ahead of them. Yesterday, we learned that three artists have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, Midjourney (another AI-based art generator), and portfolio site DeviantArt for allegedly violating copyright laws. Attorney Matthew Butterick, who filed the suit along with antitrust specialist and law firm Joseph Savery, said creators were concerned that AI systems were being trained in copyrighted work without consent, credit or compensation.
Questions about what material generative AI is being trained on are accompanied by fears that they will replace human jobs. This turns out to be a murky area from a legal point of view, as most system builders argue that such training falls under the doctrine of fair use in the US or fair dealing in the UK. Peters says Getty Images doesn’t think that assumption is accurate, which isn’t surprising.
Something that can support Getty Images case in point is an independent analysis of the Stability AI dataset, which found that most of it came from Getty Images and other image sites. Additionally, the AI often recreates the Getty Images watermark on the generated images.
Peters told The Verge that Getty Images is not interested in financial compensation or halting the development of these AIs, but in finding ways to build a model that respects intellectual property. Stability AI says the next version of Stable Diffusion will allow artists to opt out of having their work included in training datasets, but that may not be enough to appease original creators and companies like Getty Images.
My face is in #LYON data set. In 2013, a doctor photographed my face for clinical records. He passed away in 2018 and somehow that image ended up somewhere on the web and then ended up in the data set – the image that I signed the consent form for my doctor on, not the data set. pic.twitter.com/TrvjdZtyjD
— Lapine (@LapineDeLaTerre) September 16, 2022
Adding to the controversy was the recent news that a California artist discovered that photos from personal medical records taken by her doctor in 2013 were part of a set of LAION-5B images. The dataset, which is a set of 5 billion images and associated descriptive captions created by a German non-profit research organization, is used to train robust diffusion and other generative AI. Artists can check if their work is part of LAION-5B on the Have I Been Trained website.
Hot Question: For the second time this week, Stability AI, the creator of the Stable Diffusion painting tool, is being sued for alleged copyright infringement for cleaning up content to train its systems. This time, stock image/video/music provider Getty Images has “launched legal proceedings in the High Court of London” against Stability AI.
In a statement, Getty Images said Stability AI illegally copied and processed millions of copyrighted images “in the absence of a license in the interests of Stability AI’s commercial interests and to the detriment of content creators”.
Getty Images CEO Craig Peters told The Verge that the company has notified Stability AI of an upcoming lawsuit in the UK. It is not known whether the case will follow in the US.
“[Stability AI] has not asked Getty Images to use our material or the material of our authors, so we are taking steps to protect our rights and the intellectual property rights of our authors,” Peters said.
It seems that Stability AI lawyers have several months or years of work ahead of them. Yesterday, we learned that three artists have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, Midjourney (another AI-based art generator), and portfolio site DeviantArt for allegedly violating copyright laws. Attorney Matthew Butterick, who filed the suit along with antitrust specialist and law firm Joseph Savery, said creators were concerned that AI systems were being trained in copyrighted work without consent, credit or compensation.
Questions about what material generative AI is being trained on are accompanied by fears that they will replace human jobs. This turns out to be a murky area from a legal point of view, as most system builders argue that such training falls under the doctrine of fair use in the US or fair dealing in the UK. Peters says Getty Images doesn’t think that assumption is accurate, which isn’t surprising.
Something that can support Getty Images case in point is an independent analysis of the Stability AI dataset, which found that most of it came from Getty Images and other image sites. Additionally, the AI often recreates the Getty Images watermark on the generated images.
Peters told The Verge that Getty Images is not interested in financial compensation or halting the development of these AIs, but in finding ways to build a model that respects intellectual property. Stability AI says the next version of Stable Diffusion will allow artists to opt out of having their work included in training datasets, but that may not be enough to appease original creators and companies like Getty Images.
My face is in #LYON data set. In 2013, a doctor photographed my face for clinical records. He passed away in 2018 and somehow that image ended up somewhere on the web and then ended up in the data set – the image that I signed the consent form for my doctor on, not the data set. pic.twitter.com/TrvjdZtyjD
— Lapine (@LapineDeLaTerre) September 16, 2022
Adding to the controversy was the recent news that a California artist discovered that photos from personal medical records taken by her doctor in 2013 were part of a set of LAION-5B images. The dataset, which is a set of 5 billion images and associated descriptive captions created by a German non-profit research organization, is used to train robust diffusion and other generative AI. Artists can check if their work is part of LAION-5B on the Have I Been Trained website.
Related posts:
