back to article Getty bans AI-generated art due to copyright concerns

Getty Images has banned people from uploading AI-generated pictures to its massive stock image collection, citing concerns over copyright. Text-to-image tools, such as DALL-E, Midjourney, Craiyon, and Stable Diffusion, have opened the floodgates for machine-made artwork. Anyone can either pay a small fee or use a free model to …

  1. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Alert

    Ahh...

    The "monkey grabbed the camera and took the photo" law suit comes to mind.

    1. Grogan Silver badge

      Re: Ahh...

      I'm not a photographer (and I don't really care about imaginary property that much) but that story disgusted me. How those gorilla huggers convinced a judge to award copyright and royalties (past, present and future) to their foundation for that photo is a testament to ridiculous times.

      By that logic, Naruto the ape should have been charged with theft for taking the camera.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: Ahh...

        The judges were never convinced but PETA had unlimited funds to appeal and David Slater had to settle because after years of being sued he ran out of money.

        In the UK theft is a criminal offense - the state carries out the prosecution at tax payers' expense. Naruto destroyed the camera which is criminal damage, a civil offence and Mr Slater would have had to file charges at his own expense.

        1. Snowy Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Ahh...

          If he wanted damages he would have to sue, but according to the CPS (The Crown Prosecution Service) it is a crime and you can be charge under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971) for it.

          https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

  2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    This is getting interesting.

    On the one hand the copyright interests on training data affecting the output is a very obvious issue. On the other, the stock image shops are middle-men who can easily be bypassed by AIaaS.

    Now the stock image shops are clearing the decks by removing AI images from their own shelves. What happens next?

    1. movinglight

      Re: This is getting interesting.

      Perhaps Getty customers can make AI images in-house and bypass the middle men (in this case the contributor is as much a middleman as Getty is).

  3. FatGerman

    Not just Getty.

    I sell photography on a few stock sites and other places and I've noticed recently a lot of people (myself included) having work taken down without comment or explanation other than 'This may violate the copyright of Company XXXX'. Note the 'may'. Something obviously has them all running scared. There's no way in hell any of my images infringed anybody's copyright but I had no recourse to appeal and no explanation given.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Not just Getty.

      Did you check that Company XXXX hadn't ripped off your work to sell as their own?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like