The lawsuit by Getty Images, one of the largest and best-known photo agencies, concerns fundamental questions raised by the new, powerful learning artificial intelligences.

Image AI: Creative achievement or clumsy copy?

The waves are currently making waves among artists. It's about copyright and theft of intellectual property. Artificial intelligences are learning entities. They take existing material from the vastness of the Internet in order to create something new from it according to their algorithms.

But what is the legal situation? For example, do photo agencies like Getty Images have to accept that their databases with millions of images are used as training camps for commercial AI? Are the companies behind such AI allowed to make money without financially compensating the creative minds who created the “training material”, the artists?

The statement from Getty Images

In a short press statement, Getty Images informed the public that it had initiated legal proceedings against Stabilty AI. This step was decided because it involved the theft of intellectual property and the violation of copyrights. Millions of image files and their metadata were stolen, which were the intellectual property of Getty Images or were represented by the picture agency.

“This week, Getty Images commenced proceedings against Stability AI in the High Court of Justice in London, alleging that Stability AI has infringed intellectual property rights, including copyright in content owned or represented by Getty Images.

Getty Images maintains that Stability AI has unlawfully copied and processed millions of copyrighted images and associated metadata owned or represented by Getty Images without a license to further Stability AI's commercial interests promote and disadvantage the authors of the content. Getty Images believes artificial intelligence has the potential to advance creative endeavors. Accordingly, Getty Images has provided licenses to leading technology innovators to train artificial intelligence systems in a manner that respects personal and intellectual property rights. Stability AI did not seek such a license from Getty Images and instead, we believe, chose to ignore viable licensing options and long-standing legal protections in order to pursue its independent commercial interests.”

Getty Images (translated with Deepl)

AI are expressly welcomed

The agency explains that it generally supports new technologies because they also promote creativity. Licenses have also been granted to so-called technology innovators, which allow the creation of learning systems, but without violating personal and intellectual property rights. However, the now defendant company, Stability AI, did not seek such licensing, but rather deliberately violated rights in order to commercialize its AI project.

It becomes clear that it is not about a general ban on the use of agency images, but rather about protecting copyright and property rights and thus doing justice to both sides. The accusation of simple copying, which should be compensated for, is substantiated by AI-generated images that bear the Getty watermark. The watermark indicates that this is not an authorized download. Apparently the AI ​​“learned” the watermark.

Already a class action lawsuit in the USA

Getty Images is aiming in a similar direction to a class action lawsuit that has been pending in the USA for a few days. Here, it is not an agency but rather the affected artists who are suing various AI companies for copyright infringement, including Stability AI as well as Midjourney and Deviant Art, an art platform.

The allegation, similar to the Getty lawsuit, is that Stability AI's AI called Stable Diffusion, a deep learning text-to-image generator, "downloaded or otherwise downloaded copies of billions of copyrighted images without permission," according to the lawsuit to create Stable Diffusion”.

The plaintiffs argue that the AI ​​integrated plaintiffs' artwork into the AI ​​without financially compensating the artists. Additionally, paintings in the style of a specific artist could even be commissioned. That is particularly reprehensible.

Source:

The Standard , Getty Images

Already read? A Mimikama fact check: Maradona and Platini's jerseys: No drugs / No to corruption?


If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:

📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.

Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!

* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!


Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )