This is fantastic. If companies want to create AI models, they should license the content they use for the training data. As long as there are not sufficient legal protections and the EU/Congress do not act, tools like these can serve as a stopgap and maybe help increase pressure on policymakers
It's going to be interesting to see how the lawsuits against OpenAI by content creators plays out. If the courts rule that AI generated content is a derivative work of all the content it was trained on it could really flip the entire gen AI movement on its head.
If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping for.
"sufficiently transformational" is carrying a lot of water here. At minimum it would cloud the issue and might expose anyone using AI to lawsuits where they'd potentially have to defend each generated image.
Oh, interesting, I didn't realize that's how it worked. Thanks for the additional context around this. Guess it's not as upending as I thought it could be.
My biggest fear is that the big players will drop a few billion dollars to silence the copyright holders with power go away, and new rules are put in place that will make open-source models that can't do the same essentially illegal.
If the courts do rule that way, I would expect a legislative race between different countries to amend the relevant laws. Visual generative AI is just too lucrative a thing.
Google scrapes copyrighted material every day and then presents that material to users in the form of excerpts, images, and entire book pages. This has been ruled OK by the courts. Scraping copyrighted information is not illegal or we couldn't have search engines.
Google is not presently selling "we trained an AI on people's art without permission, and you can type their name in along with a prompt to generate a knockoff of their art, and we charge you money for this". So it's not really a 1:1 comparison, since there are companies selling the thing I described right now.
That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work. It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting painting.
In some locales sitting on the street writing down a list of people coming and going is legal, but leaving a camera pointed at the street isn't. Legislation like that makes a distinction between an action by a person (which has bounds on scalability) and mechanized actions (that do not).
Fair Use is the relevant protection and is not specific to manual creation. Traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) are already covered by it.
"The insights obtained through content analysis will not be used to re-create your content or lead to identifying any personal information."
"For Adobe Firefly, the first model is trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content, and public domain content where the copyright has expired."
There is in fact, an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence that they intentionally and knowingly violated copyright en mass. It’s been quite a popular subject in tech news the past couple weeks.
