The images are generated, but the training set may be argued or not that they had some rights attached, even it they were the ones that the social network where they were posted and scrapped from had.
There are is money to be made in a way or another, same with music, wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of projects get hit directly or indirectly because of this.
Yeah it's going to be a lightning rod for copyright trolls if it gets popular. Ultimately that's a good thing. There's precedents that need to be worked out, and if they go the wrong way, consequences that will need to be lived with that hopefully restore common sense. It's not that different from the Napster days other than an infinitely weaker case for the copyright trolls.
I'm working on a golf startup atm, so this is relevant.
These are certainly generated, as virtually every golf club has an insane and unworkable head, just like Midjourney. AI doesn't seem to focus on that level of detail. Take this one for example which would launch the ball somewhere into the sun: https://stockcake.com/i/golf-swing-action_656275_515716
Others look something like a soup plate attached to a stick, and it is common to see right handed players using left handed clubs.
I don't know how to hold a golf club but if you mean the soldering iron, I don't hold a pencil from 6 inches off the paper. Google "soldering iron stock photo" to see the alternative. As a friend of mine says, "if you smell cooked chicken, you're holding it wrong."
I wonder if these images might still get you in trouble if they show copyrighted work like the Eiffeltower at night, the opera house in Sydney or Atomium in Brussels
machine generated works cannot be copyrighted, but its a legal gray area as to whether creating the images violates copyright (in my opinion it is not fair use, as it displaces the market value of the work it is a derivative of)
But the use of each work is very minuscule in sum and is generally, if not always, an original new work. How is a Mona Lisa in the style of Van Gho a violation of the copyright of Mona Lisa or Van Gho? It is a new and unique work. Makes it a legitimate use. In fact, in certain cases the entire work can be used and is considered fair use.
Americans do pronounce his name "Venn Gho", but it is spelled Van Gogh!
Interestingly enough, there are many pronunciations of Van Gogh's name [1] (we French people say "Gog" rhyming with "dog"), but the rarest one is probably the one from his own native Brabant dialect.
I agree that images produced are not derivatives of any particular copyrighted work, instead they are derivative of all copyrighted work. I don't think OpenAI et al should get a free pass for finding a way to rip everyone off at once, but it's certainly a new frontier in law, hence the gray area.
Well, in copyright law there is the De Minimis Concept, which kinda sorta allows, as you put it, OpenAI to "rip everyone off", despite everyone holding what they originally had.
Must add that even if this is is not 100% quality, it is a HUUUGE threat to paid stock photos... I mean for 0 dollars why wouldn't you lower your bar little bit... or with some photos you get much better results with ai.
I'll bet Adobe or similiar will buy this 0,5 mil and just delete
"The fingers are curled into the well-known peace sign, symbolizing tranquility, harmony, and non-violence. The neatly trimmed nails and smooth skin suggest a sense of care and refinement, while the gesture itself—a silent but powerful expression of hope and solidarity—resonates universally across cultures and languages."
There are is money to be made in a way or another, same with music, wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of projects get hit directly or indirectly because of this.