The AI thread

[Pieter]

If I state that ALL of my photographs on Flickr are copyrighted and protected (using the "All Rights Reserved" setting) and yet companies that scrape the Web for photos take mine and ingest them into their datasets, it violates my Intellectual Property Rights. PERIOD. I don't need to prove that I suffer financial losses in order to be "harmed" by these actions.

But that is what is happening. Same for authors' books that have been digitized. https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/08/style...cec/index.html

There are tools being developed to check if your work has been sampled by AI and there are some resources to opt out. But I don't think either works perfectly nor has had much effect on AI's appetite for images and documents.

[Pieter]

No worries

Soylent Green

has got us on the run

Your sure it's not "given us the runs"?

[bdkphoto]

If I state that ALL of my photographs on Flickr are copyrighted and protected (using the "All Rights Reserved" setting) and yet companies that scrape the Web for photos take mine and ingest them into their datasets, it violates my Intellectual Property Rights. PERIOD. I don't need to prove that I suffer financial losses in order to be "harmed" by these actions.

You have recourse by filing an infringement suit, or using the Copyright Claims board ( arbitration ) to make your claim. Have you registered your work with the LOC? Along with that you should join a trade association like ASMP/NANPA. ASMP sent out a survey this morning from the Copyright office so that the membership can voice their experiences with generative AI and how it has affected their business. It included questions about scraping and how the companies responded when someone filed a complaint etc.

[Dugan]

No worries

Soylent Green

has got us on the run

I think you have Soylent Green confused with Cold Turkey, Randy....

[BrianShaw]

If I state that ALL of my photographs on Flickr are copyrighted and protected (using the "All Rights Reserved" setting) and yet companies that scrape the Web for photos take mine and ingest them into their datasets, it violates my Intellectual Property Rights. PERIOD. I don't need to prove that I suffer financial losses in order to be "harmed" by these actions.

Question, Paul. Does DMCA takedown apply to ingested images to AI datasets like you describe or just material posted on the internet? That mechanism seems worthwhile when there’s no financial damages (and the offender complies).

[Alan Klein]

I certainly hope Ford wasn't putting Goodyear tires on their cars that were design for the Model T.

The last Ford I bought new (1990?) came with Firestone tires. Remember the outrage and recall of those for failing because of underinflation? It was a big deal and lead to regulations (at least in California) that any licensed service shop had to make sure the tires were at the proper inflation whenever any work was done on the vehicle.

I made a mistake. It wasn't Ford and Goodyear but Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone who were friends. After the problem with Firestone tires, Ford dropped them. My apologies to Goodyear.

[Alan Klein]

If I state that ALL of my photographs on Flickr are copyrighted and protected (using the "All Rights Reserved" setting) and yet companies that scrape the Web for photos take mine and ingest them into their datasets, it violates my Intellectual Property Rights. PERIOD. I don't need to prove that I suffer financial losses in order to be "harmed" by these actions.

Paul, Doesn't that depend on what they do with the pictures? Can't they use them for Fair Use without violating copyrights? If so, you get down to whether what they're doing is considered Fair Use. No?

For example. Let's say I'm a photo instructor and teaching a class. So I show your photo and explain what elements make up a nice photo. People on Youtube do that all the time with pictures, music, etc. No violation has occurred. So the question is whether teaching a computer a program using online photos is a violation? That's in the courts right now to decide.

[paulbarden]

Paul, Doesn't that depend on what they do with the pictures? Can't they use them for Fair Use without violating copyrights? If so, you get down to whether what they're doing is considered Fair Use. No?

I give up. I'm done here.

[BrianShaw]

It seems that we now know what’s going to become of photography!

[jnantz]

It seems that we now know what’s going to become of photography!

yup, it's gonna be robots stealing every image they can see, corporate-owners of said robots not caring, the general public not getting it,
then faked photo illustration images will be published nonstop by untalented-hacks, you know.. for "art" and also nefariously for propaganda ...
the people who are making the food the robots ( that is us ) are eating will just be ignored because in the end no one really cares, and there won't
be a way to protect the images seeing the robots have all the keys to the chicken coop, and if they don't already have a key they've another bot on the inside
... and if you are some sort of high profile person making a stink because their work was scarfed down,
you get their 15 additional seconds of fame and second 16 everyone already forgot because another war child will have been made that will be even cooler, and at the next biennial in Miami
someone will eat another $100,000 banana and it's gonna end up being completely fake and we'll all be outraged and .. rinse wash repeat .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯