|
|
|
|
|
|
by mithr
966 days ago
|
|
|
The issue at hand isn't actually directly about how the output images contained the Getty logo; the lawsuit isn't saying "you're showing our logo on your output, which isn't a Getty image, and we take issue with that". It's whether Getty images can be ingested into the training set without consent or compensation to Getty. The reason the distorted logos matter is because they make it much more difficult to claim that Getty images were not ingested and used for training — if they weren't, then how come the outputs have those logos? And similarly, they make it much more difficult to claim that these source images were only used as "inspiration" for the generative algorithm and thus fall under fair use — if they're only used for "inspiration", how come they generate/copy easily-recognizable parts of the original images (i.e. the logo) as-is? |
|
|
Was that claim put forth? Why then does making this difficult matter?
> they make it much more difficult to claim that these source images were only used as "inspiration" for the generative algorithm and thus fall under fair use — if they're only used for "inspiration", how come they generate/copy easily-recognizable parts of the original images
If artists created works of art containing warped logos etc as elements in their art would they be infringing copyright because of these warped logos? But if an artists uses a computer to create the same art instead of real paint that becomes infringement? Because copyright depends on the method of production not just the produced result?