According to Shutterstock’s contributor rules, AI-generated content is not permitted to be licensed on the platform unless it’s created using Shutterstock’s own AI-image generator tool.
The picture was not flagged as AI.
Can we talk about how Shutterstock only allows their own AI-generated images? Stock image sites will be the first to face the guillotine of AI generation, and this is how they protect themselves?
Good riddance. I got my video card and several Stable Diffusion models that are way better than the prices they charge.
You’re not a business whose sole purpose is to sell/license images. If you read the article, it explains that their models are trained using only images from their library, which seems like a sensible approach to avoiding copyright issues.
There’s no copyright issues to avoid. Stable Diffusion is not suddenly illegal based on the images it trains on. It is a 4GB database of weights and numbers, not a many petabyte database of images.
Furthermore, Shutterstock cannot copyright their own AI-generated images, no matter how much they want to try to sell it back for. That’s already been decided in the courts. So, even if it’s their own images its trained on, if it was fully generated with their own AI, anybody is free to yank the image from their site and use it anywhere they want.
This is a dying industry trying desperately to hold on to its profit model.
Here we get the very crucial definition between “legal” and “moral”.
It is not currently illegal to build a “database of weights and numbers” by crawling arts and images without permission, attribution or compensation, for the express purpose of creating similar works to replace the work of the artists whose artworks were used to train it and which they rely on to make a living.
That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be legislated.
Really not a fan of this “dying industry” talk in light of this.
If that’s correct, then it’s even more understandable why they wouldn’t want pictures anyone can use for free on their service of selling pictures
More reason for Disney to just use AI generated art. I don’t see the point of artists anymore.
Wow that name does NOT check out.
Sure it does. People create stuff. Artist create over priced same stuff but also sue you if you think about sharing it with anybody or creating your own. And the whole time they demand your attention by invading any cool space to busk. Like tipping culture, it invades every space. Eventually spaces that were collaberative and imaginative and unique are sued to oblivion and threatened with DMCA take downs so that this mediocre and costly mass produced stuff can be sold for 20x its value. If artist disappeared tomorrow, we would see a boom of content creation like never before. If we removed all the people trying to make their dollar in our spaces we would be left with actual creators not artists.
They’re greedy bottom feeders and only get worse the more popular they get.
Think of Justin bieber + psychosocial. Really Fun. Justin bieber or slipknot, not as fun. And in a world of spotifies and YouTube that have taken over everywhere, we all lost the unique creative opportunity the internet provided because we all need to over pay for the artist nobody asked for. Its only going to get worse. The internet was a refuge for people to get away from the over produced corporate crap and instead the artist brought them all here and censored and sued and threatened and put up paywall after paywall all to funnel us to their shitty fucking ad supported websites and pateron
You have to be trolling.
There’s absolutely no way anything you just said here is remotely serious.
Funny read tho, thanks for the chuckle.
I don’t see the point of artists anymore other than being in the way of creating things.
… okay.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 year ago
How is that Disney’s fault?
ericisshort@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It isn’t.