As we had previously chronicled in our essay on the future of photography, AI-generated photographs and art have started to overwhelm stock image websites, social media, and other mediums.
As we had previously chronicled in our essay on the future of photography, AI-generated photographs and art have started to overwhelm stock image websites, social media, and other mediums. It is anticipated that this pattern will carry on well into the foreseeable future. Some of them have even been given awards for their artistic merit, and the overall trend is only advancing in the direction of more application. Some of them have even been awarded medals for their aesthetic value.
Now, in what appears to be an effort to combat at least some of this flood to their image-selling platforms, a few of the major stock photo websites that, up until relatively recently, allowed artificial intelligence-generated imagery to be sold on their platforms have begun applying ban hammers and other restrictions. This appears to be done in an effort to combat at least some of this flood to their image-selling platforms.
This had already begun in the past with more specialized and quality-focused picture-selling websites like PurplePort, whose proprietors swiftly implemented their own restrictions and explained their reasons in a blog post about the subject. For example, PurplePort does not allow users to upload pictures that have been altered in any way.
However, throughout that time period, websites such as Getty and Shutterstock, amongst others, continued to have no limits placed on the use of this sort of picture content. In point of fact, up until not too long ago, a search on Shutterstock alone using the phrase “AI-generated” yielded well over 18,000 results. Also, remember that this only included photos that were openly stated by their uploaders as having been created using artificial intelligence (AI) (AI).
Since then, this has undergone a change, and it seems that it will continue to evolve to a significant degree in the future. For its part, the largest stock photo repository in the world, Getty Images, has decided that it will no longer accept new submissions created by AI-image generators and that it will delete those that are already available on the site.
For its part, the largest stock photo repository in the world, Getty Images, has decided that it will no longer accept new submissions created by AI-image generators and that it will delete those that are already available on the site. This decision went into effect the moment it was made. Petapixel was provided with a copy of an email that the agency had sent to all of its contributors advising them of the new limitation on the use of AI images, and the agency also sent this email to the picture-sharing website.
We strongly suggest that you check out our post on our own study in AI-rendered picture synthesis in order to get a glimpse at the results, which range from creepily strange to entirely incomprehensible. This will provide you with some background information on the subject that you’re interested in. In addition, we have looked at the possibilities that this sort of technology presents for the photographic industry in the not-too-distant future.
These sorts of images are not instances of digital artwork that were assembled by human artists by physically piecing together different elements of their work. Instead, as our post explains in greater detail, they are automatically created graphical representations of straightforward text prompts that users can submit to artificial intelligence art-rendering websites such as Mid journey, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion, amongst others.
These websites take the user’s input and use it to generate a graphical representation of the text prompt. These websites give users the opportunity to publish their creations online so that they can be rendered.
It is reasonable to assume that Getty and other companies will take great care to differentiate between digital artwork that was produced almost immediately by AIs through their own algorithmic procedures and digital artwork that was created by humans utilizing software tools. This distinction is important because the market for digital artwork is expected to grow significantly over the next few years.
Getty claims that it is being careful to make the distinction in its own statement, which reads as follows: “These changes do not prevent the submission of 3D renders and do not impact the use of digital editing tools (such as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) with respect to modifying and creating imagery.” (These changes do not prevent the submission of 3D renders and do not impact the use of digital editing tools) The submission of 3D renderings will not be prevented as a result of these modifications.
In addition to this, the United States does not currently have a framework in place to protect the images that are created by these AI systems under the guise of copyright. This is one of the reasons that Getty cites in its message to content providers as a consideration in their decision: “There are unanswered problems with regard to the copyright of outputs from these models, and there are unmet rights issues with respect to the underlying images and metadata utilized to train these models,” says one researcher. Getty cites this as one of the reasons that they are considering in their decision.
Getty CEO Craig Peters also explained in a statement that was nearly identical to the one given to The Verge that there are real concerns with respect to the copyright of outputs from these models and unaddressed rights issues with respect to the imagery, the image metadata, and those individuals contained within the imagery.
These statements, coming as they do from a company that has a long history of engaging in filthy games with regard to how it applies copyright to images from creators, illegally claiming copyright over imagery that is in the public domain, or engaging in many other pretzel-like twists with copyright law, are interesting, to say the least. This company has a long history of engaging in truly dirty games with regard to how it applies copyright to images from creators.
In any case, because Getty has implemented its restriction, the AI-photo pool that was previously accessible on the site has almost disappeared. This is due to the fact that Getty has implemented its prohibition. When this article was being produced, the number of results that were returned by a search for the phrase “mid-trip” (which refers to one of the most well-known AI rendering systems) had plummeted from thousands to nearly nothing. This was the case at the time that the article was published.
It would appear that other well-known stock photo websites are following suit and getting on board with the trend as well. Even though Shutterstock has not yet put a complete ban on AI-generated photography, it does appear to be limiting searches for some types of material that were developed by AI.
It is essential to take into consideration the fact that Getty’s platform still stores certain instances of artificial intelligence (AI) art. There may have been a major decrease in the appearance of certain results, while the presence of others has not changed at all. No search we conducted brought up any results for the terms “AI-generated art” or “mid-trip.” Both of these phrases were searched for but yielded no results. Nonetheless, a search using the shorter phrase “AI art” yielded well over a thousand results; however, it is quite probable that the bulk of these results is instances of digital art that was created by humans.
The problem, however, is that it is not always simple to determine, and the difficulty of making that determination is only likely to rise in the future. In the future, the difficulty of making that determination is only likely to increase.
The chief executive officer of Getty contends that the success of the firm is based on the consumers’ ability to identify artificial intelligence-generated artwork and submit it to the website. Additionally, the company intends to work together with other organizations, such as the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, in order to develop new filters that are able to detect these kinds of inventions in advance. These filters will be able to prevent the business from being taken advantage of.
For the time being, the vast majority of AI-rendered images clearly demonstrate apparent aberrations in ways that make it impossible to disguise where the source of the image originated from. The findings of our own experiments with it provide abundant evidence that illustrates this point quite clearly. The outputs of works of visual art that do not aim to duplicate images in an evident way may be more ambiguous and harder to separate from the products of human ingenuity. This is because these works of art do not try to imitate photographs.