GETTY LAWSUIT AGAINST STABILITY AI RAISES DIFFICULT QUESTIONS

The news that Getty Images, one of the world’s biggest stock image providers, is suing Stability AI, the company behind popular AI art generator Stable Diffusion, raises some serious questions about the future of AI and intellectual property rights.

According to Getty, Stability AI used its images to help train its artificial intelligence, without authorisation. The media company says it is taking legal action against Stable Diffusion’s creators to protect its contributors' intellectual property rights.

Sounds fair enough, right? After all, as an artist/photographer myself, I perfectly well understand the need to protect IP in order to ensure the sustainability of creative work. But, things aren’t so simple anymore. Of course, there’s no denying that artificial intelligence tools like Stable Diffusion do indeed ‘scrape’ the web for images. All images, without regard for copyright, in order to train the AI - something its creators claim is covered by ‘fair usage’ laws.

We all learn from everything we see - how is AI any different?

Quite obviously, such training is basically a form of education - albeit of a machine-based intelligence, rather human. In fact, this method of learning - looking at other images - is much the same as the way that humans learn. I am under no illusion that every image I create is in some way, no matter how distant, influenced by every other image I’ve ever seen in my life. In reality, this fact is pretty much indisputable. We all learn everything by looking, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting. We are all the sum of everything we’ve seen and experienced. Anyone trying to say anything they’ve created is truly original is, at best, deluded.

Indeed, anyone can go to Getty Images and look at the pictures they have. And, because we can look, those images will stay somewhere deep in our minds and will influence anything we create in the future. In doing so, we aren’t breaking any IP laws or incurring the wrath of Getty’s lawyers. So, why are they targeting AI for doing the same thing?

To be fair to Getty, it is a tough situation for them. They’ve invested an awful lot of resources in their business, and it's understandable that they want to protect the status quo. And, for photographers, illustrators, and other creators, the specter of the AI revolution is daunting, to say the least. But, something is very clear; Getty can’t win. Sure, they may secure a settlement (although, I very much doubt it), but the AI genie is out of the bottle, and it’s not going back in, ever.

In the same way that governments and central banks around the world are still in denial about cryptocurrencies and decentralised blockchain technology, it seems some in the traditional media industry are refusing to acknowledge reality. For, at the end of the day, if Getty manages to lay claim on the mere act of looking and learning, then it implies they can lay claim on humans doing it too - which would be absurd.

Maybe the truth is that Getty’s business model simply can’t work in the AI age? I suspect we will see many industries get harsh wake-up calls over the next few years. But, this is the price we always pay for progress - nothing stays the same, and new opportunities arise as the old ways die.

In one of my upcoming posts, I’ll tell you how AI has dramatically changed the approach I’m taking with my own photography and art - and, believe me, it’s been a roller coaster! Stay tuned…