What's most important here, I think, is the marketing. "Getty Images, one of the largest suppliers of stock images, editorial photos, videos and music, today announced the launch of a generative AI art tool that it claims is "commercially safer" than other, rival solutions on the market." It is 'safer' only if you agree that image generation AI systems violate copyright. And the market share of commercial AI such as Getty's depends on successfully making that copyright argument. Now, of course, an argument does not become invalid simply because of the self-serving motivation of those advancing it. But we should not be swayed by marketing campaigns intended to persuade is that these copyright problems actually exist, focusing our attention to the question of whether AI actually reproduces copyright material in an illegitimate manner. Because, mostly, it doesn't, at least in my view. See also: Digiday.
Today: 0 Total: 17 [Direct link] [Share]
