Getty Images v. Stability AI – Complaint
Not related to this lawsuit, but related to AI art and copyright in general. What do any HN lawyers make of this? <a href="https://twitter.com/heyBarsee/status/1621411036426280961" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/heyBarsee/status/1621411036426280961</a><p>Basically it's an AI tool that takes a copyrighted photo, and produces an AI-produced photo that is "conceptually identical" but not actually identical.<p>That is, given a photo of "an asian man lying in a grass field surrounded by a semicircle of driftwood and crows", it would produce a photo that had all of the same concepts, but just slightly different execution on each of them.<p>The man's face is still asian but clearly a different person. The driftwood is still in a semicircle, but the individual pieces are all different. The crows are still there, but arranged slightly differently. The grass is still grass, but no blades are the same.<p>So it's essentially cloning the idea/concept/vibes of the target image, but none of the actual "implementation details".<p>Does anyone have any intuition of the legal outlook on this?<p>On one hand, nothing is stopping me from seeing the copyrighted photo and then recruiting a similar looking model, setting up a photoshoot in a field with some stuffed crows, etc. I could replicate what the AI is doing. It would be work, but I could do it. The AI is just automating this.<p>On the other hand, the <i>actual stated intention</i> of this tool is to get around copyright. Seems sketchy.