Author Topic: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?  (Read 991 times)

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« on: February 19, 2024, 07:18:47 PM »
Hi
I'm a speech therapist.  I have a very large, over 1300, collection of clipart pictures that I use with kids to help them work on speech sounds.  I got these from various internet sources.  I'm sure a lot of them are under copyright - I don't have permission to use them for commercial use. 

I'm not worried about using them when I see kids but I want to possible use them as part of a commercial product that I would sell to other speech therapists and parents.

I have a program where each speech sound is represented by a label, picture and gesture. This part is my own creation.  I match these up to the clipart pictures.  This makes it easier for kids to understand what sounds make up the words and to say them correctly.

The program itself would be helpful but it would have much more value if I could include the clipart.

How much trouble could I get in for selling clipart that I don't have rights to?

Would it help if I gave away the clipart collection but sold my program to go along with them?

Thanks for the thoughts.

PMG

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1636
  • Location: USA
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2024, 07:57:50 PM »
Can you hire an illustrator to create your own illustrations? More expensive than free but you’d own it outright and not face consequences of theft of someone else’s work.

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2024, 09:33:00 PM »
I doubt if my sales would cover the cost of an illustrator.  Maybe an AI?  I tried one but the drawings were crap. Maybe worth another try. 

Steeling - Ya I guess that would be what it is.  Harsh sounding but technically true.  If I left a dollar out on the sidewalk in front of my house I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't there in the morning.  Surely all that artwork being so "publicly" available makes me a bit less ethically criminal?

If it doesn't keep me up at night what its realistically going to happen?  Some not so nice emails telling me not to use them? Demands of payment?  Worse?

JupiterGreen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2024, 05:10:44 AM »
I doubt if my sales would cover the cost of an illustrator.  Maybe an AI?  I tried one but the drawings were crap. Maybe worth another try. 

Steeling - Ya I guess that would be what it is.  Harsh sounding but technically true.  If I left a dollar out on the sidewalk in front of my house I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't there in the morning.  Surely all that artwork being so "publicly" available makes me a bit less ethically criminal?

If it doesn't keep me up at night what its realistically going to happen?  Some not so nice emails telling me not to use them? Demands of payment?  Worse?

Wow, I'm glad that it wouldn't keep you up at night, but it is stealing someone else's labor and you may get sued (many have). If you are using them for educational purposes (not disseminating them) that shouldn't be a problem, but if you are selling a product, by your description, you should not be using these images. If it is not profitable without using stolen images then it is not a worthwhile venture. Images should be part of the budget so if you can't square the budget without them, why pursue the project at a loss. There are some fairly cheap image sites out there. The other thing you could do is to learn how to make images, and as a bonus you'll understand what goes into creating these things and maybe respect the fact that without people making them, they wouldn't exists. And of course you would have your own images for your project.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2024, 05:30:09 AM »
Steeling - Ya I guess that would be what it is.  Harsh sounding but technically true.  If I left a dollar out on the sidewalk in front of my house I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't there in the morning.  Surely all that artwork being so "publicly" available makes me a bit less ethically criminal?

If it doesn't keep me up at night what its realistically going to happen?  Some not so nice emails telling me not to use them? Demands of payment?  Worse?

Worse. So very much, much worse.

Quote
Statutory damages are calculated per work infringed. According to clause (1) of Title 17, U.S.C. Section 504(c), statutory damages range from $750 per work to $30,000 per work, with two principal exceptions:

  • In case of "innocent infringement", the amount may be reduced to a sum "not less than $200" for an effective range of $200 to $30,000 per work. "Innocent" is a technical term. In particular, if the work carries a copyright notice, the infringer cannot claim innocence.
  • In case of "willful infringement" (again, "willful" is a technical term), statutory damages can be no more than $150,000 for an effective range of $750 to $150,000 per work.

Damages in copyright cases can be very high. In Lowry's Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc., a 2003 lawsuit between a publisher of stock analysis newsletters against a company that buys one copy of the newsletters and makes multiple copies for use in-house, the jury awarded damages – actual damages for some newsletters and statutory damages for other newsletters – totaling $20 million.

I am not a lawyer, but... congratulations! This thread and your public, indexed, searchable, archived and quoted posts just enabled anyone who you've improperly sourced and licensed media from in your for-profit published works the opportunity to have one hell of a legal bonanza. Somewhere around $195M+ in potential damages between everyone involved. And remember, you've linked your website here in the past. You won't be hard to track down.

Doing things legally and properly if you want copyright protection yourself and the freedom to sell your works to others costs very real money and/or effort. Using AI isn't going to fix your issue, especially since AI generated artwork cannot legally be covered by copyright, which stands to reason since all generative AI models are basically nothing more than environmentally destructive fancy copyright infringement machines.

Stop being stingy with your business dealings... not only does it increase legal and financial risk when cutting corners catches up with you, but a lot of people can sense the skeeze when dealing with you, which itself is counterproductive to your financial well-being as fewer people will want to give you money.

Either create the artwork yourself, pay someone else to do it, pay the license fees for properly licensed stock images, source exclusively from appropriately licensed and well documented Creative Commons works that allow for commercial reuse provided you uphold your end of the licensing terms, or source from US Government owned and explicitly Public Domain released works. I would highly recommend against mixing sources too heavily to keep the paperwork that you'll have to maintain to cover your ass more manageable... or, y'know, do nothing, keep using what you got, and roll the dice on the rights holders and legal system catching up with you.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2024, 05:36:09 AM by Daley »

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2024, 06:15:21 PM »
Thanks for all the thoughts.

You say that I couldn't use AI produced images as they can't be legally covered by copyright. Can you explain that more?  I don't care if I can't copyright an image that I had an AI make as long as I can use it legally. 

This seems to say that commercial use depends on the AI https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/is-ai-art-copyrighted
« Last Edit: February 20, 2024, 06:23:35 PM by Frznrth »

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2024, 08:59:44 PM »
AI generated art cannot be willed into existence without having been fed pre-existing work to train on first. The only legal way to train an AI art machine is to properly license all the content it's trained on. This means the only way an AI art generator can create art that will not cause copyright infringement is if the generated content is based on properly licensed training data. This is why AI generated artwork cannot be copyrighted. This is also why the only legal AI art generators that dodge the copyright infringement risk will be operated by stock asset warehouses that will only provide royalty free licensing of that work that's generated exclusively from other works it already has licensed, as it's still derived from works that have been published with a copyright. Your legally protected usage of that AI content is still no different from the purchased licensing of pre-existing human created art. You don't hold the copyright, you hold a royalty free license that gives you permission to use those art assets within reason.

Since you are incapable of generating your own artwork, this means you have to pay for it one way or the other to cover your ass. You need licenses for the works that are royalty free since you're including those assets in a product you're profiting off of. You can either pay for that license, source it from generous artists who've provided said works under the appropriate Creative Commons license(s), or you use easily verifiable Public Domain assets. That cost is either money or time, or both. There's also something to be said about a polished work with visual consistency throughout it being more attractive to buyers. Something that's harder to do with clipart over photos when you're dealing with multiple artists.

Are there "legally safe" AI art generators from stock photo companies that are trained on their own data sets and will license to you royalty free usage? Yes, but the price of those AI generated images discounts the cost and labor and effort to come up with a sufficiently detailed enough prompt to create what you're after, and if you're already willing enough to give ShutterStock or iStockPhoto or Adobe Stock or whomever money to do that, and you're already dealing with images that you literally just randomly sourced off the internet...

...because doing AI generation on that scale in a legally protected way that won't likely eventually fall into the copyright infringement pit due to the training data will cost real money, and you're still stuck in the royalty free paid licensing pit over holding the copyright with the generated images. You'll literally spend money and time with creative effort to generate a massive visual database that you still cannot legally own, only reproduce and distribute as part of a larger work without threat of lawsuit.

In theory, using iStockPhotos prices, you're only saving about $200USD going AI generation over just sourcing from their preexisting media and paying for two months of 750 royalty free downloads a month... and that's assuming you're happy with the first shot results off of each prompt. Do you really think having to come up with, refining and generating over 1300 AI image prompts is worth, at best, a 50% savings just so you can say you created the images yourself but still wind up in a situation where you still don't wholly own the images in a way that allows you to legally cover the entire work by copyright but instead still leaves you with only a royalty free usage license on those image assets? Especially when the total cost is already looking to be well south of $1000? And it sounds like you're wanting clipart and not photos out of the AI, good luck with that. Doesn't mean it couldn't be useful for helping to fill in holes that you might potentially find in the main catalogue, but...

Again, this is penny pinching, stingy thinking. You can literally get 1500 basic image licenses from Getty/iStockPhotos for a whopping $400. All covered under a single, royalty free license. Single location to source everything, and presented in a way that gives you consistent, professional image resolution throughout the work. Licensed with a limitation of unlimited electronic reproduction and 500k printed items. No scrounging, no wrestling with AI generators, no legally gray copyright wrangling, no separating the sellable content from the image database for distribution...

End of the day, that's literally what we're talking about here. It's shocking how cheap it actually is to do what you're wanting to do legally, and the barrier or entry to research and understand that is nearly effortless to do when you already know the words necessary to find what you're after. It's also why it's so staggeringly insane to steal the content and risk upwards of a nine-figure lawsuit over just properly licensing the content in the first place.

It doesn't mean you couldn't theoretically do it for cheaper using Creative Commons content, especially with clipart given resources like The Noun Project consolidating a lot of that content... but the level of nuance with CC licensing might be a bit much for most people, especially when one is barely past the "I'll just steal what I can't make! What's the worst that can happen?" stage of for-profit content creation. But, if your work can't handle half a grand investment before publishing, there might be something wrong with your approach to what you're creating. It's not that what you're creating isn't potentially useful, but the scope is limited, and the fact that you'd rather try to profit off the work more than just make it available complicates matters when you're not creative enough to provide ALL the content yourself. And this isn't to say that making the core content free fixes the problem of licensing the rights to those other assets... it just makes it potentially cheaper to license.

TL;DR: It's not that expensive bigger picture to do things right, and just pay creators for their work to be able to properly include that work so you can legally sell the work you yourself are creating. None of this AI bullshit workaround trying to chase after the illusion of saving money on the creative process. You're not going to be able to create or afford your own artwork that you'll ever hold the clear copyright to, so just properly license what you need and stop pfaffing about tapdancing around the idea of paying other people for their work you want to use so you can have people pay you for the work you've done. If you can't justify the cost or time to do it right and do it legally, you might have the wrong motives going into this.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2024, 09:08:00 PM by Daley »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2024, 10:49:45 PM »
AI generated art cannot be willed into existence without having been fed pre-existing work to train on first. The only legal way to train an AI art machine is to properly license all the content it's trained on. This means the only way an AI art generator can create art that will not cause copyright infringement is if the generated content is based on properly licensed training data.

The above is a legal theory put forward by some folks, including the New York Times (although they are arguing it with text).

It is not yet a matter of settled law and it's unclear how the courts are going to rule on whether or not AI models constitute a transformative use which would be covered under fair use.

Here's a good review of the current state of legal thinking (and open questions) in this area in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Quote
This is why AI generated artwork cannot be copyrighted.

This is incorrect. The reason AI generated artwork cannot be copyrighted is that the US Copyright Office does not consider them "the product of human authorship" which is a key criteria for copyrights to be granted. It's the same reason the courts have ruled the US won't grant copyright protection to images taken by monkeys (yes there was a test case about that). It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not AI models are allowed to learn from taking in information on the internet like organic human brains would be allowed to do.

But all that aside @Frznrth, don't use copyrighted clipart in anything you intend to sell for a profit. Seriously. The potential consequences are extreme and the benefits comparatively minor.

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9651
  • Age: 46
  • Location: New York City
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2024, 01:18:54 AM »
I worked many years in print publishing and saw a number of times that someone would use a "free" image they "found" on the internet in a published work... and get caught by the artist, who demanded payment or face a lawsuit. It happens all the time. Even when the image wasn't on the internet, someone might see it in print and inform the artist. People are generally on the artists' side and will see you as the Big Bad Guy who stole their work.

If you really want to do this I would investigate some of the stock photo websites that have clip art libraries. They may be affordable for you if they have the right kind of contract and a monthly unlimited option where you can use as many photos as you want for a set fee. There are also free clip art libraries (although they are probably more limited in scope than the paid ones).

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2024, 08:47:35 AM »
Hi
I won't be selling any clipart that I have "found".  I looked around and while it won't be easy or cheap I should be able to eventually have enough legal clipart to offer a good product.

I want to start by offering my set of pictures for each sound label and gesture that I have (for example a scarred cat pic that goes with the short a sound and a hand gesture that helps facilitate the sound).  This set is only 39 pics.  I will get the licenses for these.  But I have all of these sound label pics arranged under my 1500 illegal clip art in both a small and large version.  So 3000 words with 1 to 7 sound label pics under each.  A massive amount.  I will delete all of the illegal pictures and tell customer to fill the blanks in with whatever they want.  There is still value in having all of the practice words organized by sounds and word shapes with my sound labels below. 

But - will I need to replace each of my illegal sound label pics with the licensed ones?  Is there some difference between the two that triggers the artist/company into thinking that I don't have a license. 

In the end I'm likely to have obtained pictures from many different sources.  What do I need to do to show that I obtained them legally?

Thanks

lhamo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3127
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2024, 09:01:45 AM »
Why don't you just find a local artist or graphic designer (maybe a student, or an instructor at a local school or college who does work on the side), show them your existing collection, and pay them to give you a cohesive collection of new designs/images that correspond to the sounds.  If you don't want to pay them a ton up-front before you know how much this project will net you, you could offer them a small lump sum + a percentage of future sales (maybe up to a cap so that you don't have to be cutting them checks for $10/year for all eternity if sales dwindle.

Start with a small collection to begin with and see how sales do.  If this is something that has a market, you should earn enough as you build the collection to pay both the designer and yourself well.  Win win.  And no worries about copyright.

There is frugal and there is cheap.  Trying to profit off of someone else's creative work without compensating them is cheap.  Don't be cheap.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2024, 10:51:00 AM »
I will delete all of the illegal pictures and tell customer to fill the blanks in with whatever they want.

I could be proved wrong, but this sounds like an incomplete product. I'm not sure trying to sell speech therapy resource books missing what sounds like a key component that the buyer now has to provide is going to market and sell well. These aren't coloring books. Statements like this also reinforce the lazy, corner cutting, cheap nature that keeps cropping up in this thread with your work. Could sales be soft because the sellable materials come across as cheap, unprofessional and lazy to others?

The idea and concept you're doing and pushing forward in theory is fantastic, but for all the work done on the foundation of presentation, you've literally been cheaping out on the most pivotal parts of making it all work, the part that you can't create yourself. I think that may be hurting you far more than you realize, especially when it's a niche market in the first place.

But - will I need to replace each of my illegal sound label pics with the licensed ones?  Is there some difference between the two that triggers the artist/company into thinking that I don't have a license.

In the end I'm likely to have obtained pictures from many different sources.  What do I need to do to show that I obtained them legally?

I think you're still grossly misunderstanding the failure point and what's required to properly license the images used. If through some miraculous coincidence, some of the images you've used can be licensed through, say, Getty Images? You specifically license those images through Getty on your account and you can probably leave those pre-existing content assets unchanged, unless you want to standardize image quality in the work using their print quality uncompressed image files and vector graphic masters (which will go a long way towards making a more polished and professional looking product).

If you cannot get a proper license through Getty or (anyone else) for certain image assets, you simply CANNOT USE THEM, full stop. This means you need to source a different image asset with a proper license that is similar in nature to the one you cannot use.

Perhaps these examples will help you better understand:

You found a photo of the Great Pyramid in Giza from a unique angle online taken by Dee Snoots that you wanted to use. Dee Snoots holds exclusive copyright on this specific photo but has licensed it for royalty free usage through iStockPhoto/Getty Images. This means you can use Dee Snoots' photo by buying a license to use this image legally through iStockPhoto/Getty Images in your project. Problem solved, you get the exact photo you want for usage with your work!

You also found a photo of Big Ben tower online taken by Joe Schmidlap with a sunset sky in the background that you wanted to use. Joe Schmidlap holds exclusive copyright on this photo and has not licensed it for royalty free usage anywhere and refuses to give you permission to use it. This means you can't use Joe Schmidlap's photo of Big Ben tower in your project. However, iStockPhoto/Getty Images has a daytime photo of Big Ben tower with fluffy blue clouds behind it from a different angle also taken by Dee Snoots who has licensed their copyright through Getty for royalty free reproduction. So, you buy a license for that work through Getty to use Dee's photo instead of using Joe Schmidlap's in your work. Now, it's legal. It may not be the exact image you wanted, but it's close enough to substitute.

I would highly recommend if you're going to use pre-existing generated content and properly license those assets, try to source everything from the same licensing company. It makes for far easier records keeping as you can literally point to one company for all license records on the artwork used.



The above is a legal theory put forward by some folks, including the New York Times (although they are arguing it with text).

It is not yet a matter of settled law and it's unclear how the courts are going to rule on whether or not AI models constitute a transformative use which would be covered under fair use.

Here's a good review of the current state of legal thinking (and open questions) in this area in the Columbia Journalism Review.

There's an interesting article on this over at Ars that just dropped yesterday.

Given the nature of how the machines work, they're just regurgitating parts of what was put in in an aesthetically pleasing way. Everything it creates is derivative of the data it's trained on. The matter is complicated, but it's doubtful the Google Books defense is gonna work on this one for text or image output. Although it's still not settled, it's pretty obvious the direction the law is going to fall. We have ridiculously strong copyright laws and frown heavily on derivative works based on copyrighted materials. These machines have no free will or spark of creativity, it's literally a GIGO machine in that it can only spit out what its trained on.

There are two camps in AI in regard to this... the AI True Believers™ who have drunk the Flavorade and deluded themselves into believing these fuzzy heuristics machines have the divine spark of thought and creativity and/or view humanity as stupid stochastic parrots incapable of creativity and easily replaced by machines, and are as such preparing for the singularity apocalypse with their massive wilderness bunkers wrought at their own hands with their technology while telling us all not to worry, because they're open and ethical and they got Red Teams on it to keep these infernal machines from killing us all! And it's important we keep our focus on the machines for creating this croney-capitalist hellscape, because it can never be the capital owners who created these machines who are at fault for making them in the first place... after all, it's all a black box, they don't even know how it works anymore! These are the idiots betting on being able to beat the copyright challenges in the courts right now, and their "we'll defend you from copyright infringement lawsuits" pinky swears with their generated content have no meat in the boilerplate or financial backing promised. Meanwhile, their lawyers are still secretly scrambling and making deals with large content repositories to license those works to avoid paying out when the dust settles off of these lawsuits.

The other camp using AI generation for artworks is using properly licensed databases, calling a spade a spade, and recognizing that it's producing uncopyrightable content due to the derivative nature of the machine. These people are putting up the same copyright infringement protections with real dollar amounts in real contracts on their AI generated content that they're putting behind their properly licensed works.

Quote
This is why AI generated artwork cannot be copyrighted.

This is incorrect. The reason AI generated artwork cannot be copyrighted is that the US Copyright Office does not consider them "the product of human authorship" which is a key criteria for copyrights to be granted.

Yes, true, but this was not the perspective I was taking with it. I'm not talking about AI models' inability to register their own copyrights. I'm talking about the likely consequence of those lawsuits shaking out with the inability for AI users to take purely synthesized AI content generated whole-stock and unmodified from their prompts and copyright it for their own use, because it'll be legally viewed as derivative content free from the protection of fair use. Given it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that the courts and copyright holders are gonna laugh the AI companies out of the courtroom with their, "We should totally get a free pass on fair use because it's 'academic usage' to teach these machines that we're then flipping over to use to generate content for profit!" defense, there's not much reason to expect otherwise... especially when it's been proven time and again that those copyrighted works are clearly in existence, as a whole in the datasets. Text. Visual. You name it.

All this, however, is irrelevant to OPs problem, outside of us both proving from all ends that his solution to the problem is not to be found in AI, but paying artists for the work he needs to complete his own sell-able works in a way that doesn't leave him destitute after a few days playing lawyerball in front of a dude in a black dress and twelve angry people.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2024, 11:02:49 AM by Daley »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2024, 11:29:54 AM »
My name is MaizeFolk. I don't believe the singularity is coming. I'm not building a bunker. And I don't think there is a clearcut case that AI generated content is copyright infringing in most cases. But I do think NYTimes may win in their specific case against OpenAI (not users of OpenAI's tools) because they found a way to get ChatGPT to output at least one exact copy of a New York Times story.

I think you do people who read your posts a serious disservice by misrepresenting your opinion of how the courts will ultimately rule as already the settled law of the land.  Let's skip over the part where anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of copyright law is called an idiot and all sorts of things beyond pointing out that the point of forum rule #2 is to keep the focus on debating ideas rather than just calling people one disagrees with names.

About settled copyright law: The US Copyright office has decided that AI content cannot be copyrighted even by the human who asked the AI to generate the content, not just that it can't be copyrighted by the AI, because they consider the content to be generated by AI and (like a monkey and unlike a human) that excludes it from copyright protection because their view is that work produced by AI is not generated by humans. This is true regardless of whether the AI was trained with licensed, public domain, or other work.

Here's a good Ars Technica piece on where policy currently stands.

You also seem to believe that infringing on someone else's copyright excludes a work from qualifying for its own copyright protection. If so, this is an incorrect understanding of US copyright law. If that were true, a movie based on a book, for example, would not qualify for copyright protection. However, in reality the movie does qualify for its own copyright. The movie still needs a license to the book's IP or it will be infringing, but in our legal system it is possible for a work to both be protected by copyright and infringing on someone else's copyright simultaneously.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2024, 12:42:55 PM »
Fair enough. We're mostly in violent agreement.

This said, my statement about idiots with bunkers was directed squarely at the C-suite of various "disruptive" techbro AI companies. When rich people who are literally shaking the foundations of civilization say and do idiotic things as the reasoning for their shaking, is it really a violation of Forum Rule #2 to call them idiots? Hasn't stopped others in these forums from calling Elon Musk a lot of appropriate words for his behavior that would otherwise be classified as derogatory insults. Why should Apocalypse Bunker Structure owning Sam Altman get a pass?

Regarding copyright law and AI, argue what you will about my opinion being a disservice in regard to using a specific technology without any legal safety nets on proper licensing to try and fill a need when that output is still largely in a gray area that could go either way, especially when you gotta pay real money to use it... especially when the person in question is trying to use the tool to wholesale replace an artist instead of use it as a tool to augment creative development.

But regarding my certainty? Color me skeptical of it falling out any other way. Intellectual Property is a financial goldmine and cornerstone of modern financial wealth in this country, and the law frequently gets written for those with the deepest pockets, and the deepest pockets have a vested interest in keeping control of their portfolios. After all, it's the deep pocket IP holders and their lawyers who have literally turned copyright infringement from a purely civil matter to a federal one with prison time attached to rights infringement in the United States within our lifetimes. You wouldn't know it from this thread, but I'm actually for a very light touch on copyright and trademark with strict, short terms to permit for cultural remixing and a large and healthy public domain. I'm also a major proponent of Copyleft and Creative Commons.

Again, call it a disservice speaking as though the matter's already been settled, but when the fight's between unethical Silicon Valley Techbros and the scorched earth tactics of places like The House of Mouse, don't bet your life's work against the Vegas bookies... especially when you're sweating a few hundred bucks to make that work happen.

And yes, I'll say it in direct violation of Rule #2: Anyone stupid enough to bank on using AI in this capacity right now acting on the idea that the AI companies will win no matter what, and willingly use any generative AI for unmodified output from anything other than machines derived from specific, limited and properly licensed datasets before that copyright issue is settled? Even with the potential of it going in the favor of fair use and the AI companies, but banking on and doing so before that decision is made by going all in? They're a certifiable idiot. Not but fluff between their ears to do so for even a hot second before that ruling is made. If that describes anyone in this thread, I will unapologetically call you an idiot for doing so, because the cost of getting that decision wrong by tossing all your eggs into that basket before the law is settled is right up there with pirating the images in the first place. There is no risk of grave financial loss or infringement when you don't screw with legally gray technology to begin with.

I've not anything left to say on the subject.

Edited to add one last finite detail regarding my logic flow: If OpenAI loses their copyright defense, yes, OpenAI will be held liable for those infringements. However, it also means their copyright infringement protection offers for end users aren't going to be worth the electrons they're saved as, and shit rolls downhill. I can see content derived from unlicensed AI datasets containing copyrighted content used in for-profit works eventually falling into the same problematic end-user hole as unlicensed artwork.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2024, 01:22:06 PM by Daley »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2024, 01:42:02 PM »
Good luck to you.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2024, 02:04:07 PM »
You as well.

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2024, 07:47:50 PM »
Speech therapists sell word lists that help other therapists target specific goals.  Words with pictures would of course be more useful but my work wouldn't necessarily be seen as incomplete.

I found some of my core content pictures (the ones that represent the sounds) on 2 different sites and have downloaded them legally after subscribing the sites.  No one site is going to have all of the pictures I used. I have been using this set for a long time and would like to keep them as they are - if I can - I'll keep looking. 

Subscribing to the sites let me download the pictures but I didn't see any "license" that i would keep - just some info on my membership details.  If I don't need to replace my old pictures with the licensed ones do I just keep this membership info and use it to respond to any inquires?  When a company or artist sees one of their pics on a site/product how do they know it is legal or not?  Are they asking every site/author to supply proof?  I thought there would be some sort of digital fingerprint that would identify legal from illegal - no?

If my product is well received maybe I will look into having someone produce artwork for me.  I'm happy to reinvest profits but I'm not willing to put money upfront.  This is all more of a hobby for me a serious endeavour.  Sorry if I'm coming off cheap and sleazy  - that is not my intent.

I appreciate all of your advice.  Thanks for the help. 

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2024, 09:14:11 PM »
Speech therapists sell word lists that help other therapists target specific goals.  Words with pictures would of course be more useful but my work wouldn't necessarily be seen as incomplete.

My apologies for any misunderstanding. If dealing with speech therapists directly, I can see how it'd be fine as such, but you also mentioned parents. This is technical inside baseball sorts of resources, and if there's anything I've learned over the years is that the consumer of advice/tools/etc., unless you're handshake dealing with others inside your industry, want something turnkey and complete. They don't want to think about it, they don't want to research it, and they don't want to find their own answers, or provide missing parts. They want a ready to use product or information. Even when you give them ready to use products or information, it can frequently still not be enough to expect them to just use it, no matter how simple.

I've dropped tons of information and advice for free here for more than a decade, expecting nothing in return. I've lost count of how many times I've given the basics, and eventually have to explain things so thoroughly that I feel like I'm having to think for them. And that's for free advice. It never improved with charging money.

I found some of my core content pictures (the ones that represent the sounds) on 2 different sites and have downloaded them legally after subscribing the sites.  No one site is going to have all of the pictures I used. I have been using this set for a long time and would like to keep them as they are - if I can - I'll keep looking. 

Subscribing to the sites let me download the pictures but I didn't see any "license" that i would keep - just some info on my membership details.  If I don't need to replace my old pictures with the licensed ones do I just keep this membership info and use it to respond to any inquires?  When a company or artist sees one of their pics on a site/product how do they know it is legal or not?  Are they asking every site/author to supply proof?  I thought there would be some sort of digital fingerprint that would identify legal from illegal - no?

This is a question to ask the site you've subscribed to, as not every site and license is identical. It was recommended the cheapest and easiest to manage solution is to deal with a single resource with a large enough asset library to cover your needs where they provide permanent individual licenses per asset on the account with your purchase history providing your papertrail, some of those licensing companies were even directly namechecked here. Not all sites operate like this. Some are subscription based where the license is only valid if you stay in good standing. Some just have a blanket flat rate to the entire library with limited access to the assets and no ability to re-download anything after the subscription ends. Some have varying degrees of license type depending on how much you pay and what those rights actually give you. Some will just charge you a complete price for their entire catalog. There is no mention of who you paid or used.

Realistically, though, these are not questions you should be asking us. These are the questions you should have asked and gotten answers from the asset licensing company you wanted to use BEFORE you gave them any money. That's what pricing, FAQ and license terms are for, not to mention customer support. At the end of the day, what matters with this stuff is a paper-trail that proves that you can legally use those assets in the first place. This is the fiddly legal end of for-profit publishing and copyright law, and it sucks to deal with.

If my product is well received maybe I will look into having someone produce artwork for me.  I'm happy to reinvest profits but I'm not willing to put money upfront.  This is all more of a hobby for me a serious endeavour.  Sorry if I'm coming off cheap and sleazy  - that is not my intent.

Most of that vibe came from the discordant situation of you wanting to charge money for your work while simultaneously dismissing the rights of the artmakers responsible for completing the work you put together for payment, only to chase after other solutions that still cut out potentially paying artists in hopes of saving money. I'm sorry if I came off a little gruff on the subject, but it was some tough love from someone who's spent a lot of time over the years trying to help you specifically with this whole thing you're doing. I'm thankful that you're changing course and trying to do the right thing now.

And I'll be honest, it hits close to home as someone with a background in the graphic arts and has had his work, specifically his original writings on the communications guide done for this community outright stolen by another forum member for use on their own referral farm website solely for cashing checks on high bounty referrals from an MVNO that was absolutely shitty as all get out at the time. No request, no link, just straight stolen without attribution and used solely to sell an MVNO that I refused to endorse. Even had the stones to hotlink photos off my own website for use on their own, and link my old savings calculator off their own referral farm post. This was about a decade ago.

I appreciate all of your advice.  Thanks for the help.

Yup.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2024, 12:23:33 AM by Daley »

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Copyrited Clipart - sell, give away?
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2024, 09:50:42 AM »
FYI - I tried out a few different AI generators.  The best I found to make simple clipart was DALL-E 3 which is available through Chat GPT 4 for $25 USD per month.  You can access it for free through Bing but it is very slow.  The payed version takes about 10-20 seconds per image.

I'm disappointed in myself for spending all that time collecting illegal clipart. I should have asked for your advice sooner.  Thanks for putting me on the right path. 
« Last Edit: February 25, 2024, 09:52:43 AM by Frznrth »