Re:Getty Images v. Stability AI – Complaint
by tyingq on Sunday February 05, 2023 @06:30PM
(#34670999)
Some of that, but Getty also repackages images with licenses that allow it. And sometimes then acts like it "owns" those images by harassing others that use the same original source, including the original copyright owner. That's not especially relevant to the article, but helpful to understand a lot of what's there isn't their IP to manage.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Getty Images v. Stability AI – Complaint
by VanTheBrand on Sunday February 05, 2023 @06:46PM
(#34671157)
That’s the minority of their images and also if it’s the version from their server with their watermark on it, it actually is their IP to manage. So as you said it’s not especially relevant and it’s very clear stability didn’t limit its scraping of Getty to these kinds of images. Getty in other instances being jerks doesn’t make them wrong here.
Re:Getty Images v. Stability AI – Complaint
by tyingq on Sunday February 05, 2023 @07:15PM
(#34671463)
>That’s the minority of their images
It's difficult to find any source that would prove or disprove that. I can find references that they changed 35 million images to "royalty free" in 2014. The examples I can find of those are things like this: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/73409000/...
Which appears to be a public domain image.
Or this $499 image from Getty: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burrough...
Free from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ (including the 50MB tiff that appears to be the highest resolution avaialable)