> Assuming they have been paid

That is the question we are asking, yes. Based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like Adobe doesn’t have to pay a cent to the creators to train models on their work.

Does that sound fair to you?

ChatGPT trained on my GitHub code and I wasn't paid anything at all. Is that preferable?

"Since someone screwed me, they should screw you"? Crab bucket mentality?

No one is screwing anyone. I also learned from reading GitHub code and continue to do so. I haven't "screwed" the original code authors by forming an abstract memory of their code.

Any country that tries to forbid this will be torpedoing their economic competitiveness against countries that allow it.

This is a common fallacious argument.

What is "this" ?

> Is that preferable?

I don’t see why you are asking this. Which part of my comment made you think it is preferable?

It might also be wrong, yes. I have plenty of code licensed under very permissive licenses that still requires attribution. It is an open question of how much the AI system is a "derived" work in a specific, technical sense. And it probably will remain hard, since the answer is probably on a continuum.

If they signed the contract, then yes.

The creators of these images assigned the rights to adobe, including allowing Adobe to develop future products using the images. So yes, this is perfectly fair.

It's completely different than many (most?) other companies, which are training on data they don't have the right to re-distribute.

> So yes, this is perfectly fair.

I think you are making a jump here. I’m not a lawyer, but your first sentence seems to be about why it is legal. And then you conclude that that is why it is also fair. I’m with you on the first one, but not sure on the second.

The creators uploaded their images so adobe can sell licences for them and they get a share of the licence fees. Just a year ago if you asked almost any people what “using the images to develop new products and services” mean they would have told you something like these examples: Adobe can use the images in internal mockups if they are developing a new ipad app to sell the licences, or perhaps a new website where you can order a t-shirt print of them.

The real test of fairness I think is to imagine what would have happened if Adobe ring the doorbell of any of the creators and asked them if they can use their images to copy their unique style to generate new images. Probably most creators would have agreed on a price. Maybe a few thousand dollars? Maybe a few million? Do you think many would have agreed to do it for zero dollars? If not, then how could that be fair?

No that isn't how it works with Adobe or any of the other big stock photo companies. The photographers or creators of the images still own the copyright. Both with rights managed and royalty free they aren't assigning rights to anyone else.

> Both with rights managed and royalty free they aren't assigning rights to anyone else.

Have you read the contributor agreement? That seems to contradict what you are saying.

The word "assign" doesn't appear at all

And I am sure that you use your computer for work, to make money, and yet you based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like [The computer buyer/you] doesn’t have to pay a cent to the [computer creator] for all the money you make using that computer.

Does that sound fair to you?

See how stupid that sounds?

It sounds stupid because it's a completely different thing.

A tool maker does not have a claim on the work made with a tool, except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement.

Creative copyright explicitly does give creators a claim on derivative work made using their creative output.

That includes patents. If you use a computer protected by patents to create new items which specifically ignore those patents, see how far that gets you.

I expect you find this inconvenient, but it's how it works.

> Creative copyright explicitly does give creators a claim on derivative work made using their creative output.

No actually, not for this situation. They don't if they sold the right to do that, which they did.

> except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement

Oh ok. So then, if in situation 1, and situation 2, there is the same exact prior agreement on the specific topic of if you are allowed to make derivative works, then the situations are exactly same.

Which is the situation.

So yes, the situations are the same, because of the same prior agreement.

Thats why the situation is stupid. The creator sold the rights to make derivative works away. Just like if someone sold you a computer.

And then people used the computer, and also used the sold rights to make derivatives works for the art, because both the computer and the right to make derivative works were equally sold.

> which specifically ignore those patents

Ok now imagine someone sells the rights to use the patent in any way that they want, and then you come along and say "Well, can you considered that if the person didn't sell the patent, that this would be illegal?"

That wouldn't make any sense to say that.

I don't know if there is a concept in copyright that prevents someone from viewing your work.

Like, if you created a lovely piece of art, hung it on the outside of your house, and I was walking on the sidewalk and viewed it. I would not owe you money and you would have no claim of copyright against me.

Copyright covers copying. Not viewing.

So an AI views your art, classifies it, does whatever magic it does to turn your art into a matrix of numbers. The model doesn't contain a copy of your art.

Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can't see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy.

> Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can’t see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy.

Memory involves making a copy, and copies anywhere except in the human brain are within the scope of copyright (but may fall into exceptions like Fair Use.)

And this is where it becomes tricky as holding a copy in memory so software can "use" it being against copyright also prevents it being displayed on Adobe's website, or Adobe shrinking it to fit on advertising collage for Adobe Stock images etc, all of which the artist would say is fine as otherwise their work cannot be advertised for them to make money through Adobe's service.

Supposing the AI said "here's the picture you asked for, btw it's influenced most by these four artists and here's links to their works on Adobe Stock"... is that better (or worse)?

Some very strange responses in this sub-thread.

When the agreement was signed no one was even able to imagine their work being used for AI. As far as they knew they were signing a standard distribution agreement with one particular rights outlet, while reserving all other rights for more general use. If anyone had asked about automated use in AI it's very likely the answer would have been a clear "No."

It's predatory and very possibly unlawful to assume the original agreement wording grants that right automatically.

The existence of contract wording does not automatically imply the validity of that wording. Contracts can always be ruled excessive, predatory, and unlawful no matter what they say or who signed them.

> If anyone had asked about automated use in AI it's very likely the answer would have been a clear "No."

Maybe. Maybe not. Very clearly there is a price point where it could be worth it for the artist. Like if adobe paid more for the rights than they recon they will ever earn in a lifetime or something. But clearly everybody would have said “no” at the great price point of 0 dollars.

I'm not sure it true that creators are owed nothing further... It seems analogous to a musician signing over rights for one thing, like recording rights on wax disks, records or whatever. Then along comes radio, after the artists signed away a smaller set of rights. The radio companies claim that they owe the artists nothing. But is that true?

And that's a different question from whether or not they deserve extra compensation. Is it moral or ethical to use their work to directly undercut them via ai 'copying' their work?

Heh Heh Heh

Half the problems with music is because of record companies magically inventing new ways to try and extract more money from each other and their supply chain.

"Oh, your band looked at some hookers they passed on the way to the recording studio? Well, they obviously owe those hookers a cut of the royalties now for inspiration..."

Trying to use AI as an excuse to be paid a 2nd time (for previously fully paid works) seems like another attempt at rent seeking in a similar manner.

The prior deal was based on royalties for use. Adobe pays you 33% percent of anything they make. It is consignment. So if someone uses a specific photo for $20, you get paid $6.60, no money us paid upfront.

So what should adobe pay you for using the data in training? Some kind of fraction of the overall revenue they generate from the new product? The license currently used for their stock program make it seem like they don't have to pay anything at all, because this use cases wasn't understood previously. Adobe reserved to rights to do it, so legally they can - but if they want to continue getting contributions they will need to figure out some kind of updated royalty sharing agreement.

Defining how “fully” paid a creator has been is the entire point of license agreements. It defines the extent of how much the rights have been purchased away from them.

It merits investigation as to have these creators been “fully” paid to the extent that they have no claim to any future royalties and can have no objection to their work being used as training data.

Switch "creators" with "musicians" and "AI" with "streaming" and I we feel like we went back to early 2000. Same arguments.

Adapting what Steve Albini said at the time: If you're an artist, negotiate your future "AI training rights" separately. Make sure they're in writing. Make sure attribution rights stay yours.