Open AIthe company behind DALL-E 2this week removed the invite-only barrier to its AI image generation tool, opening of the growth platform to anyone interested in using it.
So far about 1.5 million users have used SLAB to generate a wide range of images, from photorealistic faces and landscapes to painterly renderings of characters and scenes that did not exist until a user types in a string of descriptive prompts to guide the output of the AI. Each AI Image Generator starts with free access, with pricing set based on usage.
In a short time, a number of users have taken to using DALL-E and similar tools, including Mid Road and Steady broadcastat flood image sites with new content in hopes of cashing in on royalties paid to creators selling images and photos.
But if the user of the AI software did not draw, paint or photograph an image, does he own it? Or does the company behind the software own it?
Midday and DALL-E rules on property differ
Even AI generator sites disagree on this. Mid Road Terms of use states that “you own any assets you create with [Midjourney]with the caveat that the User grants the Company a broad license to use not only the AI-generated images the User produces, but also the User’s text prompts used to generate the images. .
DALL-E terms, on the other hand, affirm that “OpenAI owns all generations” created on the platform and only grants users the right to use and claim copyright over their AI-generated images.
Users are already taking advantage of AI-generated images
Midjourney’s friendly terms are helpful to AI image makers like Kristina Kashtanova, who set a precedent for other AI users by copyright successfully an AI-generated graphic novel called Dawn Zarya September 15.
Under Midjourney, Kashtanova owns the work.
But if DALL-E users violate OpenAI terms or content policythe company says “you will lose the rights to use [the AI-generated images].”
It sounds simple enough, but it’s an exception to how other popular digital art tools are handled. Serious artists would likely avoid using Photoshop, for example, if it meant giving Adobe the right to own or revoke the copyright on work they produce in the application.
Getty and Shutterstock also disagree on how to treat AI images
The rules on different stock image sites are no less variable. Getty Images banned AI generated images from its service. Shutterstock had a similar ban, but recently reversed course, now allowing anyone to download and enjoy its AI-generated images.
Digital artists find the rules are changing fast
Kashtanova tells Quartz that the footage she owns was initially deemed problematic by Shutterstock, but was then suddenly allowed back on the platform.
“My [Shutterstock] images were 100% AI generated using Midjourney. They were deleted and then restored five hours later,” she says.
The first message Shutterstock sent to Kashtanova informed her that Shutterstock “does not accept machine-generated content”, warning her that “[w]As the AI-generated content space continues to grow at a rapid pace, there are currently multiple copyright implications on machine-generated content that violate our Terms of Service. contributors.
Hours later, Shutterstock said Kashtanova that “AI-generated content that was deleted from your wallet has been restored.”
We asked Shutterstock to clarify their policy. “Our current position is that we accept AI-generated content on the platform for commercial and editorial purposes,” a company spokesperson told us.
“At this time, AI-generated content will be reviewed the same as any other type of digital illustration submission… This may change at any time as we learn more about synthetic imagery. “