Comment by AnthonyMouse

Comment by AnthonyMouse 17 hours ago

I kind of wonder if that even works.

If you take a model trained on Getty and ask it for Indiana Jones or Harry Potter, what does it give you? These things are popular enough that it's likely to be present in any large set of training data, either erroneously or because some specific works incorporated them in a way that was licensed or fair use for those particular works even if it isn't in general.

And then when it conjures something like that by description rather than by name, how are you any better off than something trained from random social media? It's not like you get to make unlicensed AI India Jones derivatives just because Getty has a photo of Harrison Ford.

runeblaze 16 hours ago

I work in this space. In traditional diffusion-based regimes (paired image and text), one can absolutely check the text to remove all occurrences of Indiana Jones. Likewise, Adobe Stock has content moderation that ensures (up to human moderation limit) no dirty content. It is a world without Indiana Jones to the model

Reply View 5 replies

goatsi 16 hours ago

If you ask the Adobe stock image generation for "Adventurer with a whip and hat portrait view , Brown leather hat, jacket, close-up"
It gives you an image of Harrison Ford dressed like Indiana Jones.
https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/adventurer-with-a-whip-and...

Reply View | 2 replies
- runeblaze 6 hours ago
  
  I don't know the data distribution, but are you sure that's generated by an Adobe model? I can only see that it is in Stock + it is tagged as AI generated (that is, was that image generated by some other model?)
  Disclaimer: I used to work at Adobe GenAI. Opinions are of my own ofc.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- dylan604 15 hours ago
  
  Yeah, there's no way Indiana Jones was not in the training data that created that image. To even say it's not in there is James Clapper in front of Congress level lying.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
kpw94 16 hours ago

> one can absolutely check the text to remove all occurrences of Indiana Jones
How do you handle this kind of prompt:
“Generate an image of a daring, whip-wielding archaeologist and adventurer, wearing a fedora hat and leather jacket. Here's some back-story about him: With a sharp wit and a knack for languages, he travels the globe in search of ancient artifacts, often racing against rival treasure hunters and battling supernatural forces. His adventures are filled with narrow escapes, booby traps, and encounters with historical and mythical relics. He’s equally at home in a university lecture hall as he is in a jungle temple or a desert ruin, blending academic expertise with fearless action. His journey is as much about uncovering history’s secrets as it is about confronting his own fears and personal demons.”
Try copy-pasting it in any image generation model. It looks awfully like Indiana Jones for all my attempts, yet I've not referenced Indiana Jones even once!

Reply View | 1 reply
- runeblaze 6 hours ago
  
  Emmmm sure, but throw this to a human artist who has not heard of Indiana Jones and see if they draw something alike.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

BadCookie 17 hours ago

It comes down to who is liable for the edge cases, I suspect. Adobe will compensate the end user if they get sued for using a Firefly-generated image (probably up to some limit).

Getting sued occasionally is a cost of doing business in some industries. It’s about risk mitigation rather than risk elimination.

Reply View 3 replies

AnthonyMouse 9 hours ago

Feels like "paying extra for the extended warranty" vibes. What it covers isn't much (do you expect someone to come after you in small claims court and if they do, was that your main concern?) meanwhile the big claim you're actually worried about is what it doesn't cover.
And if you really wanted insurance then why not get it from an actual insurance company?

Reply View | 1 reply
- rincebrain 4 hours ago
  
  Because almost everything is risk mitigation or reduction, not elimination.
  In particular, in the US, the legal apparatus has been gamified to the point that the expectation becomes people will sue if their expected value out of it is positive even if the case is insane on its merits, because it's much more likely someone with enough risk and cost will settle as the cheaper option.
  And in that world, there is nothing that completely eliminates the risk of being sued in bad faith - but the more things you put in your mitigation basket, the narrower the error bars are on the risk even if the 99.999th percentile is still the same.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
jonplackett 16 hours ago

All the indemnities I’ve read have clauses though that say if you intentionally use it to make something copyrighted they won’t protect you.
So if you put obviously copyrighted things in the prompt you’ll still be on your own.

Reply View | 0 replies

htrp 16 hours ago

Adobe Firefly absolutely has a spider man problem.

Reply View 0 replies