The High Court has heard that the legal action of the Getty Image against an artificial intelligence (AI) firm on alleged copyright violations marks the “day of recurring” for the use of photographs in the AI model.
The US-based visual content company is sueing Stability AI Limited at London, alleging that the firm has illegally scored millions of images from Getty’s websites without consent to train its stable dissemination AI model.
Getty claims that it violates copyright, and that images created by stable proliferation, which produce synthetic images from the user command, violate the copyright laws.
Stability AI is opposing this claim, which she reported that the court was “a more threat” for its business.
On the first day of the testing on Monday, Lindsay Lane Casey told the court, “The company” recognized that the AI industry could be a force for a total of good “, but this did not justify AI companies” riding ride on intellectual property rights “.
He said: “It is important to say that this is not a fight between creative and tech, where a victory for a getty image means the end of AI.
“The situation of getty images is that both industries may be present in co -intent.”
He continued: “There is no AI without creative tasks on which to train. The problem is when AI companies want to use those tasks without payment.”
He said: “(Case) is about the direct enforcement of intellectual property rights.”
Ms. Len “did not care” the stability of the court said that if it uses the tasks that were copyright, there were watermarks or if they were not “suitable for work or porn”.
He said: “This test is the day to resonance to that approach.”
In a judgment in May in May before the test, Mrs. Justice Joana Smith said the case was “highly complex and technical” and “several novel issues for consideration by the court.
He said that the court had to “dedicate the unprecedented quantity of the court time” to deal with the case.
Hugo Kudigen Casey, for Stability AI, said in written presentations that the matter “an issue of real social importance” related to AI Technology and Copyright law is concerned, saying that Getty “appears to look at the generative AI as a threat to exist”.
He continued that some claims of Getty “represent the entire business of stability and an extreme threat to the comprehensive generative AI industry”.
He said: “By chasing them, Getty wants such a common AI image model not available to the UK users.
“We consider Getty’s output claims to be susceptible to sacking independent bases.
“In fact, they are so weak that their introduction seems to be the result of a spontaneous response to stable proliferation and not an analysis of the clear-elevated rights in the issue.”
Mr. Kudigen said that Getty’s case can be “rejected with confidence and clarity”.
After the test, it is expected to end in June later, in which a decision is expected in writing at the later date.
