How Quickly Will Rights Enforcement Operations Apply Copyright Violation Claims to AI/ML Generated Images?
September 20, 2022
My view is that the outfits which use a business model to obtain payment for images without going through an authorized middleman or middlethem (?) are beavering away at this moment. How do “enforcement operations” work? Easy. There is old and new code available to generate a “digital fingerprint” for an image. You can see how these systems work. Just snag an image from Bing, Google, or some other picture finding service. Save it to you local drive. Then navigate — let’s use the Google, shall we? — to Google Images and search by image. Plug in the location on your storage device and the system will return matches. TinEye works too. What you see are matches generated when the “fingerprint” of the image you upload matches a fingerprint in the system’s “memory.” When an entity like a SPAC thinking Getty Images, PicRights, or similar outfit (these folks have conferences to discuss methods!) spots a “match,” the legal eagles take flight. One example of such a legal entity making sure the ultimate owner of the image and the middlethem gets paid, is — I think — something called “Higbee.” I remember the “bee” because the named reminded me of Eleanor Rigby. (The mind is mysterious, right?) The offender such as a church, a wounded veteran group, or a clueless blogger about cookies is notified of an “infringement.” The idea is that the ultimate owner gets money because why not? The middlethem gets money too. I think the legal eagle involved gets money because lawyers…
I read “AI Art Is Here and the World Is Already Different. How We Work — Even Think — Changes When We Can Instantly Command Convincing Images into Existence” takes a stab at explaining what the impact of AI/ML generated art will be. The write up nicks the topic, but it does not buy the pen and nib into the heart of the copyright opportunity.
Here’s a passage I noted from the cited article:
In contrast with the glib intra-VC debate about avoiding human enslavement by a future superintelligence, discussions about image-generation technology have been driven by users and artists and focus on labor, intellectual property, AI bias, and the ethics of artistic borrowing and reproduction.
Close but not a light saber cutting to the heart of what’s coming.
There is a long and growing list of things people can command into existence with their phones, through contested processes kept hidden from view, at a bargain price: trivia, meals, cars, labor. The new AI companies ask, Why not art?
Wrong question!
My hunch is that the copyright enforcement outfits will gather images, find a way to assign rights, and then sue the users of these images because the users did not know that the images were part of the enforcers furniture of a lawsuit.
Fair? Soft fraud? Something else?
The cited article does not consider these questions. Perhaps someone with a bit more savvy and a reasonably calibrated moral and ethical compass should?
Stephen E Arnold, September 20, 2022
Google and Legal Friction
September 15, 2022
The question is, “How long can Google’s legal eagles drag out a court decision.” The answer is revealed in part in “Google Mostly Loses Appeal Over EU’s $4B Android Antitrust Fine.” The write up states:
The Alphabet-owned Google challenged the 2018 fine, but on Wednesday [September 14, 2022] the European Court of Justice’s General Court mostly confirmed the decision to penalize the company more than 4 billion euros ($3.99 billion).
That works out to roughly three years and six months. If I did not return a library book before its expiration date when I was in grade school, I had to pay the fine when I did return the book. If I lost the darned book, I had to wash cars to pay the fine and the cost of the book before I could check out another book. Obviously I was not the Google nor did I have a flock of legal eagles to explain:
- Why the fine is unreasonable under the current applicable laws, rules, and regulations
- Why a 10 year old is or should be exempt from said laws, rules, and regulations
- A calculation demonstrating that the fine and/or penalty is without foundation, irrational, and against the best interests of other 10 year old readers or young people in general
- An action which puts in jeopardy the benefits of a 10 year old who could grow up to be a responsible, fair minded, and informed subject matter expert.
To be sure, these are compelling arguments, but the librarian at the Prospect Branch Library demonstrated an inherent inability to understand the profound trust and ultimate correctness of my arguments.
I had to pay up and pronto.
For the Google, transgress and kick the deadline for ponying up the cash three years in the future.
Now that’s being Google. Isn’t that swell?
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2022
The UK and EU Demonstrate an Inability to Be Googley
September 15, 2022
In the grand scheme of operating a revolving door, the Google is probably going to adjudicate and apologize / explain. I call this “explagize,” an art form perfected at the GOOG. But what’s a revolving door? Visualize a busy pre-Covid building in midtown Manhattan. To enter, one pushes a panel of glass and the force spins a wagon wheel of similar doors. Now imagine that one pays every time one goes around. That’s how the Google online ad business works? Banner adds, pay. Pay to play, pay. Pay for AdWords, caching. Want analytics about those ads? Pay. The conceptual revolving door, however, does not allow the humanoid to escape either without fear of missing out on a sale or allowing a competitor to get clicks and leads and sales.
The BBC article “Google Faces €25bn Legal Action in UK and the EU” states:
The European Commission and its UK equivalent are investigating whether Google’s dominance in the ad tech business gives it an unfair advantage over rivals and advertisers.
This is old news, right? What’s different is this statement:
Damien Geradin, of the Belgian law firm Geradin Partners – which is involved in the Dutch case – said, “Publishers, including local and national news media, who play a vital role in our society, have long been harmed by Google’s anti-competitive conduct. “It is time that Google owns up to its responsibilities and pays back the damages it has caused to this important industry. “That is why today we are announcing these actions across two jurisdictions to obtain compensation for EU and UK publishers.”
Do you think “pay back” means a painful procedure capped with a big number fine? I do.
What’s not being considered, in my opinion, are these factors:
- The barristers, avocets, and legal eagles trying to wrest big bucks from Googzilla are unlikely to find the alleged monopolist eager to retain their firms’ services or look favorably on hiring the progeny of these high fliers
- Will the UK and EU spark counter measures; for example, prices may rise and some ad services not offered to outfits in the UK and EU?
- Will the UK and EU grasp the fact that ad options may not be able to fill any gap or service pull out from the Google?
- The high value data which Google allegedly has and under some circumstances makes available to government authorities may go missing because Google either suffered a machine failure or curtailed investment in infrastructure so that the data are disappeared.
More than money? Yep. Consequences after decades of hand waving and chicken salad fines may cause some governments to realize that their power, influence, and degrees of freedom are constrained by a certain firm’s walled garden.
The money for the fine? Too little and too late as I try to make sense of the situation. The spinning revolving door can be difficult to escape and trying may cause dizziness, injury, or company death. Yikes.
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2022
Meta and Kids: Approach Costs $400 Million and Counting
September 15, 2022
I read that the lovable Facebook Instagram WhatsApp outfit has been fined $400 million. What is the charge? I know it seems like duplication, but the Metaverse believer has been struggling IRL (in real life). The issue is the firm’s “handling of children’s privacy settings on Instagram.”
“Meta Faces $402 Million EU Fine over Instagram’s Privacy Settings for Children” reports:
The fine stems from the photo sharing app’s privacy settings on accounts run by children.
Meta will loose a flock of solicitors before writing a check.
My thought is that some GenZ person should write a version of Ulysses. Instead of a geezer wandering around, the protagonist could be Mr. Zuckerberg. Imagine the literary references possible. The charming Donatien Alphonse François and the detail oriented Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing, among others could populate the new work. Dump James Joyce’s lame allusions and get with the program.
It is possible that the new Ulysses could span several 1,000 page volumes, include hyperlinks to Instagram videos, links to Facebook pages about dance classes and playground equipment, and recycle some really delightful WhatsApp messages.
I find legal disputes semi interesting. Those involving US big technology firms with ideals about creating a really really better world can be a tad tedious tedious.
The information about financial damages is, on the other hand, amusing to a company which probably spends more on off site meetings in a single month. Why not slap a couple more zeros on that fine?
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2022
Zuck Play: Joe Rogan In, Judge Chhabria Out
September 1, 2022
I read “Facebook to Settle Cambridge Analytica Suit, Save Zuckerberg From Testifying.” The title caught my attention for two reasons.
First, Mr. Zuckerberg, the affable wizard of Meta stuff, appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast. On that podcast, he talked about many things. Since I don’t pay for podcasts, I have only second hand information. For me, the key point was he talked.
Joe Rogan stickers are available by clicking the tasteful image in this blog post. Beyond Search does not have a deal with either Mr. Rogan or Amazon. (I have very good reasons for this posture.)
Second, Mr. Zuckerberg did not talk to the legal eagles associated with the Cambridge Analytica matter in the Northern District of California court. To avoid having to talk, Mr. Zuckerberg’s estimable outfit paid money to the United Kingdom (500,000 pounds or about $560,000) and an unknown amount to the Northern District of California court.
I assume this image is the property of Meta and Facebook.
I wonder why.
Mr. Rogan’s background shares one thing with the Zuck: DNF or did not finish college. Mr. Rogan’s occupation according to the rock-solid Wikipedia is “Podcaster, color commentator, comedian, actor, and television presenter.”
The Honorable Vince Chhabria has an okay background too; to wit: A law degree from UC Berkeley, law clerk for Justice Stephen G Breyer, work at a so so law firm called Covington & Burling, and some work as the Deputy City Attorney for Government Litigation as the Co Chief of Appellate Litigation.
On the surface, it seems that the Zuck feels more comfortable with a color commentator than a college graduate who probably is not too good at martial arts, kite sailing, and social media.
My take: Mr. Meta is looking for an audience which may be slightly less skeptical of the wondrous “bring us together” methods of the social media quasi-monopolies.
That’s just a guess. Podcasting is probably less challenging to a Silicon Valley luminary than talking to some wonk who reads books, depositions, and legal documents. I wonder if the bright star of Meta picked up some of Mr. Rogan’s merchandise. I am thinking maybe these two trend setters swapped tchotchkes.
Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2022
Copyright Trolls Await a Claim Paradise
August 29, 2022
Smart software can create content. In fact, the process can be automated, allow a semi-useless humanoid to provide a few inputs, and release a stream of synthetic content. (Remember, please, that these content outputs are weaponized to promote a specific idea, product, or belief.) Smart video tools will allow machines to create a video from a single image. If you are not familiar with this remarkable innovation in weaponized information, consider the import of Googley “transframing.” You can read about this contribution to society at this link.
I am not interested in exploring the technology of these systems. AI/ML (artificial intelligence and machine learning) stress my mental jargon filter. I want to focus on those unappreciated guardians of intellectual property: The entities and law firms enforcing assorted claims regarding images, text, and videos used without paying a royalty or getting legal permission to reuse an original creation.
The idea is simple: Smart software outputs a content object. The object is claimed by an organization eager to protect applicable copyright rules and regulations. The content object is marked with a © and maybe some paperwork will be filed. But why bother?
Now use some old fashioned hashing method to identify use of the content object, send a notice of © violation, demand payment, threaten legal action, and sit quietly like a “pigeon” in London for the cash to roll in.
A few people have a partial understanding of what the AI/ML generated content objects will create. For a glimpse of these insights, navigate to HackerNews and this threat; for example:
The future will include humans claiming AI art as their own, possibly touched up a bit, and AIs claiming human art as their own.
The legal eagles are drooling. And the trolls? Quivering with excitement. Paradise ahead!
Stephen E Arnold, August 29, 2022
Google: Oh, Oh, Another Example of a Government Not Being Googley
August 12, 2022
I read “Google LLC to Pay $60 Million for Misleading Representations.” The write up reports, if the information is spot on:
The Federal Court [of Australia] has ordered Google LLC to pay $60 million in penalties for making misleading representations to consumers about the collection and use of their personal location data on Android phones between January 2017 and December 2018, following court action by the ACCC. The Court previously found that Google LLC and Google Australia Pty Ltd (together, Google) had breached the Australian Consumer Law by representing to some Android users that the setting titled “Location History” was the only Google account setting that affected whether Google collected, kept and used personally identifiable data about their location. In fact, another Google account setting titled “Web & App Activity” also enabled Google to collect, store and use personally identifiable location data when it was turned on, and that setting was turned on by default.
What did this decision tell me? The Australian Court is not Googley. Ah, lawyers.
Stephen E Arnold, August , 2022
AI-Generated Dirty Pictures! What an Opportunity for Legal Eagles
August 8, 2022
Despite usually being racist, sexist, and dumber than binary code, there are some AI algorithms that are smart and capable of amazing feats. One feat is the ability to create digital, realistic photos of non-existent people. Another amazing ability is how AI can realistically recreate nudity. Fake nudity is as old as art, including the modern mediums of animation, videogames, and CGI. Early animators, videogame developers, and CGI artists have minds as dirty as the rest of humanity. DIY Photography explored fake nudity in, “A Website Sells AI-Generated Nudes Of Non-Existent Women. Why Is It (Not) Okay?”
While fake nudity is an ancient tradition, AI-generated nudity is a relatively new concept. It sounds like an innocuous concept, but could it be harmful?
“Let’s be honest, it was just a matter of time before someone starts using this type of AI to generate nudes (not dunes, nudes). Heck, I’m amazed that it hasn’t happened sooner. At the same time, now that I know AI-nudes of fake ladies exist, I just can’t wrap my head around it. As my DIYP buddy Alex pointed out, this is pretty much like some nerdy guy drawing nude sketches, and her comparison made me chuckle. But then again, these “sketches” could change the adult entertainment industry, beauty standards, and the view of men on women – sadly, not for the better.”
While the Web site in question does not work, it does exist. Visitors pursue a variety of different AI-generated women, select different features, then they can purchase images for $1 after they find the perfect nude. Each image is assigned a “seed number” as a receipt to prove that the buyer owns the unique model. It sounds like a cheaper version of NFTs.
Some of the pros of AI-generated nudes could be safer for women. Since the “women” are fake, no real people would be harmed. It could also mean women could stop be asked for inappropriate photos, maybe even catcalled.
There are more negative points, though. The fake nudes reinforce harmful, sexist stereotypes and it arguably allows people to buy and create a “woman” to suit their desires. The AI-generated nude market also only sells naked women at the moment, because there is not a big demand for the former.
To create the nudes, the AI algorithms needed a large, robust dataset of nude women. Where did that come from and did data scraping hurt anyone?
“‘The verification process for public domain [images] centers around running public domain data through reverse image searches,’ the co-founder told VICE. ‘If we notice that the results are from paywalled/monetized websites, revenge po*n websites, online forums, or behind paywalls, we err on the side of caution and exclude that data since it may not have been gathered ethically.’
But still, as VICE points out, many nude and po*nographic images found online are frequently stolen from actual sex workers. Even those marked as a public domain! ‘People steal sex worker’s content all of the time, posting it to tube sites for free or dumping it into database links.’ This means that women whose images were used to feed the algorithm maybe hadn’t given their consent for something like that.”
Reddit has a discussion thread titled “Technically the Truth.” It is technically the truth these AI-generated images are fake, it is still selling women and exploiting harmful standards for a profit. The “women” are still fake, but is it bad? Enter the science-fiction philosophical questions of the future.
The real winners are likely to be the lawyers. Is LAMdA’s attorney available?
Whitney Grace, August 8, 2022
Closing the COPPA Loophole
August 3, 2022
We need updated legislation to protect children from their own phones and tablets, according to the Washington Post, because “Your Kids’ Apps Are Spying on Them [paywall].” Reporter Geoffrey A. Fowler writes:
“Apps are spying on our kids at a scale that should shock you. More than two-thirds of the 1,000 most popular iPhone apps likely to be used by children collect and send their personal information out to the advertising industry, according to a major new study shared with me by fraud and compliance software company Pixalate. On Android, 79 percent of popular kids apps do the same. Angry Birds 2 snoops when kids use it. So do Candy Crush Saga and apps for coloring and doing math homework. They’re grabbing kids’ general locations and other identifying information and sending it to companies that can track their interests, predict what they might want to buy or even sell their information to others.”
The article elaborates on the problem with details from that Pixalate study and other research. It emphasizes:
“Children’s privacy deserves special attention because kids’ data can be misused in some uniquely harmful ways. Research suggests many children can’t distinguish ads from content, and tracking tech lets marketers micro-target young minds. This is why kids are at the center of one of America’s few privacy laws, the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA. It said that companies aren’t supposed to gather personal information about kids under 13 without parental permission.”
So if COPPA prohibits this data grab, why is it happening? Because of the “actual knowledge” loophole. App makers must simply pretend they do not know children are using their software. Preschool-type games featuring cute cartoon animals? Grade 3 homework helpers? We are supposed to believe those are meant for ages 13 and up. To make matters worse, Apple’s and Google’s app stores make it difficult for parents to find apps that do comply with COPPA. Instead, due diligence means combing through each and every app’s obfuscatory privacy policies.
Fowler notes several ways tech companies could prohibit apps they sell from gathering data on children, if only they wanted to. Sadly, they are unlikely to put children over profits unless forced to by an updated COPPA. One has been proposed by Senator Ed Markey, one of original bill’s authors, and Representative Kathy Castor. Will this or a similar bill ever become law? Or have tech giants amassed so much power we cannot even protect our kids from data scroungers?
Cynthia Murrell,August 3, 2022
Wikipedia and Legal Decisions: What Do Paralegals Really Do for Information?
August 2, 2022
I read an interesting and, I think, important article about legal search and retrieval. The good news is that use of the go to resource is, so far, free. The bad news is that if one of the professional publishing outfits big wigs reads the cited article, an acquisition or special licensing deal may result. Hasta la vista, Wikipedia maybe?
Navigate to “How Wikipedia Influences Judicial Behavior.” The main idea of the article is that if a legal decision gets coverage in Wikipedia, that legal decision influences some future legal decisions. I interpret this as saying, “Lawyers want to reduce online legal research costs. Wikipedia is free. Therefore, junior lawyers and paralegals use free services like Wikipedia for their info-harvesting.
The write up states:
“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized field experiment that investigates the influence of legal sources on judicial behavior. And because randomized experiments are the gold standard for this type of research, we know the effect we are seeing is causation, not just correlation,” says MIT researcher Neil Thompson, the lead author of the research. “The fact that we wrote up all these cases, but the only ones that ended up on Wikipedia were those that won the proverbial “coin flip,” allows us to show that Wikipedia is influencing both what judges cite and how they write up their decisions. Our results also highlight an important public policy issue. With a source that is as widely used as Wikipedia, we want to make sure we are building institutions to ensure that the information is of the highest quality. The finding that judges or their staffs are using Wikipedia is a much bigger worry if the information they find there isn’t reliable.”
Now what happens if misinformation is injected into certain legal write ups available via Wikipedia?
The answer is, “Why that can’t happen.”
Of course not.
That’s exactly why this article providing some data and an interesting insight. Now is the study reproducible, in line with Stats 101, and produced in an objective manner? I have no idea.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
