Commons talk:AI-generated media/Archive 2

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

AI-improved/restored photographs

Some software can automatically:

• "Improve" a picture of en:Lake Titicaca using generative AI to transform green areas into realistic trees, transform dots into en:Florida ducks, etc.
• "Restore" an old black&white picture of en:Léon Blum and colorize it, split hair into individual strands of hair, transform a photo grain fleck into a realistic en:wart somewhere on the skin, etc.

The resulting pictures are works of art/hallucination more than encyclopedic representations of reality. Do we already have a policy page for these? If not, should we draft a policy here?

By the way, I recently raised a concern about the rising trend of camera apps to perform such "improvements" by default without the user even knowing, it might be too early to worry but here it is for possible reference: Commons:Village_pump#Mainstream_cameras_generating_non-existent_artifacts_(AI_generative_upscaling?),_what_can_we_do_about_it?

Thanks! Syced (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Artificially upscaling or enlarging using any tool, including AI-based or deep learning services" get a mention at COM:OVERWRITE, although only to say that such versions shouldn't overwrite the original. I have sadly seen a few cases of this recently, including bad MyHeritage output that just fakes extra detail onto the eyes, nose and mouth and makes sometimes absurd guesses about facial hair.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Madelgarius is an open discussion about whether to delete a hundred such upscaled portrait photos from Commons. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Syced: Other than the guidance already provided at Commons:AI-generated media#Categorization, I think someone should create a warning template for such cases that can be applied on the File pages. Nosferattus (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hosting of AI-generated media should follow a whitelist model

that is, uploads are allowed only with prior approval by the community. in some way similar to com:bots, which must be approved before deployment.

the reason is, ai is not only capable of generating images but realistic audio and video. this page and the discussions so far have only considered images. only 1 section above mentions deepfakes, which are one kind of ai videos. ai can do videos much better than deepfakes. ai can also do audio: https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/10/audiolm-language-modeling-approach-to.html https://google-research.github.io/seanet/audiolm/examples/ .

i believe it's not beneficial or ethical to host ai-generated media alongside manual creative works. even if it's allowed, ai-generated media should be clearly tagged as such, and put into a separate category. for example, ai-generated media about cities -- be it images or audiovisual files -- should have its own "category:AI-generated media about cities" under Category:Cities. ai photos should not be mixed with human-made photos. ai audio should not be mixed into Category:Audio files of cities. ai videos should not be mixed with other human-made videos in Category:Videos by city.

we should use a whitelist model so as to deter any unwanted ai-generated media before the situation becomes unmanageable. RZuo (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @RZuo, I agree that AI content should be made identifiable as such, in a suitable way. However, I disagree that all uploads need a prior permission by the community. This would also be difficult, because, how should community members know the image before it is uploaded? "The community" might be only a handfull of people who are really so committed to the cause that they would invest hours in related discussions. / I am not quite sure what do you mean by a whitelist in this context, but maybe I did not understand correctly. Kind regards, Ziko van Dijk (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

whitelist.

better deny any upload instead of sieving uploaded files for ai content. it's impossible to do the latter, especially with audio. photos are also super realistic now.

anyone uploading ai content without approval should be indef blocked on sight and their uploads deleted. RZuo (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploads by PixelPenguin87

PixelPenguin87 (talk · contribs)

Might wanna contact the legal team on what to do with these type of AI generated images. This sort of photorealistic AI generated content could potentially be a violation of Commons:CHILDPROTECT Trade (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Brianjd, Ricky81682, and Nosferattus: --Trade (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: --Trade (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree. A WMF Legal clarification would be useful. Wutsje 23:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

See also U93rFh2T (talk · contribs), VibrantExplorer372 (talk · contribs) and BlueMoon2023 (talk · contribs). Wutsje 03:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried to seek WMF out for a legal clarification? Trade (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need legal advice to decide just to delete this sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't wanted to risk going against community consensus. Trade (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT

m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT has been published a couple of days ago. It is primarily about text, but it also briefly mentions AI-generated images. whym (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

United Kingdom

{{PD-algorithm}} contains a note "The United Kingdom provides a limited term of copyright protection for computer-generated works of 50 years from creation", citing this UK Intellectual Property Office page. From this page:

Unlike most other countries, the UK protects computer-generated works which do not have a human creator (s178 CDPA). The law designates the author of such a work as “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” (s9(3) CDPA). Protection lasts for 50 years from the date the work is made (s12(7) CDPA).

I think it might be tricky to ascertain who "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken" might be in modern AI generated media (the author of the prompt? The programmer(s) of the software? Both? - because the software itself is certainly "necessary for the creation of the work", and the prompt as well), but it seems that in the UK, AI generated media is protected anyway, even if we might be unsure who's the owner of the rights. The Office also states there:

The UK remains one of only a handful of countries worldwide that provides this protection. Investment in AI has taken place in other countries, such as the United States, which do not provide this type of protection. Some people argue that this protection is not needed, and others that it should be provided differently.

So, I think that this page should be amended, too, in some way, to contain this information that in the UK and in a "handful of countries" (which countries?) there is protection for AI art, and in deletion discussions, I assume that we have to check where the image was generated - if generated in the US or most other countries, it's {{PD-algorithm}}, but if generated in the UK or the "handful of countries" with protection, we must delete it. In the case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice and Sparkle cover.jpg which I decided to keep, I think it's fine, as the author of the prompt per this article is currently living in California, and was using Midjourney, which is based in San Francisco. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It's possible the author didn't knew what other countries he was referring too and simply made a reasonable assumption Trade (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, to remedy the lack of UK information, I made an addition based on this UK Intellectual Property Office information. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)