"The Battle for Fair Compensation: Artists vs. Generative AI"

1. As tech companies monetize generative AI

As technology companies begin to capitalize on generic AI for profit,

2. Artists want fair compensation

The artists whose work forms the basis of these AI systems are increasingly advocating for fair compensation. However, agreement on fair remuneration for these creators remains elusive.

3. The Authors Guild advocates for artists

The Authors Guild, supported by more than 8,500 prominent writers including Margaret Atwood, Dan Brown and Jodi Picoult, has called for action. They urge generic AI companies to stop using their functions without obtaining proper authorization or offering compensation.

4. Legal battles emerge

In response, artists have taken legal action against generative AI vendors such as Stability AI, MidJourney, and Microsoft. They argue that their creative works have been used without permission or in violation of copyright laws.

5. Vendors commit to the “Makers Fund”

In an effort to address these concerns, some technology companies have promised to create "creator funds" and other compensation methods. These funds are designed to provide financial recognition to artists, writers and musicians whose creations have contributed to the development of generic AI models.

6. The Challenge of Measuring Creator Earnings

However, determining the actual earnings for creators from these funds has proven to be a complex and opaque task. Generative AI vendors have introduced compensation policies that are challenging to interpret and predict.

7. Process of Generative AI Learning

Generative AI models gain their capabilities by learning from extensive datasets, often derived from publicly accessible web content. This practice raises questions about copyright and usage rights of these data sources.

8. The ongoing "fair use" debate

While some companies developing generative AI tools argue that their use of copyrighted works falls under the "fair use" doctrine, this legal issue remains unresolved. Furthermore, public opinion generally favors creators, who often receive minimal compensation compared to the substantial profits generated by tech and AI companies.

9. Unclear Compensation Policies of Vendors

Companies like Adobe, Getty Images, Stability AI, and YouTube have introduced ways for creators to share in the profits generated by generative AI. However, they have not provided clear information about the exact earnings that creators can expect.

10. Adobe's Perspective: Firefly Bonus

Adobe, for example, offers annual "bonuses" to contributors, calculated based on approved images, licenses, and other unspecified metrics. Minimum withdrawal limits exist, but payout amounts are not disclosed.

11. Getty Images' Unclear Compensation Model

Getty Images promises to compensate contributors on an annual recurring basis but does not provide detailed information on the calculations involved.

12. Shutterstock's Compensation Model

Shutterstock distributes lump sum payments through its Contributor Fund, with the exact distribution percentage kept confidential.

13. The evolving strategy of sustainability AI

Stability AI's revenue-sharing plan for Stable Audio is still in development, with no earnings reports available yet.

14. YouTube's emerging monetization plans

YouTube's plan to monetize generative AI is in the early stages, with hopes of collaborating with music industry partners.

15. Challenges facing creators

The lack of concrete compensation details from generic AI vendors poses challenges for creators, especially those who depend on contract income for their livelihood.

16. Provide transparent startup options

Some startups, like Bria, are striving for transparency by offering revenue-sharing models. This approach allows artists to set prices based on the impact of their contributions.

17. Uncertain future

While generative AI vendors promise potential future rewards, the current landscape remains uncertain for creators considering getting involved in model training.