Forum Discussion
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Useful for E-Learning Design and Development?
Hi Friends!
I'm just curious how many of you have begun experimenting with AI tools (ChatGPT, GPT3 API, AI platforms, etc.) to refine your design and development of e-learning modules that you cre...
I've been experimenting with using the AI art tools--especially Midjourney since I have my own subscription (separate from work) for my personal projects. One place where I think these AI art tools are particularly useful right now is as an adjunct to stock photos.
Very often, stock photos are ALMOST what I want, but not quite. For example, I often need images of researchers. Most stock photos of people in lab coats also have stethoscopes around their necks, making them suitable for use as doctor characters, but unsuitable as research scientists. Their lab coats are often unbuttoned, which isn't ideal for safety courses aimed at researchers. And they often aren't wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) such as safety glasses.
All these problems can be fixed in Photoshop if you have the time and the skills to do it, but it is much easier and faster to use the AI tools. You can feed the stock image into the AI tool and use the text prompts to have the AI make the changes. For example, you can feed it the image of someone who is not wearing safety glasses and add the text prompt "wearing safety glasses." You'll get some options back from the AI within a minute or two.
What a great idea, Ray - I love this! I don't know how many times I've run down the rabbit hole of looking for the perfect stock image and never finding it. I've played with DALL-E but not Midjourney. Will check this out!
Is using AI to edit stock images allowed under the stock photo licenses? Is there an amount of altering that would qualify it as a new image that is not longer copyrighted?
Lee-Ann, you raise an interesting point. The answer is going to depend on the license terms under which you obtained the photo.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that most stock photo companies allow you to modify (non-editorial) royalty-free images they license to you, subject to certain restrictions (e.g., not making it seem like the person in the photo is supporting a particular political position, or creating "harmful" content).
In practical terms, it would seem like it makes no real difference if I edit the photo or the AI edits the photo, but I was surprised to see that at least one large stock photo company has a clause in their license agreement specifically addressing AI use.
Unfortunately, it's written just vaguely enough that I can't quite tell what it means. It *seems* (to my untrained, non-lawyer eyes) to be saying you can't use their images to TRAIN an AI. I'm not really sure if lawyers would consider using the image in a Midjourney prompt as training the AI (I wouldn't consider it to be such a use, but I'm not a lawyer). There's also the question of whether letting the AI see it would be considered redistribution of the stock photo (something that's usually not allowed).
Taking a super-strict/restrictive stance that disallows any use of stock photos with AI tools would ultimately be counterproductive to the stock photo companies, in my opinion. What would happen is that this would create an incentive to just use the AI tools without the stock photo input. Once the AI tools are capable enough that we can get the specific image we want for our use case from the AI, why would we need the stock photo company at all? But this very fear is likely to cause overreaction from the stock photo companies and an attempt to maintain the status quo by disallowing AI use in the short term.
There is also an understandable fear among photographers and artists that supply photos, illustrations, vector drawings, and other images to the stock photo companies that this source of income is under threat from AI art tools. There is a movement among artists to require AI companies to obtain the artists' permission before using any of the artists’ images to train an AI. If enough artists band together and are able to establish this as a new rule, then it will become embedded in license agreements and laws. In the meantime, stock photo companies may feel an obligation to the artists who feed images into their libraries to take stances such as “no AI use” that the artists want, even if in the long term, such a stance is counterproductive to the company.
All of which is just a long-winded way of saying that it's going to be interesting times for a while until all this settles out.
Lee-Ann - that's a really important point you make. This whole area is currently a bit of a minefield.
Legal concerns have been raised by the major stock image providers and there have already been discussions between Open AI and the image providers, as It seems likely that the 650 million or so images used for training AI text to graphics engines does include some copyright material - even though Open AI says it is taking, and has taken steps, to avoid this. But even if this issue is resolved (and it is likely to be so amicably), it still leaves the question you raise.
Personally, we are not going risk it. I think taking an image purchased as royalty-free under the terms of a usage licence does allow some latitude to modify that image before you use it in a project - I mean Shutterstock, itself, allows you to filter it, change colour, crop it etc. when you download it! But using it as input to generate an entirely new image - or set of images using AI may well be in breach of the terms of that licence.
My assertion that the dispute between image providers and Open AI will be resolved amicably is born out by the recent partnership announced by Shutterstock and DALL-E. Shutterstock will now be offering an AI generated image service! What the cost per image will be I don't know but looking at my current spend with Shutterstock, I doubt it will be cheap! But this seems the way it will go...
