Can’t lose what you never had: Claims about digital ownership and creation

>Companies should keep in mind the following:

>When offering digital products, you must ensure that customers understand the material terms and conditions, including whether they’re buying an item or just getting a license to use it. Unilaterally changing those terms or undermining reasonable ownership expectations can get you in trouble, too.

>Selling digital items created via AI tools is obviously not okay if you’re trying to fool people into thinking that the items are the work of particular human creators.

>When offering a platform for creators to develop and display their work, be clear and upfront about their rights to access and take this work with them, as well as how the work will be used and presented. Again, don’t change the terms later.

>When offering a generative AI product, you may need to tell customers whether and the extent to which the training data includes copyrighted or otherwise protected material.

> "Speaking again of generative AI, many models are trained on data that includes people’s creative work, which the models can then spit out in bits and pieces in response to varied inputs. These AI models can also ingest people’s likenesses and other aspects of their identities, in which case the people effectively become digital products themselves....When offering a generative AI product, you may need to tell customers whether and the extent to which the training data includes copyrighted or otherwise protected material."

I tried to get a straight answer on this ("people’s likenesses...effectively become digital products themselves...whether and the extent to which the training data includes...material") by emailing a generative AI headshots company that was posted to HN within the past month. The website and FAQ beat around the bush, so I straight up asked by email (as encouraged by the website). I never got a real answer despite apparently two humans trying to help.

I honestly could not tell if they were being intentionally vague or if they just were imprecise at communicating. In either case, I ended up not wanting them to do the processing, which was sad because otherwise it looked like they had a great product for which I was in the market.

To wit, here was how the conversation went, in the end of July, 2023:

---

ME, MSG 1: """In the FAQ, <COMPANY> says that AI models are deleted after 30 days and that uploaded/generated photos can be deleted.

However, does any of the geometry or biometric data get retained in any form? (For example, for learning, or statistics, or something else)? I don’t want the shape of my head to be used to inform any downstream processes; whether that means to teach an AI, or anything else else.

Does that question make sense? I think my data question extends beyond just the specific AI model and photos addressed in the FAQ.

Thanks for clarifying! (You have a really useful and effective looking service for sure!)"""

---

COMPANY, MSG 1 (REP A): """thank you for contacting <COMPANY> - we're glad you are here!

I understand how concerned you are when it comes to your data, it's just right to get clear on these things before you introduce yourself on any platform. No worries, you are on the right site, where our dear customers' privacy and safety are our top priorities as well!

Please find below the link for the privacy policy and terms of use. If you agree to the following arrangement, then I can recommend you to get started!

https://<COMPANY>/privacy

https://<COMPANY>/terms

Hope these are helpful and answer your questions! Please feel free to reach out to us should you have any other queries or assistance need! """

---

ME, MSG 2: """Thanks for the quick reply! I have now reviewed those two pages, and they do not answer the question—they are not specific on this point, and they leave the question unaddressed. But, the pages do say to contact with any questions (just as the FAQ suggests asking).

So, I kindly request clarification on my original question. Can you answer it, please? It should be very easy, fortunately!

Thanks again for making an awesome tool!"""

---

COMPANY, MSG 2 (REP B): """Thanks for writing.

After you process your headshots you can simply write us and request we delete your data. This removes every piece of data from your account so it couldn't be used for any other purpose. """

---

ME, MSG 3: """Thank you!"""

---

Postscript: As you see, I ran out of patience, even though I would have given them more signal if I had the time for it and thought it would go somewhere useful. I think I asked my question about data usage clearly. Is there a more standard way to ask what I was trying to say? I wanted to know about whether my likeness or artifacts downstream of my likeness would be retained or used (e.g., for training or producing other outputs) downstream at all even following the deletion of my data, so I was interested in far more than whether merely "my data" or "AI models" would be deleted. People could theoretically delete "my" data and the "models" and the data "in my account", but keep other data generated from such data nonetheless (calling it something else), and consider themselves covered (whether duplicitously or not; I assume good intent here, but plausible deniability etc. could be par for the course, for all I know).

Open to feedback on how this could have gone better. I think a shorter question is probably the way to go, so long as clarity and meaning can be maintained.