Over the last week, Instagram has automatically labeled any photos touched by artificial intelligence tools as “Created with AI.” On the surface, this sounds like a victory for photographers who decry the use of AI to steal intellectual property. But in reality, the way Meta decides to call AI leaves little room for nuance and debate.
Buckle up, because this is probably a fascinating photo, especially coming from a photojournalist.
Earlier this week, I used my phone and uploaded to Instagram a photo of famous New York City Photographer Louis Mendes at Photoville. I was doing fairly normal Photoshop edits that are typical in my non-journalistic work, and in the process I cropped a small section at the edge of the frame and asked the compositing AI to remove the highlight. . Here are the before and after results:
Imagine my surprise when the upload, featured at the top of the post, Instagram labeled “Generated with AI”.
Oh no. I cropped a small part of the photo and asked AI to edit it. It’s the same edit I can do with the copy tool and a little more time. The end result will be almost identical. But one photo will be flagged and one will not.
It is because of this difference that the broad goal of “Generated by AI,” although noble in its pursuit of truth, fails. This label seems to imply that this image was made entirely by AI when in fact it was not. The AI is used as an editing tool, the same way the dodge or burn tool, the clone tool, or the healing brush are used. Pointing out the use of a general AI tool for this label seems to misunderstand how AI is used in this case.
Surely, if DALL-E or Midjourney created this image of Louis Mendes by accident, the “Made with AI” label would apply. But I don’t believe that should be the case in this case, since Mr. Mendes is standing there, certainly as I type this sentence (the snake and the dinosaur are not, as I’ll get to later).
This can have a chilling effect on editing in general. Here’s another example where the “Made with AI” label would be meaningless:
It can be said that the only AI “crime” in this photo is using it to remove the front license plate of this car. That’s something I would classify as editing work and not creating images entirely using AI. If an edit like this is considered demonic, why is there an AI tool in the first place?
There are other issues here. One of the commenters on my post asked whether using the AI Denoise function in Photoshop would trigger this label. That’s what looks terrible for event organizers who use this tool for clients. I tried this and it seems using that tool doesn’t apply the labels in Instagram. Instagram help page for labels appeared cryptic about that, saying they look at “industry standard signals” to make decisions. I’ve seen AI noise reduction introduce some creepy artifacts and facial makeup into photos, so it’s not immune to fabrication either.
Furthermore, the photo at the top of this post, which is very clearly AI-powered and labeled as such, does not receive such designation when uploaded from a desktop web browser. That’s a pretty big loophole, and Instagram’s application of its AI policy is pretty uneven.
Creators have long adapted new tools to create better art, whether for client work or personal satisfaction. But for a company as large as Meta to appoint itself as the arbiter of how the “Made with AI” label is applied is a big mistake. It paints a scarlet letter to those who are using AI responsibly.
Yes, journalists and other purveyors of truth should never use such tools to edit their work, but should a wedding photographer have to deal with a lawsuit from a Do brides see the “Made with AI” label when they upload their wedding photos to social media? Should a company that edits a photo to hide a wardrobe malfunction on social media face backlash when the photo is labeled AI?
These are questions that Meta seems not to have fully contemplated.
But it’s certainly something photographers will have to ponder.
What are your thoughts on the new “Made with AI” label on Instagram? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
