4 ms·

Honestly it's not that much different than sampling in music. A few years ago Kayne West tried something similar when instead of paying Aphex Twin for the sampl

Honestly it's not that much different than sampling in music. A few years ago Kayne West tried something similar when instead of paying Aphex Twin for the sample usage of "Avril 14th", he asked John Legend to play basically a carbon copy of the track on a piano[1]. Ultimately he had to pay for the track anyway. Same here. Did you use my artworks while training your AI model? Cool, pay me licensing rights and residuals. No? Then remove them from your fancy art obfuscator filter. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/aug/26/aphex-twin-kanye-west-avril-14th-sample-blame-game https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/aug/26/aphex-twin-kan...

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
I think there is a case for class action suit from all the ripped off artists and photographers.
RyEgswuCsn 4y ago
But how is it different from human artists creating new artworks based on their studies of thousands of previous works, I wonder? No artists have paid royalties just because they went to an exhibition and had a glimpse of other painter’s work, no?
- noisymemories 4y ago
  This is basically Art School 101, and the answer can be summed up as: Another painter would go for contextual and topical inference, specifically trying to understand why some techniques and painting styles garner a specific response. The AI goes for topological inference - there are no other informations beyond the painting data itself. It observes that some artists keep reusing the same colors and proportions and builds over the data by using very complicated parametric analysis. It's still mechanical reproduction, just extremely more complicated than in the past. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this, mind you - going back to my previous musical comparison, Daft Punk built a career with a lo-fi version of this idea, but they never tried to pretend that Harder Better Faster Stronger isn't anything but an extremely, extremely clever flip of Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". And they paid both licensing and royalties for it.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

I think there is a case for class action suit from all the ripped off artists and photographers.

RyEgswuCsn 4y ago

But how is it different from human artists creating new artworks based on their studies of thousands of previous works, I wonder? No artists have paid royalties just because they went to an exhibition and had a glimpse of other painter’s work, no?

noisymemories 4y ago
This is basically Art School 101, and the answer can be summed up as: Another painter would go for contextual and topical inference, specifically trying to understand why some techniques and painting styles garner a specific response. The AI goes for topological inference - there are no other informations beyond the painting data itself. It observes that some artists keep reusing the same colors and proportions and builds over the data by using very complicated parametric analysis. It's still mechanical reproduction, just extremely more complicated than in the past. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this, mind you - going back to my previous musical comparison, Daft Punk built a career with a lo-fi version of this idea, but they never tried to pretend that Harder Better Faster Stronger isn't anything but an extremely, extremely clever flip of Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". And they paid both licensing and royalties for it.