3 ms·

The question of whether it's copyrightable is completely up in the air right now. To my mind, emitting it into the Creative Commons somewhat side steps the ques

The question of whether it's copyrightable is completely up in the air right now. To my mind, emitting it into the Creative Commons somewhat side steps the question. Besides, there's all sorts of use cases where copyright is less relevant. Advertising agencies care less if their artwork gets copied because it puts it in front of more eyeballs. > There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images. I'm a game developer but not an artist. If a computer can generate the artwork for my game, I completely get to sidestep paying an artist for that work. That's huge value. I would pay a subscription service to a database of AI generated content even if it couldn't be copyrighted.

chlorion 4y ago
The computer can generate artwork for your game, but only after training on other people's artwork that they spent effort and time creating. I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. You are basically side-stepping paying for artists by laundering their work in my eyes. If you trained only on things that granted you permission to do so, or if you bought a bunch of art works to train on this would be really cool. I am interested in seeing how this turns out legally. Copyright law is intended to protect humans and their intellectual property, and these "AI" or "ML" systems are not humans, so I am not so confident that generating work from other peoples is going to be legal.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. I think this is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of any attempt to ban the sort of technology, because a system like stable diffusion is just a denoiser attached to an image fitness algorithm that has been trained on a bunch of input. And we certainly can't make training such algorithms illegal; if we do, YouTube loses the ability to police uploads to its site overnight because such image recognizers can also be used to detect likely instances of copyright infringement.

chlorion 4y ago

The computer can generate artwork for your game, but only after training on other people's artwork that they spent effort and time creating. I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. You are basically side-stepping paying for artists by laundering their work in my eyes. If you trained only on things that granted you permission to do so, or if you bought a bunch of art works to train on this would be really cool. I am interested in seeing how this turns out legally. Copyright law is intended to protect humans and their intellectual property, and these "AI" or "ML" systems are not humans, so I am not so confident that generating work from other peoples is going to be legal.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. I think this is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of any attempt to ban the sort of technology, because a system like stable diffusion is just a denoiser attached to an image fitness algorithm that has been trained on a bunch of input. And we certainly can't make training such algorithms illegal; if we do, YouTube loses the ability to police uploads to its site overnight because such image recognizers can also be used to detect likely instances of copyright infringement.