5 ms·

How different[0] is that from a painter viewing ~half a dozen Getty images, then repainting in combination to not pixel-perfect, but near, detail? Afaik[1] the

How different[0] is that from a painter viewing ~half a dozen Getty images, then repainting in combination to not pixel-perfect, but near, detail? Afaik[1] the hypothetical painter has neither committed infringement on the source works and has input sufficient creative effort into the new that it would be copywritable. [0]Granted it differs a little, but not by that much either. [1]IANAL

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
Morally it seems to basically be the same to me, but in practice it's different. The AI training is done by big corporations that are traceable and have big pockets that can be sued whereas "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from. Never doubt the ability of people's greed to force someone else into a court room. Just look at the 'blurred lines' case where someone was inspired by a musical genre to write a song that didn't copy anyone's music but was still ordered to pay millions because he copied the general "feel" or "vibe" of someone else's work. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...) I imagine a lot of AI generated images might copy the "feel" or "vibe" of something in its training data.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
    Ohhh good callout. I also wonder if getty wins this will spur the creation of a new army of artists to manually create facsimiles of existing art expressly for the purpose of AI training.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
The difference is that it's mechanical. Copyright is intended to protect creators, and it's unclear whether this type of fair use properly balances the original creators' needs against the ML-based creators' needs.
spoonjim 4y ago
The history of law and courts have decided that "different things can be treated differently."
lbotos 4y ago
Your argument that "painting is transformative enough" and I suspect that wouldn't hold up in court. If you want an example of a painting that might be transformative enough, here is Ryder Ripps https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 who referenced copyrighted photos and recreated them in this "wavy style".

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago

Morally it seems to basically be the same to me, but in practice it's different. The AI training is done by big corporations that are traceable and have big pockets that can be sued whereas "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from.

autoexec 4y ago
> "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from. Never doubt the ability of people's greed to force someone else into a court room. Just look at the 'blurred lines' case where someone was inspired by a musical genre to write a song that didn't copy anyone's music but was still ordered to pay millions because he copied the general "feel" or "vibe" of someone else's work. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...) I imagine a lot of AI generated images might copy the "feel" or "vibe" of something in its training data.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  Ohhh good callout. I also wonder if getty wins this will spur the creation of a new army of artists to manually create facsimiles of existing art expressly for the purpose of AI training.

6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago

The difference is that it's mechanical. Copyright is intended to protect creators, and it's unclear whether this type of fair use properly balances the original creators' needs against the ML-based creators' needs.

spoonjim 4y ago

The history of law and courts have decided that "different things can be treated differently."

lbotos 4y ago

Your argument that "painting is transformative enough" and I suspect that wouldn't hold up in court. If you want an example of a painting that might be transformative enough, here is Ryder Ripps https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 https://www.artsy.net/artwork/ryder-ripps-sup-1 who referenced copyrighted photos and recreated them in this "wavy style".