5 ms·

I think the is exacty the gap the gp is mentionning: to a trained artist it is clear as water that the original image has been lifted wholesale, even if for ins

I think the is exacty the gap the gp is mentionning: to a trained artist it is clear as water that the original image has been lifted wholesale, even if for instance the colors are adjusted here and there. You put it as a remix, but remixes are credited and expressed as such.

jzb 4y ago
I haven’t seen any side by sides that seem like a lift. Any examples? I don’t see Midjourney (et al) as remixes, myself. More like “inspired by.”
- omnimus 4y ago
  Its clear where the knowhow was lifted from it doesnt matter that if the final image is somewhat unique (almost every image is).
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    style is not copyrightable under current rules
    - omnimus 4y ago
      But it means the models were trained on images that are under copyright. In fact many of these models were trained exclusively on such images without any permission. For example Midjourney is clearly trained on everything on artstation.com where almost all images have commercial purpose / licenses.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Not safe for work, but one example I saw going around: https://twitter.com/ebkim00/status/1579485164442648577 https://twitter.com/ebkim00/status/1579485164442648577 Not sure if this was fed the original image as an input or not. Also seen a couple cases where people explicitly trained a network to imitate an artist's work, like the deceased Kim Jung Gi.
  - lbotos 4y ago
    It's really interesting. I suspect the face was inpainted in, or this was a "img2img". I think over time we are going to see the following: - If you take say a star wars poster, and inpaint in a trained face over luke's, and sell that to people as a service, you will probably be approached for copyright and trademark infringement. - If you are doing the above with a satirical take, you might be able to claim fair use. - If you are using AI as a "collage generator" to smash together a ton of prompts into a "unique" piece, you may be safe from infringement but you are taking a risk as you don't know what % of source material your new work contains. I'd like to imagine if you inpaint in say 20 details with various sub-prompts that you are getting "safer".
    - numpad0 4y ago
      Features outside the face is lost/changed from original on the right, so can’t be face inpainting. Unlikely to be style transfers, because some body parts are moved. Most plausibly this was generated. So much for “generation” - it seems as if these models are just overfitting on extremely small subset of input data that it did not utterly failed to train on, almost that there could be geniuses who would be able to directly generate weight data from said images without all the gradient descent thing.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    That's clearly lifting style, pose and general location but in each of those there are changes. Even for the original art we could find tons of examples of very similar poses and backgrounds because anime girl in a bathing suit on a beach background isn't that original of an image at the concept level. That pose also is a pretty well worn. This is the problem of applying the idea of ownership to ideas and expression like art. Art in particular is a very remix and recombination driven field.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      I think the key detail is to look at what happened in the bottom left - in the original drawing, there's dark blue (due to lighting) cloth filling the scene, but the network has instead generated oddly-hued water there, even though on the right side there's sand from the beach shore. There's seemingly no geometric representation driving the AI so it ended up turning clothing into mystery ocean water when synthesizing an image that (for whatever reason) looked like the original one. It's an interesting error to me because it only looks Wrong once you notice the sand on the right.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.png https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.... Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer This specific one is not copyright violation as it is old enough for copyright to expire. But the same may happen with other images. from https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ and https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse-theft/ https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse...
  - Filligree 4y ago
    If a human drew that, it would not be copyright violation.
    - matkoniecz 4y ago
      It is a clear case of derivative work (see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works - internal docs, but their explanation of copyright status tends to be well done) This specific one would not be a problem, but doing it with a still copyrighted work would be.
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      I’m not so sure about that. The scenes à faire doctrine would certainly let you paint your own picture of a pretty girl with a large earring, even a pearl one. That, however, is definitely the same person, in the same pose/composition, in the same outfit. The colors are slightly off, but the difference feels like a technical error rather than an expressive choice.
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        Even if it is an expressive choice of the new artist, if enough of the original artist's expressive choice remains, it could still be a copyright violation. Fair use can sometimes be a defense, but there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether something is fair use.
omnimus 4y ago
Exactly to a programmer copilot is clear violation, to a writer gpt-3 is clear violation, to an artist dalle-2 is clear violation. The artist might love copilot, the writer might love dalle, the programmer might love gpt-3. Its all the same they just dont realize this.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Does dalle-2 verbatim reproduce artwork? I have never used it.
  - CapsAdmin 4y ago
    It's kind of like having millions of parameters you can tweak to get to an image. So an image does not really exist in the model. I can imagine Mona Lisa in my head, but it doesn't really "exist" verbatim in my head. It's only an approximation. I believe copilot works the same way (?)
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      NNs can and do encode information from their training sets in the models themselves, sometimes verbatim. Sometimes the original information is there in the model, encoded/compressed/however you want to look at it, and can be reproduced.
    - hackerfromthefu 4y ago
      This is just nonsense. It's similar to saying that any digital representation of an image isn't an image just a dataset that represent it. If what you said was any sort of defense every image copyright would never apply to any digital image, because the images can be saved in different resolutions, different file formats, or encoded down. e.g. if a jpeg 'image' was only an image at an exact set of digital bits i could save it again with a different quality setting and end up with a different set of digital bits. But everyone still recognises when an image looks the same, and courts will uphold copyright claims regardless of the digital encoding of an image. So goodluck with that spurious argument that it's not copyright because 'its on the internet (oh its with AI etc).

jzb 4y ago

I haven’t seen any side by sides that seem like a lift. Any examples? I don’t see Midjourney (et al) as remixes, myself. More like “inspired by.”

omnimus 4y ago
Its clear where the knowhow was lifted from it doesnt matter that if the final image is somewhat unique (almost every image is).
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  style is not copyrightable under current rules
  - omnimus 4y ago
    But it means the models were trained on images that are under copyright. In fact many of these models were trained exclusively on such images without any permission. For example Midjourney is clearly trained on everything on artstation.com where almost all images have commercial purpose / licenses.
kevingadd 4y ago
Not safe for work, but one example I saw going around: https://twitter.com/ebkim00/status/1579485164442648577 https://twitter.com/ebkim00/status/1579485164442648577 Not sure if this was fed the original image as an input or not. Also seen a couple cases where people explicitly trained a network to imitate an artist's work, like the deceased Kim Jung Gi.
- lbotos 4y ago
  It's really interesting. I suspect the face was inpainted in, or this was a "img2img". I think over time we are going to see the following: - If you take say a star wars poster, and inpaint in a trained face over luke's, and sell that to people as a service, you will probably be approached for copyright and trademark infringement. - If you are doing the above with a satirical take, you might be able to claim fair use. - If you are using AI as a "collage generator" to smash together a ton of prompts into a "unique" piece, you may be safe from infringement but you are taking a risk as you don't know what % of source material your new work contains. I'd like to imagine if you inpaint in say 20 details with various sub-prompts that you are getting "safer".
  - numpad0 4y ago
    Features outside the face is lost/changed from original on the right, so can’t be face inpainting. Unlikely to be style transfers, because some body parts are moved. Most plausibly this was generated. So much for “generation” - it seems as if these models are just overfitting on extremely small subset of input data that it did not utterly failed to train on, almost that there could be geniuses who would be able to directly generate weight data from said images without all the gradient descent thing.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  That's clearly lifting style, pose and general location but in each of those there are changes. Even for the original art we could find tons of examples of very similar poses and backgrounds because anime girl in a bathing suit on a beach background isn't that original of an image at the concept level. That pose also is a pretty well worn. This is the problem of applying the idea of ownership to ideas and expression like art. Art in particular is a very remix and recombination driven field.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    I think the key detail is to look at what happened in the bottom left - in the original drawing, there's dark blue (due to lighting) cloth filling the scene, but the network has instead generated oddly-hued water there, even though on the right side there's sand from the beach shore. There's seemingly no geometric representation driving the AI so it ended up turning clothing into mystery ocean water when synthesizing an image that (for whatever reason) looked like the original one. It's an interesting error to me because it only looks Wrong once you notice the sand on the right.
matkoniecz 4y ago
https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.png https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.... Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer This specific one is not copyright violation as it is old enough for copyright to expire. But the same may happen with other images. from https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ and https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse-theft/ https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse...
- Filligree 4y ago
  If a human drew that, it would not be copyright violation.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    It is a clear case of derivative work (see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works - internal docs, but their explanation of copyright status tends to be well done) This specific one would not be a problem, but doing it with a still copyrighted work would be.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    I’m not so sure about that. The scenes à faire doctrine would certainly let you paint your own picture of a pretty girl with a large earring, even a pearl one. That, however, is definitely the same person, in the same pose/composition, in the same outfit. The colors are slightly off, but the difference feels like a technical error rather than an expressive choice.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      Even if it is an expressive choice of the new artist, if enough of the original artist's expressive choice remains, it could still be a copyright violation. Fair use can sometimes be a defense, but there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether something is fair use.

omnimus 4y ago

Exactly to a programmer copilot is clear violation, to a writer gpt-3 is clear violation, to an artist dalle-2 is clear violation. The artist might love copilot, the writer might love dalle, the programmer might love gpt-3. Its all the same they just dont realize this.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Does dalle-2 verbatim reproduce artwork? I have never used it.
- CapsAdmin 4y ago
  It's kind of like having millions of parameters you can tweak to get to an image. So an image does not really exist in the model. I can imagine Mona Lisa in my head, but it doesn't really "exist" verbatim in my head. It's only an approximation. I believe copilot works the same way (?)
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    NNs can and do encode information from their training sets in the models themselves, sometimes verbatim. Sometimes the original information is there in the model, encoded/compressed/however you want to look at it, and can be reproduced.
  - hackerfromthefu 4y ago
    This is just nonsense. It's similar to saying that any digital representation of an image isn't an image just a dataset that represent it. If what you said was any sort of defense every image copyright would never apply to any digital image, because the images can be saved in different resolutions, different file formats, or encoded down. e.g. if a jpeg 'image' was only an image at an exact set of digital bits i could save it again with a different quality setting and end up with a different set of digital bits. But everyone still recognises when an image looks the same, and courts will uphold copyright claims regardless of the digital encoding of an image. So goodluck with that spurious argument that it's not copyright because 'its on the internet (oh its with AI etc).