6 ms·
So I think you are likely correct on it being something new. However, I still think its fair use. A thought experiment. Lets say I have an idea for a picture I
by fdye 4y ago
So I think you are likely correct on it being something new. However, I still think its fair use. A thought experiment.
Lets say I have an idea for a picture I want. I would like a teddy bear that is in the style of H.R. Giger. I a human write the prompt "style: h.r. giger, a teddy bear" and plug it into Stable Diffusion. I then generate 1000 images, it takes say an hour, and then I pick the one I like.
Now the counter example for our experiment. I have the same idea. I go to my community college and learn to draw (lets say I'm decently talented). I goto a book store, buy a book of H.R. Giger's art. Study that book and try to replicate it, eventually can do a passable copy. I then find a teddy bear, possibly also copyrighted. Then finally draw my teddy bear in the style of H.R. Giger.
Now I dont think most people would say the second example violates any laws and is fair use. You cannot copyright a style (although some lawsuits are moving forward for rap flow) to my knowledge. Yes I would be ridiculed by the art community as derivative. Its unlikely to end up in the Louvre, but could probably be put on a shirt and sold or whatever with minimal legal risk.
So why does the first example feel different then the second? I think it comes back to the process. I would describe them both as the same process but everything after the 'idea' and writing the prompt is just 'steps'. Yes they are steps we attach value to, such as learning to draw, and talent. But ultimately, the real creative thing was the 'idea'.
Another parallel we've experienced has kind of shown us the way. When the first spreadsheet came out it was very much a similar process. However, we don't see it as so as numbers generally aren't seen as creative expression. Never the less there was a desire to calculate someones net profits or whatever. Previously, there was large amounts of accountants, I'm sure with tribal knowledge about how to get this done using a bunch of chalkboards and double checking their work. Most trained on this and knew how to do this fastidiously. Then spreadsheets were invented and it saved them a ton of time. The tribal knowledge was not needed. Even a lay person who had a need to calculate 'net profits' could do that with a fraction of the work prior.
Final thought, if producing derivative works based on previous art becomes trivial. Then wont the artists who can actually create original works be far more valuable, if immediately copied? Perhaps a lot of the concern of this moment is artists seeing how much of what they produce, and actually sells, is really derivative to begin with...
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoCopyrights exist as an incentive for humans to bring new works into being. They are not incentives to use any particular tools to bring those new works into being. In my opinion, under this rubric, the extent a computer-generated work can be copyrighted (or be seen as transformational enough to be fair use) would depend on the amount of effort a human put into iterating that specific piece of work. And even then whether or not Andy Warhol's paintings are copyrightable, or are unauthorized copies of copyrighted work, is still going through the courts. > When the first spreadsheet came out it was very much a similar process. Processes have never been copyrightable. A particular implementation can be patented, but copyright is an entirely different form of intellectual property.
- fdye 4y agoAgreed a process cannot be copyrighted. Unfortunately, neither can a 'style', and to my knowledge the amount of 'work' that went into a piece doesn't necessarily effect copyright to my knowledge. I could setup a camera facing outside my window and press the button (with my finger to keep things simpler) every 10 seconds or so for several hours. No framing, thought of subject matter, lighting, just press the button, i.e. very little 'work'. At the end I would have a number of images that I hold copyright too. Legally (to my knowledge), they would have no greater or lesser legal protection then a shot I took on the top of mount Everest, with great care, framing subject, at a certain time of day, showing all my mastery of photographic arts (i.e. lots of work). Sadly, I think artists have a better chance trying to limit their works inclusion in the datasets then making any claim as far as how easy it is to use AI. It likely, will fall along web scraping cases, which I'm not knowledgeable enough to say one way or another. However, it doesn't bode well that I can put an artists name into google image and see several examples of their work, this feels like public access and to my laymans mind would fall under fair use. ref: https://www.thelegalartist.com/blog/you-cant-copyright-style https://www.thelegalartist.com/blog/you-cant-copyright-style
- freejazz 4y agoThe issue with web-scraping is... wait for it... copying The problem here is... copying! AI models aren't just taking the "style" from works, they are directly copying the works because they do not have an understanding of what style is because they are computer algorithms that are designed to generate pixel data based upon other inputs.