18 ms·

I’m willing to play this silly game for one reason: it’s absurd and I want you to look silly because you’ve now insulted my artistic practice as unoriginal so t

I’m willing to play this silly game for one reason: it’s absurd and I want you to look silly because you’ve now insulted my artistic practice as unoriginal so the gloves are off. So I’ve used Stable Diffusion and I’m “literally” stealing from every artist. Prove it. Get a warrant to search my premises for signs of illegal language model use. How do you get a warrant with an image that has no visual evidence of being a copy?

jacquesm 4y ago
It's not silly. If you disconnect from the internet and you can no longer produce the same level of art that's all the proof that's required. Clearly you are sourcing it from somewhere, not your own brain. I can prove to you that my writing and my code are mine because you can stand behind me and look over my shoulder to see that I am creating it, one bit (or at most 8) at the time. Visual evidence of it being a copy is not required: what's required is a track of creation aka provenance. This is a very well defined area in copyright. So the proof would be trivial: you recreate your work again, without access to Stable Diffusion or equivalent, while being monitored and if you can not then that would count as a bust in my book. If you're a good enough artist that you can do that and you merely use SD as a way to get some inspiration then that's another matter. But if the output of SD is in the workflow in such a way that its output is directly your input then that would be troublesome (to me). If it is copied then that still would be troublesome (to me). If you feel ok with that it is entirely up to you, but I have my views on that, which I'm perfectly at liberty to share. And of course once you've made it work likely it is trivial to make it again so probably the above test conditions would need some sharpening but you get the principle. Without provenance you are still creating art, but you are not creating original art. And if you were a good enough artist before SD then you should still be after, even if you're not using it and everybody else is, at least your work will be and will continue to be original. I'm trying to imagine a world in which Rembrandt van Rijn admitted to using SD to create the Nightwatch, projecting it on a big canvas and then erasing the prompt. I figure it wouldn't give me quite the same feeling that it does today. Of course artists will use the tools that are at their disposal, but this tool essentially is a pocket sized library of all the other art that could be vacuumed up into the model and that just doesn't sit right with me. Which parts are yours and which parts are SD? If you claim an outsider can't un-entangle them to the point where cause and effect are separated do you really feel that that is the bar that should be met? If so what if I trained a model on your art exclusively and then used that to produce prompt driven 'art' to compete with you, would you think that's fair? And if not, why would the number of inputs be a factor? It's the principles that matter. FWIW my dad made a living as a painter for quite a few years and even though I can't paint worth anything I know enough about brush technique to get oil to stick to canvas. Given this tool I could produce 'art' that I probably could pass off as original and it would likely not be detected by your standard. But without the tool I would be absolutely hopeless so that's a pretty good argument. The more of an artist someone is the more brittle that argument becomes, there may well be a border beyond which what someone creates using such a tool does qualify as original work but again, to me, such a work would feel tainted. Do you disclose the use of SD to the customers that buy these works?
- williamcotton 4y ago
  The burden is on the accuser. Whatever world you imagine where someone can wander around and force other people to have to “show their work” without evidence is absurd. Also, Stable Diffusion is already on my laptop so I don’t need an Internet connection, but I digress. You’re right, I can’t make the same art with Stable Diffusion as without. The same holds for the art I can make with DAW software like Logic Pro and without. Or my guitar and without. Basically you’re leaving me with nothing but my voice, and personally, I’m in luck because I do sing and have already put effort into getting better. I can’t see how an image that has never existed before cannot be considered original… it might not have taken much effort, but that’s something else entirely! How is any part of photography even remotely considered original in your theory of art?
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    This is an interesting discussion, sorry for editing my other comment extensively, I tend to 'think while writing' and that upsets the thread a bit. You can take that as proof that this isn't GPT-3 output. The burden is on the accuser but the accuser has been 'shredded' and that makes them all but anonymous. So if you dilute inputs enough then you can ignore the rights? There is a close equivalent to this in music sampling. The rule there is that if you want to remix someone else's production that you will have to ask for their permission, which, crucially, they are not required to give. https://www.romanolaw.com/2022/10/14/music-sampling-rights-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.romanolaw.com/2022/10/14/music-sampling-rights-w... This seems to me to be a reasonable middle ground. Once you start breaking things down further it gets harder and harder to nail down where the limit lies. In music you probably won't find any useful samples shorter than 1/32th of a beat and even that would be pushing the limits. But the rules don't say anything about how long those samples are: even the tiniest sliver would have to be accounted for: you would need permission. And yes the burden is on the accuser. But it would make sense from an ethical point of view and as an artist to just play by the rules, rather than to see what you can get away with and so even for short samples that might never be detected by that particular accuser as a rule permission is obtained. > You’re right, I can’t make the same art with Stable Diffusion as without. The same holds for the art I can make with DAW software like Logic Pro and without. Or my guitar and without. Basically you’re leaving me with nothing but my voice, and personally, I’m in luck because I do sing and have already put effort into getting better. That's disingeneous and you are likely well aware of it, but just to spell it out: Logic Pro 'Sample Packs' all have clear attribution and use rights attached, and your guitar is (unless it is some advanced model that I'm not currently aware of) unable to make you play like Al Di Meola without putting in the endless hours of practice. Neither of these contain a combined mountain of copyrighted artists works that you can then re-use at your discretion without attribution and if and when they do those are very carefully sourced and marked as such. So the comparison with SD doesn't hold. > I can’t see how an image that has never existed before cannot be considered original… Ok, so I have this little piece of software here, it allows me to extract the notes, durations and volumes of individual notes of a piano piece and then I can re-play those notes using any instrument from an enormous bank of synthesized sounds. Do you feel that this should count as original work because 'it has never existed before' or do you feel that this is a mechanical transformation and that the original creator should be able to sue me for creating a derived work? Does the mechanism of the derivation count? > it might not have taken much effort, but that’s something else entirely Agreed, Marc Rebillet comes to mind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vBwRfQbXkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vBwRfQbXkg) , but he has 3 decades of experience which allows him to create in a few minutes what would take others weeks (or they might never be able to do anything). > How is any part of photography even remotely considered original in your theory of art? Photography is original art when it goes beyond 'just reproduction'. My brother, who is a pretty good photographer has two 'modes' in the first one he is simply registering an event, a wedding or something else that needs to be documented. He most likely would not consider this to be even close to his best work and certainly not in the level of artistry involved. In his other mode he can spend a crazy amount of time arranging the shot, including getting up at odd hours of the night, creating special vantage points, the right time of the year to get an object to catch the light just so. In that mode he is an artist. And I'm sure he has made 1000's (or probably more likely 10's of 1000's) of shots that are somewhere in between.

jacquesm 4y ago

It's not silly. If you disconnect from the internet and you can no longer produce the same level of art that's all the proof that's required. Clearly you are sourcing it from somewhere, not your own brain. I can prove to you that my writing and my code are mine because you can stand behind me and look over my shoulder to see that I am creating it, one bit (or at most 8) at the time. Visual evidence of it being a copy is not required: what's required is a track of creation aka provenance. This is a very well defined area in copyright. So the proof would be trivial: you recreate your work again, without access to Stable Diffusion or equivalent, while being monitored and if you can not then that would count as a bust in my book. If you're a good enough artist that you can do that and you merely use SD as a way to get some inspiration then that's another matter. But if the output of SD is in the workflow in such a way that its output is directly your input then that would be troublesome (to me). If it is copied then that still would be troublesome (to me). If you feel ok with that it is entirely up to you, but I have my views on that, which I'm perfectly at liberty to share. And of course once you've made it work likely it is trivial to make it again so probably the above test conditions would need some sharpening but you get the principle. Without provenance you are still creating art, but you are not creating original art. And if you were a good enough artist before SD then you should still be after, even if you're not using it and everybody else is, at least your work will be and will continue to be original. I'm trying to imagine a world in which Rembrandt van Rijn admitted to using SD to create the Nightwatch, projecting it on a big canvas and then erasing the prompt. I figure it wouldn't give me quite the same feeling that it does today. Of course artists will use the tools that are at their disposal, but this tool essentially is a pocket sized library of all the other art that could be vacuumed up into the model and that just doesn't sit right with me. Which parts are yours and which parts are SD? If you claim an outsider can't un-entangle them to the point where cause and effect are separated do you really feel that that is the bar that should be met? If so what if I trained a model on your art exclusively and then used that to produce prompt driven 'art' to compete with you, would you think that's fair? And if not, why would the number of inputs be a factor? It's the principles that matter. FWIW my dad made a living as a painter for quite a few years and even though I can't paint worth anything I know enough about brush technique to get oil to stick to canvas. Given this tool I could produce 'art' that I probably could pass off as original and it would likely not be detected by your standard. But without the tool I would be absolutely hopeless so that's a pretty good argument. The more of an artist someone is the more brittle that argument becomes, there may well be a border beyond which what someone creates using such a tool does qualify as original work but again, to me, such a work would feel tainted. Do you disclose the use of SD to the customers that buy these works?

williamcotton 4y ago
The burden is on the accuser. Whatever world you imagine where someone can wander around and force other people to have to “show their work” without evidence is absurd. Also, Stable Diffusion is already on my laptop so I don’t need an Internet connection, but I digress. You’re right, I can’t make the same art with Stable Diffusion as without. The same holds for the art I can make with DAW software like Logic Pro and without. Or my guitar and without. Basically you’re leaving me with nothing but my voice, and personally, I’m in luck because I do sing and have already put effort into getting better. I can’t see how an image that has never existed before cannot be considered original… it might not have taken much effort, but that’s something else entirely! How is any part of photography even remotely considered original in your theory of art?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  This is an interesting discussion, sorry for editing my other comment extensively, I tend to 'think while writing' and that upsets the thread a bit. You can take that as proof that this isn't GPT-3 output. The burden is on the accuser but the accuser has been 'shredded' and that makes them all but anonymous. So if you dilute inputs enough then you can ignore the rights? There is a close equivalent to this in music sampling. The rule there is that if you want to remix someone else's production that you will have to ask for their permission, which, crucially, they are not required to give. https://www.romanolaw.com/2022/10/14/music-sampling-rights-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.romanolaw.com/2022/10/14/music-sampling-rights-w... This seems to me to be a reasonable middle ground. Once you start breaking things down further it gets harder and harder to nail down where the limit lies. In music you probably won't find any useful samples shorter than 1/32th of a beat and even that would be pushing the limits. But the rules don't say anything about how long those samples are: even the tiniest sliver would have to be accounted for: you would need permission. And yes the burden is on the accuser. But it would make sense from an ethical point of view and as an artist to just play by the rules, rather than to see what you can get away with and so even for short samples that might never be detected by that particular accuser as a rule permission is obtained. > You’re right, I can’t make the same art with Stable Diffusion as without. The same holds for the art I can make with DAW software like Logic Pro and without. Or my guitar and without. Basically you’re leaving me with nothing but my voice, and personally, I’m in luck because I do sing and have already put effort into getting better. That's disingeneous and you are likely well aware of it, but just to spell it out: Logic Pro 'Sample Packs' all have clear attribution and use rights attached, and your guitar is (unless it is some advanced model that I'm not currently aware of) unable to make you play like Al Di Meola without putting in the endless hours of practice. Neither of these contain a combined mountain of copyrighted artists works that you can then re-use at your discretion without attribution and if and when they do those are very carefully sourced and marked as such. So the comparison with SD doesn't hold. > I can’t see how an image that has never existed before cannot be considered original… Ok, so I have this little piece of software here, it allows me to extract the notes, durations and volumes of individual notes of a piano piece and then I can re-play those notes using any instrument from an enormous bank of synthesized sounds. Do you feel that this should count as original work because 'it has never existed before' or do you feel that this is a mechanical transformation and that the original creator should be able to sue me for creating a derived work? Does the mechanism of the derivation count? > it might not have taken much effort, but that’s something else entirely Agreed, Marc Rebillet comes to mind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vBwRfQbXkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vBwRfQbXkg) , but he has 3 decades of experience which allows him to create in a few minutes what would take others weeks (or they might never be able to do anything). > How is any part of photography even remotely considered original in your theory of art? Photography is original art when it goes beyond 'just reproduction'. My brother, who is a pretty good photographer has two 'modes' in the first one he is simply registering an event, a wedding or something else that needs to be documented. He most likely would not consider this to be even close to his best work and certainly not in the level of artistry involved. In his other mode he can spend a crazy amount of time arranging the shot, including getting up at odd hours of the night, creating special vantage points, the right time of the year to get an object to catch the light just so. In that mode he is an artist. And I'm sure he has made 1000's (or probably more likely 10's of 1000's) of shots that are somewhere in between.