4 ms·

So what's the plan for the creatives whose work style becomes reproducible by tech? Sure, they also feed on each others work etc but in the core of all these c

by mrtksn 4y ago

So what's the plan for the creatives whose work style becomes reproducible by tech? Sure, they also feed on each others work etc but in the core of all these copyright, piracy, patent and similar discussions is how these people are supposed to be compensated. Working in the software company in the day and preaching open source, anti copyright anti patents open access free for all in the night works for the software people but people in the creative industries are really struggling to get paid for their work. The genie isn't going back in the bottle, the tech will be able to produce derivative work over the work of other people and I'm not looking forward for the greater number of struggling artists.

ghaff 4y ago
>So what's the plan for the creatives whose work style becomes reproducible by tech? You don't need tech (or at least computers). To the degree that a portrait photographer, say, has a distinctive lighting and posing style, that can absolutely be copied. And there are many examples in art of art techniques that were widely copied.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  The point is, how this person gets paid? Copying styles happens all the time and its part of the trade, copying each other is part of being human and its how we come up with new things but the assumptions are that these people will get paid for their work because copying their work style doesn't scale well. A person with a particular style can get paid for games artwork since it's not that easy to copy the style and now suddenly they are not get paid but their work is simply analysed by a machine and produced on demand. It's like building your security on hard to brute force secrets in tech and suddenly someone makes a machine that instantly brute forces any secret. Its a similar kind of disaster with the difference that human being can't just switch doing something else and the value they added to the society is not compensated.
madeofpalk 4y ago
> Working in the software company in the day and preaching open source, anti copyright anti patents open access free for all "Open source" is copyright - it's not anti-copyright. It uses copyright to grant a license to use under certain conditions, and sometimes with obligations. You might keep it proprietary, you might use GPL to require that the software stays open virally, or you might use a more permissive BSD-style license. The important part here is that as the creator, you choose how you want your work to by copyrighted. [0]: best quickest link i could find that contains the "consent, credit, compensation" https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/three-artists-launch-lawsuit-against-stable-diffusion/ https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/three-artists-launch-lawsuit-...
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Okay, so how these people are to be compensated?
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Artists already get compensated for their work (...more or less) Trainers should require consent from artists to train their model on an artist's work. A part of obtaining that consent could be some form of compensation and ideally credit when generating the images. I don't believe many artists are necessarily concerned about people copying their style. From what I've seen is they just don't want their artwork and their style sucked into the AI-borg to be reproduced en masse. I do not think scraping images and using them to train models is fair use. I believe AI labs should obtain consent.

by mrtksn 4y ago

ghaff 4y ago

>So what's the plan for the creatives whose work style becomes reproducible by tech? You don't need tech (or at least computers). To the degree that a portrait photographer, say, has a distinctive lighting and posing style, that can absolutely be copied. And there are many examples in art of art techniques that were widely copied.

mrtksn 4y ago
The point is, how this person gets paid? Copying styles happens all the time and its part of the trade, copying each other is part of being human and its how we come up with new things but the assumptions are that these people will get paid for their work because copying their work style doesn't scale well. A person with a particular style can get paid for games artwork since it's not that easy to copy the style and now suddenly they are not get paid but their work is simply analysed by a machine and produced on demand. It's like building your security on hard to brute force secrets in tech and suddenly someone makes a machine that instantly brute forces any secret. Its a similar kind of disaster with the difference that human being can't just switch doing something else and the value they added to the society is not compensated.

madeofpalk 4y ago

> Working in the software company in the day and preaching open source, anti copyright anti patents open access free for all "Open source" is copyright - it's not anti-copyright. It uses copyright to grant a license to use under certain conditions, and sometimes with obligations. You might keep it proprietary, you might use GPL to require that the software stays open virally, or you might use a more permissive BSD-style license. The important part here is that as the creator, you choose how you want your work to by copyrighted. [0]: best quickest link i could find that contains the "consent, credit, compensation" https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/three-artists-launch-lawsuit-against-stable-diffusion/ https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/three-artists-launch-lawsuit-...

mrtksn 4y ago
Okay, so how these people are to be compensated?
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Artists already get compensated for their work (...more or less) Trainers should require consent from artists to train their model on an artist's work. A part of obtaining that consent could be some form of compensation and ideally credit when generating the images. I don't believe many artists are necessarily concerned about people copying their style. From what I've seen is they just don't want their artwork and their style sucked into the AI-borg to be reproduced en masse. I do not think scraping images and using them to train models is fair use. I believe AI labs should obtain consent.