4 ms·
> No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut. But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right
by timmaxw 4y ago
> No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut.
But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right?
> What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh
Stable Diffusion is definitely not claiming that it didn't train on human artists.
- wilimitis 4y ago> But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right? The controversy of Stable Diffusion is attribution. I could not care less about receiving a cut. Rather, I want my life's work in pushing particular style further than anyone has before to be recognized primarily so the next artist can trace the lineage and improve upon it. > Stable Diffusion is definitely not claiming that it didn't train on human artists. Stable diffusion claims that attribution is not important because "all artists copy each other".
- timmaxw 4y agoMaybe I'm missing something, but I don't see human artists doing the form of attribution you're describing. When people post artwork online, or when artwork is displayed in museums, it's normal to credit the artist who did the work, but not the artists who inspired them. (Unless the artist is directly copying another artist's work, or drawing fanart of a character from another work.) Can you clarify what this kind of attribution looks like when human artists do it?
- wilimitis 4y agoI can understand how you would be missing that context without being a professional artist yourself. 1. Art historians carefully note the chain of inspiration, mentorship, etc in their works through primary sources (books, wikipedia, documentaries). 2. Modern living artists purchase the art of, study the art of, and share the art of their inspirations.