4 ms·

What I find curious is that the creator of Zarya of the Dawn has repeatedly demonstrated that her work is of human origin and not the simple result of a one-cli

What I find curious is that the creator of Zarya of the Dawn has repeatedly demonstrated that her work is of human origin and not the simple result of a one-click img2text program. The creator invested a lot of time not only in generating images, but also in blending them using Photoshop and making substantial edits to ensure that the characters appear correctly while fixing errors typical of the AI. Things like manually correcting blurred faces and hands in Photoshop using her digital art skillset. She personally wrote the text and performed the task of a letterer by placing the bubbles. She also took care of the assembly of the book, including designing the layout and making sure everything was printed correctly. All of these details were clearly explained and underlined by her lawyer in his letter to the copyright office: https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf I would invite everyone to go through the letter before commenting as it adds a lot of necessary context. Personally, I can't help but thing this is at least partially the result of the "$187,500 for one year of full-time lobbyist in D.C" against AI art GoFundMe[1] and I can't help but find it particular that people can so easily and transparently put money together to push a certain agenda. [1] https://www.gofundme.com/f/protecting-artists-from-ai-technologies https://www.gofundme.com/f/protecting-artists-from-ai-techno...

salawat 4y ago
>Personally, I can't help but thing this is at least partially the result of the "$187,500 for one year of full-time lobbyist in D.C" against AI art GoFundMe[1] and I can't help but find it particular that people can so easily and transparently put money together to push a certain agenda. So it's fine when $BIG_CORPS run by largely unaccountable CEOs/management teams/Boards do it, but not when the little guy grassroots? Is that what I'm reading? For that matter, it's fine when the above use things like dark money pools and PACs to influence government while obscuring where the funds came from, but you're complaining that the little guy, transparently donating to a cause, is something that shouldn't be kosher? Look, I hate lobbyists as much as the next person, but if it's the way things work, then it's the way things work, and I won't begrudge the people for making their voice heard, even if some nuance ends up getting lost in the shuffle. I'm just to make sure I understand here.
- freejazz 4y ago
  > Look, I hate lobbyists as much as the next person People here jump backwards over the EFF, which is otherwise a big tech industry lobbying group that does whatever it can to dissolve copyright and patent law that protects small time artists and inventors.
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  My concern is not lobbying but the specific agenda of this group that uses crowdfunding to push for a blanket ban on all AI-related art. This approach pretty much bypasses the traditional process of open debates and public discourse around new technologies and their potential impact on society preventively out of fear. By using financial resources to hire a lobbyist and push for a ban, they effectively shuts down any meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of AI-generated art, as well as the potential impact of a ban on artists and businesses that depend on this technology. This approach is not only potentially detrimental to the development of the technology itself but it also undermines the principles of transparency and accountability in the political process. A lot of the content being published by such groups do not present the situation accurately but present AI-generated art as "collages" or tools that directly plagiarize or replicate the work of other artists. For example, Karla Ortiz (board member of the CAA, the group who is behind this GoFundMe) describes it as "it’s like someone who already robbed you [...]". More examples can be found on this website that adds commentary to the original lawsuit against "a 21st-century collage tool that violates the rights of artists": http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ Lobbying in itself can be a legitimate form of political advocacy. The specific use of crowdfunding to push for a broad ban on any AI-related artistic generation is where I raise concerns.
  - Riverheart 4y ago
    Do you really believe that the people pushing for AI art would slowdown or even stop their work if artists did have legitimate concerns about proliferation of this tech? There is money to be made by developers, money to save by bypassing artists, and those artists using AI art may compete more effectively against peers that don't. Why would they stop?
freejazz 4y ago
> has repeatedly demonstrated that her work is of human origin and not the simple result of a one-click img2text program The demarcation isn't being a "'one-click' img2text program", so just stating this doesn't get anyone anywhere. It's just facial and self-serving and contains no argument. >The creator invested a lot of time not only in generating images, but also in blending them using Photoshop and making substantial edits to ensure that the characters appear correctly while fixing errors typical of the AI. Things like manually correcting blurred faces and hands in Photoshop using her digital art skillset. The office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright. Doing things like retouching doesn't give the retoucher a copyright in what is the photographer's work. Fixing up faces, etc, things like that. To that point, I do not think her edits were what the office would call "substantial" and I agree. >She personally wrote the text and performed the task of a letterer by placing the bubbles. She also took care of the assembly of the book, including designing the layout and making sure everything was printed correctly. She has a copyright in the text and the layout and arrangement. They said as much. >Personally, I can't help but thing this is at least partially the result of the "$187,500 for one year of full-time lobbyist in D.C" against AI art GoFundMe[1] and I can't help but find it particular that people can so easily and transparently put money together to push a certain agenda. LOL are you for real? What's your evidence besides the fact that a lobbyist was hired? This is just ex post facto rationalization. The copyright has held this position about non-human art since its existence. This case is no different than the monkey selfie case. Like, point to what the lobbyist changed or something at least...
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  While it is true that the Copyright Office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright, it's important to note that this decision was not based on the fact that the work was created using AI. The decision was based on the fact that her edits were not considered to be original enough to warrant a copyright. "The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists." They also say that the changes are "too minor and imperceptible to supply the necessary creativity for copyright protection." I want to highlight this part of the article: --- Kashtanova’s lawyer Lindberg disagrees, saying, “There are a number of errors with the Office’s arguments, some legal and some factual. However, they all seem to stem from a core factual misunderstanding of the role that randomness plays in Midjourney’s image generation.” The errors he lists include the interpretation of whether Kashtanova contributed a “modicum” of input or not. Did her prompt engineering qualify as a mere suggestion, or, as he argues, did her instructions cause Midjourney to “do exactly as it is programmed to do and pull from an artist-chosen place in its massive table of probabilities to drive the generation of an image”? --- I personally agree with this perspective because it underscores the importance of understanding the specific nature of the AI tool being used and how it differs from other tools used by artists. In the end, all I said is that I find it curious. I am not taking a strong position here.

salawat 4y ago

>Personally, I can't help but thing this is at least partially the result of the "$187,500 for one year of full-time lobbyist in D.C" against AI art GoFundMe[1] and I can't help but find it particular that people can so easily and transparently put money together to push a certain agenda. So it's fine when $BIG_CORPS run by largely unaccountable CEOs/management teams/Boards do it, but not when the little guy grassroots? Is that what I'm reading? For that matter, it's fine when the above use things like dark money pools and PACs to influence government while obscuring where the funds came from, but you're complaining that the little guy, transparently donating to a cause, is something that shouldn't be kosher? Look, I hate lobbyists as much as the next person, but if it's the way things work, then it's the way things work, and I won't begrudge the people for making their voice heard, even if some nuance ends up getting lost in the shuffle. I'm just to make sure I understand here.

freejazz 4y ago
> Look, I hate lobbyists as much as the next person People here jump backwards over the EFF, which is otherwise a big tech industry lobbying group that does whatever it can to dissolve copyright and patent law that protects small time artists and inventors.
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
My concern is not lobbying but the specific agenda of this group that uses crowdfunding to push for a blanket ban on all AI-related art. This approach pretty much bypasses the traditional process of open debates and public discourse around new technologies and their potential impact on society preventively out of fear. By using financial resources to hire a lobbyist and push for a ban, they effectively shuts down any meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of AI-generated art, as well as the potential impact of a ban on artists and businesses that depend on this technology. This approach is not only potentially detrimental to the development of the technology itself but it also undermines the principles of transparency and accountability in the political process. A lot of the content being published by such groups do not present the situation accurately but present AI-generated art as "collages" or tools that directly plagiarize or replicate the work of other artists. For example, Karla Ortiz (board member of the CAA, the group who is behind this GoFundMe) describes it as "it’s like someone who already robbed you [...]". More examples can be found on this website that adds commentary to the original lawsuit against "a 21st-century collage tool that violates the rights of artists": http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ Lobbying in itself can be a legitimate form of political advocacy. The specific use of crowdfunding to push for a broad ban on any AI-related artistic generation is where I raise concerns.
- Riverheart 4y ago
  Do you really believe that the people pushing for AI art would slowdown or even stop their work if artists did have legitimate concerns about proliferation of this tech? There is money to be made by developers, money to save by bypassing artists, and those artists using AI art may compete more effectively against peers that don't. Why would they stop?

freejazz 4y ago

> has repeatedly demonstrated that her work is of human origin and not the simple result of a one-click img2text program The demarcation isn't being a "'one-click' img2text program", so just stating this doesn't get anyone anywhere. It's just facial and self-serving and contains no argument. >The creator invested a lot of time not only in generating images, but also in blending them using Photoshop and making substantial edits to ensure that the characters appear correctly while fixing errors typical of the AI. Things like manually correcting blurred faces and hands in Photoshop using her digital art skillset. The office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright. Doing things like retouching doesn't give the retoucher a copyright in what is the photographer's work. Fixing up faces, etc, things like that. To that point, I do not think her edits were what the office would call "substantial" and I agree. >She personally wrote the text and performed the task of a letterer by placing the bubbles. She also took care of the assembly of the book, including designing the layout and making sure everything was printed correctly. She has a copyright in the text and the layout and arrangement. They said as much. >Personally, I can't help but thing this is at least partially the result of the "$187,500 for one year of full-time lobbyist in D.C" against AI art GoFundMe[1] and I can't help but find it particular that people can so easily and transparently put money together to push a certain agenda. LOL are you for real? What's your evidence besides the fact that a lobbyist was hired? This is just ex post facto rationalization. The copyright has held this position about non-human art since its existence. This case is no different than the monkey selfie case. Like, point to what the lobbyist changed or something at least...

Karawebnetwork 4y ago
While it is true that the Copyright Office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright, it's important to note that this decision was not based on the fact that the work was created using AI. The decision was based on the fact that her edits were not considered to be original enough to warrant a copyright. "The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists." They also say that the changes are "too minor and imperceptible to supply the necessary creativity for copyright protection." I want to highlight this part of the article: --- Kashtanova’s lawyer Lindberg disagrees, saying, “There are a number of errors with the Office’s arguments, some legal and some factual. However, they all seem to stem from a core factual misunderstanding of the role that randomness plays in Midjourney’s image generation.” The errors he lists include the interpretation of whether Kashtanova contributed a “modicum” of input or not. Did her prompt engineering qualify as a mere suggestion, or, as he argues, did her instructions cause Midjourney to “do exactly as it is programmed to do and pull from an artist-chosen place in its massive table of probabilities to drive the generation of an image”? --- I personally agree with this perspective because it underscores the importance of understanding the specific nature of the AI tool being used and how it differs from other tools used by artists. In the end, all I said is that I find it curious. I am not taking a strong position here.