5 ms·

In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art tha

In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art that is really close to Picasso. He will lose in court because of IP. Now an AI does the same thing and suddenly no copyright ? What should be done maybe is explicitly asking for every art generated to ask to pay for it and this money goes for the copyrights. But unlimited free art without restrictions nor credit to the original author is stealing IP. Or you remove everything with IP from the training set because it’s cheating.

fauxpause_ 4y ago
AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint? Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.
- shinycode 4y ago
  Yes that’s covered by law https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Commande-artistique/1-immeuble-1-aeuvre/Reglementation-et-bonnes-pratiques https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm... > Le droit moral de l’artiste est «perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible». Il est lié à la personne de l’auteur qui ne peut y renoncer ni le céder à autrui > The moral right of the artist is "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible". It is linked to the person of the author who can neither renounce it nor transfer it to another person https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Commande-artistique/1-immeuble-1-aeuvre/Reglementation-et-bonnes-pratiques https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm... > Le code de la propriété intellectuelle entend par contrefaçon tous les actes d'utilisation non autorisée de l'œuvre. En cas de reprise partielle de cette dernière, elle s'apprécie en fonction des ressemblances entre les œuvres. La simple tentative n'est pas punissable. La loi incrimine au titre du délit de contrefaçon : - «toute reproduction, représentation ou diffusion, par quelque moyen que ce soit, d'une œuvre de l'esprit en violation des droits de l'auteur, tels qu'ils sont définis et réglementés par la loi » (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - «le débit [acte de diffusion, notamment par vente, de marchandises contrefaisantes], l'exportation et l'importation des ouvrages "contrefaisants" » (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3). > The Intellectual Property Code defines infringement as all acts of unauthorized use of a work. In the case of partial use of the work, it is assessed according to the similarities between the works. The simple attempt is not punishable. The law incriminates under the offence of counterfeiting: - "any reproduction, representation or dissemination, by any means whatsoever, of a work of the mind in violation of the author's rights, as defined and regulated by law" (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - "the debit [act of distribution, notably by sale, of infringing goods], the export and import of 'infringing' works" (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3).
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    Nothing you have said implies you cannot copy the style of another artist. Which is obvious. People copy styles all the time. You don’t want Renoir suing Monet over who owns Impressionism. That is very different from saying you cannot recreate his specific works. Or do crappy Pop Art faux copies.
    - shinycode 4y ago
      I’m not an artist so I have no problem with being able to generate almost free quality art on my own within minutes. Before those AI if I ever wanted something specific I had to go see an artist and ask (prompt) him for the art I want. If I ask him to draw Andy Warhol Marilyn with my face on it. Can he charge me for it without copyright infringement ? Maybe nobody cares and no one is going to do anything about it but still, his style is specific right ? My face or my dog’s face makes the drawing completely different. If AI is just « an other form of intelligence », why shouldn’t it be subjected to the same laws ? If it’s just a tool and not an intelligence, why would openAI wouldn’t be subjected to the same rules ? If all you do for a living is painting, if I wan’t a unique painting that fit your work style I have to ask you to do it. Now I can ask an AI to paint exactly that but you are not in the loop anymore but your work has been used to train this AI and no one will ever ask you to create art because they love your style and can have it for free. I mean, I’m all in for free stuff and I’m not an artist but what does artists feel about it ?
      - fauxpause_ 4y ago
        > If I ask him to draw Andy Warhol Marilyn with my face on it. Can he charge me for it without copyright infringement ? Maybe nobody cares and no one is going to do anything about it but still, his style is specific right ? My face or my dog’s face makes the drawing completely different. You can generate whatever you want. If you want to sell it, then maybe it is a copyright violation. Maybe it isn’t. The point is that it does not matter that an AI tool made it or a human or a random falling of colored sand. Nobody is saying AI tool outputs are immune to copyright. What I am saying is that they are not intrinsically violations of copyright because training data. > If all you do for a living is painting, if I wan’t a unique painting that fit your work style I have to ask you to do it. Now I can ask an AI to paint exactly that but you are not in the loop anymore but your work has been used to train this AI and no one will ever ask you to create art because they love your style and can have it for free. That is deeply misleading. You are absolutely fine to ask another artist to create you a work in another artist’s style. The only difference here is cost and perhaps quality. Those are not problems with copyright. > I mean, I’m all in for free stuff and I’m not an artist but what does artists feel about it Bad
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  As someone that’s undecided on this whole issue, your particular argument comes across as so tone-deaf that I didn’t think that you genuinely believed it when you wrote it.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    Which piece was tone deaf? That AI is a tool? Because it is a tool. Using it to copy a work is a problem with copyright. Using it because it is capable of violating copyright is not. Or that style is not copyrighted? Because it’s not.
    - shinycode 4y ago
      I don’t know precisely what lies behind the french IP when they state : > In the case of partial use of the work, it is assessed according to the similarities between the works Similarities could be understood as style maybe ? It’s not a clear cut
- tremon 4y ago
  Which came first, copyright or the printing press? Was the printing press banned because of copyright? But yes, the claim about an artist owning an entire style sounds pretty off to me. There's no way Picasso has a copyright claim on every cubist painting ever made, nor does Van Gogh own every painting containing a sunflower.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    > Which came first, copyright or the printing press? Was the printing press banned because of copyright? I feel like you’re making the same argument as me, with the same rhetoric, but a different example. No, I do not think the printing press, paint, or generative tools are bannable by copyright. I do think all 3 could be used to produce a work that is in violation of copyright. And no, I don’t think a novel work produced by any of them are in violation of copyright.
    - tremon 4y ago
      I think it's just not clear what argument you're actually making. When you say "a novel work produced by any of them", are you equating the works produced by paint with the works produced by AI? Are you saying that if I throw a can of white paint against a Jackson Pollock painting, the paint itself is producing a novel work? That if a million printing presses print out a million dictionaries, one of them is bound to produce the entire works of Shakespeare?
      - fauxpause_ 4y ago
        My point is that copyright does not care about the means by which a work is generated. It is merely whether the output is substantially similar. If a printing press randomly produces Hamlet, you cannot sell it. That does not mean you cannot generate something that is sellable without violating copyright by printing random words. There is a small amount of attention paid to whether an artist knew of a work that someone claims was copied. Especially in the literary world with hacks who try to steal from successful authors with pathetic claims. But they tend not to hold a lot of weight. It just makes it easier to dismiss trolls. AI is a tool. It is not sentient. It is paint.
joseph_grobbles 4y ago
[dead]
oh_sigh 4y ago
Artists own the art they created, they don't own the style that they might have invented.
- noirscape 4y ago
  Not necessarily under moral rights. Moral rights are... at best a mess. They can be very wide, very up to interpretation and vary depending on the country. They're essentially meant as the ultimate stop button for an artist if their works get used in a way the artist deeply disapproves of[0]. Actual interpretation can vary a lot and cloning an artists style as specifically as SD allows you to do (with "...in the style of X" prompts) could easily be an easy moral rights argument in most jurisdictions, doubly so if economic exploitation is a component. (Which a lot of the hype surrounding SD et al. is also build on.) For this reason they mostly exist in civil law systems (where a judges ruling sets no precedent for future interpretation), while they barely exist in common law systems (like the US) since it's really difficult to point at consistency with previous cases when it comes to moral rights. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    Has any artist ever successfully sued for relief where some other artist merely used their style?
    - noirscape 4y ago
      Largely irrelevant - like I said, moral rights exist in civil law countries, so these things will be pursued on a case by case basis rather than by existing precedent. They tend to deal with (quoting WP here) "The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation".[3] Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play." Another condition often applied is straight up forbidding the modification of a copyrighted work, regardless of any other circumstances. In this case, you can reasonably consider that the strong stance that a good chunk of artists have taken about AI art, that using their work in these models is deliberately altering/distorting the work (Since training these models involves serializing the art down to patterns that can be replicated and iterated on) in a way that is damaging to their reputation. As for whether or not relief has been granted, do keep in mind that requiring relief for a lawsuit is largely a US only thing. The court systems of other countries tend to lean more towards stop orders rather than immediately pulling out the financial compensation card. That's also the context in which moral rights exist - they are intended to be a stop order, not intended to be something you can financially gain from having it be violated (which is why they exist separate from economic rights, which are well... typical copyright stuff). Do keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, US or otherwise.
123pie123 4y ago
nothing changes if I create a picture with a style simiar to an existing picture/ artist who has IP on it, then I would get sued should it be relevent how it was created, either by hand or using AI?

fauxpause_ 4y ago

AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint? Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.

shinycode 4y ago
Yes that’s covered by law https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Commande-artistique/1-immeuble-1-aeuvre/Reglementation-et-bonnes-pratiques https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm... > Le droit moral de l’artiste est «perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible». Il est lié à la personne de l’auteur qui ne peut y renoncer ni le céder à autrui > The moral right of the artist is "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible". It is linked to the person of the author who can neither renounce it nor transfer it to another person https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Commande-artistique/1-immeuble-1-aeuvre/Reglementation-et-bonnes-pratiques https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm... > Le code de la propriété intellectuelle entend par contrefaçon tous les actes d'utilisation non autorisée de l'œuvre. En cas de reprise partielle de cette dernière, elle s'apprécie en fonction des ressemblances entre les œuvres. La simple tentative n'est pas punissable. La loi incrimine au titre du délit de contrefaçon : - «toute reproduction, représentation ou diffusion, par quelque moyen que ce soit, d'une œuvre de l'esprit en violation des droits de l'auteur, tels qu'ils sont définis et réglementés par la loi » (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - «le débit [acte de diffusion, notamment par vente, de marchandises contrefaisantes], l'exportation et l'importation des ouvrages "contrefaisants" » (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3). > The Intellectual Property Code defines infringement as all acts of unauthorized use of a work. In the case of partial use of the work, it is assessed according to the similarities between the works. The simple attempt is not punishable. The law incriminates under the offence of counterfeiting: - "any reproduction, representation or dissemination, by any means whatsoever, of a work of the mind in violation of the author's rights, as defined and regulated by law" (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - "the debit [act of distribution, notably by sale, of infringing goods], the export and import of 'infringing' works" (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3).
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  Nothing you have said implies you cannot copy the style of another artist. Which is obvious. People copy styles all the time. You don’t want Renoir suing Monet over who owns Impressionism. That is very different from saying you cannot recreate his specific works. Or do crappy Pop Art faux copies.
  - shinycode 4y ago
    I’m not an artist so I have no problem with being able to generate almost free quality art on my own within minutes. Before those AI if I ever wanted something specific I had to go see an artist and ask (prompt) him for the art I want. If I ask him to draw Andy Warhol Marilyn with my face on it. Can he charge me for it without copyright infringement ? Maybe nobody cares and no one is going to do anything about it but still, his style is specific right ? My face or my dog’s face makes the drawing completely different. If AI is just « an other form of intelligence », why shouldn’t it be subjected to the same laws ? If it’s just a tool and not an intelligence, why would openAI wouldn’t be subjected to the same rules ? If all you do for a living is painting, if I wan’t a unique painting that fit your work style I have to ask you to do it. Now I can ask an AI to paint exactly that but you are not in the loop anymore but your work has been used to train this AI and no one will ever ask you to create art because they love your style and can have it for free. I mean, I’m all in for free stuff and I’m not an artist but what does artists feel about it ?
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      > If I ask him to draw Andy Warhol Marilyn with my face on it. Can he charge me for it without copyright infringement ? Maybe nobody cares and no one is going to do anything about it but still, his style is specific right ? My face or my dog’s face makes the drawing completely different. You can generate whatever you want. If you want to sell it, then maybe it is a copyright violation. Maybe it isn’t. The point is that it does not matter that an AI tool made it or a human or a random falling of colored sand. Nobody is saying AI tool outputs are immune to copyright. What I am saying is that they are not intrinsically violations of copyright because training data. > If all you do for a living is painting, if I wan’t a unique painting that fit your work style I have to ask you to do it. Now I can ask an AI to paint exactly that but you are not in the loop anymore but your work has been used to train this AI and no one will ever ask you to create art because they love your style and can have it for free. That is deeply misleading. You are absolutely fine to ask another artist to create you a work in another artist’s style. The only difference here is cost and perhaps quality. Those are not problems with copyright. > I mean, I’m all in for free stuff and I’m not an artist but what does artists feel about it Bad
KyeRussell 4y ago
As someone that’s undecided on this whole issue, your particular argument comes across as so tone-deaf that I didn’t think that you genuinely believed it when you wrote it.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  Which piece was tone deaf? That AI is a tool? Because it is a tool. Using it to copy a work is a problem with copyright. Using it because it is capable of violating copyright is not. Or that style is not copyrighted? Because it’s not.
  - shinycode 4y ago
    I don’t know precisely what lies behind the french IP when they state : > In the case of partial use of the work, it is assessed according to the similarities between the works Similarities could be understood as style maybe ? It’s not a clear cut
tremon 4y ago
Which came first, copyright or the printing press? Was the printing press banned because of copyright? But yes, the claim about an artist owning an entire style sounds pretty off to me. There's no way Picasso has a copyright claim on every cubist painting ever made, nor does Van Gogh own every painting containing a sunflower.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  > Which came first, copyright or the printing press? Was the printing press banned because of copyright? I feel like you’re making the same argument as me, with the same rhetoric, but a different example. No, I do not think the printing press, paint, or generative tools are bannable by copyright. I do think all 3 could be used to produce a work that is in violation of copyright. And no, I don’t think a novel work produced by any of them are in violation of copyright.
  - tremon 4y ago
    I think it's just not clear what argument you're actually making. When you say "a novel work produced by any of them", are you equating the works produced by paint with the works produced by AI? Are you saying that if I throw a can of white paint against a Jackson Pollock painting, the paint itself is producing a novel work? That if a million printing presses print out a million dictionaries, one of them is bound to produce the entire works of Shakespeare?
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      My point is that copyright does not care about the means by which a work is generated. It is merely whether the output is substantially similar. If a printing press randomly produces Hamlet, you cannot sell it. That does not mean you cannot generate something that is sellable without violating copyright by printing random words. There is a small amount of attention paid to whether an artist knew of a work that someone claims was copied. Especially in the literary world with hacks who try to steal from successful authors with pathetic claims. But they tend not to hold a lot of weight. It just makes it easier to dismiss trolls. AI is a tool. It is not sentient. It is paint.

joseph_grobbles 4y ago

[dead]

oh_sigh 4y ago

Artists own the art they created, they don't own the style that they might have invented.

noirscape 4y ago
Not necessarily under moral rights. Moral rights are... at best a mess. They can be very wide, very up to interpretation and vary depending on the country. They're essentially meant as the ultimate stop button for an artist if their works get used in a way the artist deeply disapproves of[0]. Actual interpretation can vary a lot and cloning an artists style as specifically as SD allows you to do (with "...in the style of X" prompts) could easily be an easy moral rights argument in most jurisdictions, doubly so if economic exploitation is a component. (Which a lot of the hype surrounding SD et al. is also build on.) For this reason they mostly exist in civil law systems (where a judges ruling sets no precedent for future interpretation), while they barely exist in common law systems (like the US) since it's really difficult to point at consistency with previous cases when it comes to moral rights. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Has any artist ever successfully sued for relief where some other artist merely used their style?
  - noirscape 4y ago
    Largely irrelevant - like I said, moral rights exist in civil law countries, so these things will be pursued on a case by case basis rather than by existing precedent. They tend to deal with (quoting WP here) "The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation".[3] Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play." Another condition often applied is straight up forbidding the modification of a copyrighted work, regardless of any other circumstances. In this case, you can reasonably consider that the strong stance that a good chunk of artists have taken about AI art, that using their work in these models is deliberately altering/distorting the work (Since training these models involves serializing the art down to patterns that can be replicated and iterated on) in a way that is damaging to their reputation. As for whether or not relief has been granted, do keep in mind that requiring relief for a lawsuit is largely a US only thing. The court systems of other countries tend to lean more towards stop orders rather than immediately pulling out the financial compensation card. That's also the context in which moral rights exist - they are intended to be a stop order, not intended to be something you can financially gain from having it be violated (which is why they exist separate from economic rights, which are well... typical copyright stuff). Do keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, US or otherwise.

123pie123 4y ago

nothing changes if I create a picture with a style simiar to an existing picture/ artist who has IP on it, then I would get sued should it be relevent how it was created, either by hand or using AI?