3 ms·

Yes that’s covered by law https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Commande-artistique/1-immeuble-1-aeuvre/Reglementation-et-bonnes-pratiques ht

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
adamsmith143 4y ago
So you can be charged if you create a painting in the style of Picasso and try to sell it as a true Picasso work. Which is obvious. Nothing here says Picasso's style in of and itself can be copyrighted.

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

adamsmith143 4y ago

So you can be charged if you create a painting in the style of Picasso and try to sell it as a true Picasso work. Which is obvious. Nothing here says Picasso's style in of and itself can be copyrighted.