5 ms·

It's pretty funny that most people that hate AI art and want it banned because of copyright violations, don't understand that the only difference that will make

It's pretty funny that most people that hate AI art and want it banned because of copyright violations, don't understand that the only difference that will make is that instead of having open models, you will only have closed models owned by Adobe who will license all the imagery from Getty, Disney, etc. AI art isn't going away, and it better be open instead of in full control of just 2 or 3 companies.

stuckinhell 4y ago
Yea I agree, AI isn't going away. It'll be like how many financial instruments are banned to retail consumers, but are used by the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful. AI isn't going away, we need open models that everyone can use.
seydor 4y ago
Can they even license those works to train a model? And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI.
- redox99 4y ago
  > Can they even license those works to train a model? Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes > And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI. No because a single image of Darth Vader alone won't work. You need a pretrained base model, trained with millions of images. Only then you can feed such base model a single image and get something decent.
  - seydor 4y ago
    > Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes So, nobody has contested them yet. I smell a class-action lawsuit for them from the original makers of their clipart library. The base model can be trained on open source images. Or people may use adobe's software for that. From just a few images of Darth you can make basically anything, so yes it's quite doable already. It seems to me there is no way to put this cat back in the bag ever again. In the case of Darth Vader, there is probably a trademark involved as well, but the vast majority of photos , celebs etc don't have that.
    - shagie 4y ago
      Darth Vader falls under copyright for fictional characters ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fictional_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti... - I learned about this as part of the Eleanor set of lawsuits which entangled a YouTube car vlogger B is for Build - the most recent bit on the lawsuits - (not B is for Build lawsuit in particular as that was settled) https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42233053/shelby-estate-wins-eleanor-ford-mustang-copyright-lawsuit/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42233053/shelby-estate-wi... ). Anyways, use of Darth Vader in any work would be a derivative work.
      - seydor 4y ago
        :s/Darth Vader/Di Caprio
    - jstarfish 4y ago
      > It seems to me there is no way to put this cat back in the bag ever again Patents. Copyrights. Franchising? Artists are now experiencing the joy of getting beaten in the market by someone else selling the product they created. It was not allowed to stand in other industries. Copyright is a necessary evil. Disney may well be the savior of artists in the age of AI. There is no incentive to produce anything original if someone else can just gank it and drown you in volume.
- GaggiX 4y ago
  You will never own Darth Vader IP.
wuqs 4y ago
[flagged]
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  Do you also hate Human Artists who trained by viewing copies of your artwork and incorporating elements of your style into theirs? Do you sue all Human Artists that create art vaguely similar to yours?
  - blibble 4y ago
    no because it's not done on an industrial scale the purpose of producing art is for people to see it not for some megacorp to ingest it on a huge scale to then make the entire concept of art redundant
    - adamsmith143 4y ago
      So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? You are actually mad at the moral implications of Capitalism and not the legality of AI art?
      - blibble 4y ago
        > So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? when it becomes a realistic possibility that a single human can ingest every work ever created, and then output a derived work in a second to thousands of people at a time: I'll let you know
        adamsmith143 4y ago
        I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument not the real possibility of a human doing this. You have unrealistic expectations of AI art and such a lawsuit against a human would obviously not go in your favor. 5 seconds of google will tell you that Style is not copyright protected so your entire premise is flawed.
ISL 4y ago
The AI process isn't going away, but suits like these will preserve the opportunity for artists and coders alike to get paid for their work or choose the terms under which it is shared. Without enforcing copyright rules on AI, it may mean the end of copyright entirely. I share a lot of images under CC-BY-SA-NC and share code under the GPL. If someone can train a model off my work and disregard the terms under which I have shared it, copyright is my only enforcement mechanism.
- GaggiX 4y ago
  What you mean by "enforcing copyright rules on AI"? Regardless of the tool used if the code used by someone heavily copies (against your license) on your code then it's copyright infringement, the fact that the tool is an AI doesn't really change this fact. But I guess you want to expand the copyright law to consider more than just the final product (code in this case), as it would be original in the vast majority of cases.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  > it may mean the end of copyright entirely This is a beautiful world, that can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
- actsasbuffoon 4y ago
  The cat is already out of the bag on that one. You can download several open source text to image AIs and run them on your own computer. You can train new styles and concepts on your own computer in about 20 minutes. You can throw up roadblocks for the big players, but it’s far too spread out to ever be contained again. Ditto for LLMs. Obviously GPT-4 is the best game in town, but I have several LLMs and the code required to use them installed on several machines. Training new data for them can close the gap quite well at the expense of becoming less general. We can’t regulate our way out of this one. That window closed a while ago.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    You can rob banks too... doesn't make it legal.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
Baffling to me they don't see this, attacking stable diffusion will only harm open and free AI tooling, megacorps will always just "unethically" train. Also find it laughable that a lot of the most vocal artists against it make their money drawing characters they don't own anyway. Approaching this as a designer so obviously these tools will impact me but as long as I can run them on my own hardware without paying tax to Adobe/OpenAI I can at least benefit.
elicash 4y ago
Both will exist either way. The difference is that the open systems will be for personal use and the closed models by companies using it for profit. And the reason Adobe and others would be used in for profit settings is because they pay the artists. Which is what's intended by the lawsuits? I suppose you could argue the beneficiaries are the shareholders of Disney, etc rather than its artists. At the same time, maybe this ends with open source systems that artists can host themselves.
Ajedi32 4y ago
There's plenty of public domain material out there to train on. The problem is just that having to filter out copyrighted material from the training dataset would be prohibitively expensive. These AIs do not need to learn from your work in order to function, they just need to learn from some work. All that extending copyright in this manner would do is create a bunch of unnecessary busywork and slow the progress of technological development. You're not going to get paid $5 for letting a proprietary AI train on your drawing, blog post, or GitHub repo when they could get the same benefit from paying someone else $0.05 to find a public domain image, blog post, or repo elsewhere. Basically, the amount of value your individual work contributes to generative AI is minuscule, but the amount of effort the entire industry would need to expend in order to compensate you for that value is massive. Unless stifling progress is your explicit goal, it's not worth it.
alkonaut 4y ago
Wouldn’t that then make it exactly what detractors want, either a situation where content creators can be compensated for providing input to the models and/or a situation where models aren’t feasible economically at all?

stuckinhell 4y ago

Yea I agree, AI isn't going away. It'll be like how many financial instruments are banned to retail consumers, but are used by the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful. AI isn't going away, we need open models that everyone can use.

seydor 4y ago

Can they even license those works to train a model? And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI.

redox99 4y ago
> Can they even license those works to train a model? Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes > And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI. No because a single image of Darth Vader alone won't work. You need a pretrained base model, trained with millions of images. Only then you can feed such base model a single image and get something decent.
- seydor 4y ago
  > Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes So, nobody has contested them yet. I smell a class-action lawsuit for them from the original makers of their clipart library. The base model can be trained on open source images. Or people may use adobe's software for that. From just a few images of Darth you can make basically anything, so yes it's quite doable already. It seems to me there is no way to put this cat back in the bag ever again. In the case of Darth Vader, there is probably a trademark involved as well, but the vast majority of photos , celebs etc don't have that.
  - shagie 4y ago
    Darth Vader falls under copyright for fictional characters ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fictional_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti... - I learned about this as part of the Eleanor set of lawsuits which entangled a YouTube car vlogger B is for Build - the most recent bit on the lawsuits - (not B is for Build lawsuit in particular as that was settled) https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42233053/shelby-estate-wins-eleanor-ford-mustang-copyright-lawsuit/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42233053/shelby-estate-wi... ). Anyways, use of Darth Vader in any work would be a derivative work.
    - seydor 4y ago
      :s/Darth Vader/Di Caprio
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    > It seems to me there is no way to put this cat back in the bag ever again Patents. Copyrights. Franchising? Artists are now experiencing the joy of getting beaten in the market by someone else selling the product they created. It was not allowed to stand in other industries. Copyright is a necessary evil. Disney may well be the savior of artists in the age of AI. There is no incentive to produce anything original if someone else can just gank it and drown you in volume.
GaggiX 4y ago
You will never own Darth Vader IP.

wuqs 4y ago

[flagged]

adamsmith143 4y ago
Do you also hate Human Artists who trained by viewing copies of your artwork and incorporating elements of your style into theirs? Do you sue all Human Artists that create art vaguely similar to yours?
- blibble 4y ago
  no because it's not done on an industrial scale the purpose of producing art is for people to see it not for some megacorp to ingest it on a huge scale to then make the entire concept of art redundant
  - adamsmith143 4y ago
    So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? You are actually mad at the moral implications of Capitalism and not the legality of AI art?
    - blibble 4y ago
      > So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? when it becomes a realistic possibility that a single human can ingest every work ever created, and then output a derived work in a second to thousands of people at a time: I'll let you know
      - adamsmith143 4y ago
        I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument not the real possibility of a human doing this. You have unrealistic expectations of AI art and such a lawsuit against a human would obviously not go in your favor. 5 seconds of google will tell you that Style is not copyright protected so your entire premise is flawed.

ISL 4y ago

The AI process isn't going away, but suits like these will preserve the opportunity for artists and coders alike to get paid for their work or choose the terms under which it is shared. Without enforcing copyright rules on AI, it may mean the end of copyright entirely. I share a lot of images under CC-BY-SA-NC and share code under the GPL. If someone can train a model off my work and disregard the terms under which I have shared it, copyright is my only enforcement mechanism.

GaggiX 4y ago
What you mean by "enforcing copyright rules on AI"? Regardless of the tool used if the code used by someone heavily copies (against your license) on your code then it's copyright infringement, the fact that the tool is an AI doesn't really change this fact. But I guess you want to expand the copyright law to consider more than just the final product (code in this case), as it would be original in the vast majority of cases.
kneebonian 4y ago
> it may mean the end of copyright entirely This is a beautiful world, that can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
actsasbuffoon 4y ago
The cat is already out of the bag on that one. You can download several open source text to image AIs and run them on your own computer. You can train new styles and concepts on your own computer in about 20 minutes. You can throw up roadblocks for the big players, but it’s far too spread out to ever be contained again. Ditto for LLMs. Obviously GPT-4 is the best game in town, but I have several LLMs and the code required to use them installed on several machines. Training new data for them can close the gap quite well at the expense of becoming less general. We can’t regulate our way out of this one. That window closed a while ago.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  You can rob banks too... doesn't make it legal.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

Baffling to me they don't see this, attacking stable diffusion will only harm open and free AI tooling, megacorps will always just "unethically" train. Also find it laughable that a lot of the most vocal artists against it make their money drawing characters they don't own anyway. Approaching this as a designer so obviously these tools will impact me but as long as I can run them on my own hardware without paying tax to Adobe/OpenAI I can at least benefit.

elicash 4y ago

Both will exist either way. The difference is that the open systems will be for personal use and the closed models by companies using it for profit. And the reason Adobe and others would be used in for profit settings is because they pay the artists. Which is what's intended by the lawsuits? I suppose you could argue the beneficiaries are the shareholders of Disney, etc rather than its artists. At the same time, maybe this ends with open source systems that artists can host themselves.

Ajedi32 4y ago

There's plenty of public domain material out there to train on. The problem is just that having to filter out copyrighted material from the training dataset would be prohibitively expensive. These AIs do not need to learn from your work in order to function, they just need to learn from some work. All that extending copyright in this manner would do is create a bunch of unnecessary busywork and slow the progress of technological development. You're not going to get paid $5 for letting a proprietary AI train on your drawing, blog post, or GitHub repo when they could get the same benefit from paying someone else $0.05 to find a public domain image, blog post, or repo elsewhere. Basically, the amount of value your individual work contributes to generative AI is minuscule, but the amount of effort the entire industry would need to expend in order to compensate you for that value is massive. Unless stifling progress is your explicit goal, it's not worth it.

alkonaut 4y ago

Wouldn’t that then make it exactly what detractors want, either a situation where content creators can be compensated for providing input to the models and/or a situation where models aren’t feasible economically at all?