4 ms·

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. The

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.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > 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. A issuing a ”stop order” (e.g., in US law, a permanent injunction or something similar) is granting relief, financial compensation isn’t the only kind fo relief.

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.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > 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. A issuing a ”stop order” (e.g., in US law, a permanent injunction or something similar) is granting relief, financial compensation isn’t the only kind fo relief.