7 ms·

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

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
- shinycode 4y ago
  I do agree that AI is a great tool to generate whatever we want and I have no problem with that. My only concern is abuse in the case of copyrights. And a partial copy is still under copyright and IP. Because the services aren’t completely free they might be subject to IP. Let’s say I generate a picture with the style of a famous artist and then use it in one of my marketing campaign. No one will be able to sue me ? You are 100% sure about it ? If so, then then could also sue the AI company also isn’t it ? It seems like a total abolition of copyright otherwise
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    You absolutely cannot be sued for selling a picture in the style of another artist. It may be debateable whether something is style or content. You can be sued for selling a copy or a substantially similar work of art. You can make this happen with AI tools. It seems unlikely to me that someone could go after open AI if you use their tools to generate a copy right violation. But IANAL.

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

shinycode 4y ago
I do agree that AI is a great tool to generate whatever we want and I have no problem with that. My only concern is abuse in the case of copyrights. And a partial copy is still under copyright and IP. Because the services aren’t completely free they might be subject to IP. Let’s say I generate a picture with the style of a famous artist and then use it in one of my marketing campaign. No one will be able to sue me ? You are 100% sure about it ? If so, then then could also sue the AI company also isn’t it ? It seems like a total abolition of copyright otherwise
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  You absolutely cannot be sued for selling a picture in the style of another artist. It may be debateable whether something is style or content. You can be sued for selling a copy or a substantially similar work of art. You can make this happen with AI tools. It seems unlikely to me that someone could go after open AI if you use their tools to generate a copy right violation. But IANAL.