3 ms·

I was using the phrase relatively casually, but im interested to learn more there. I was not exactly trying to argue it ipso facto but rather just the nature o

I was using the phrase relatively casually, but im interested to learn more there. I was not exactly trying to argue it ipso facto but rather just the nature of it lends itself to (imo) being a much more commercial experience than not when you take a commercial model off the shelf, bring it home, and ask it to show you content that would be illegal to trade otherwise. Basically I'm arguing that anything the model can generate is relevant to the transaction of the model itself once generated. As in, everytime a model generates something for you, you should think of that generated item as something you originally obtained in the same manner you obtained the model. Creating illegal content at home with a local model you downloaded off the internet is, to me, the same as just downloading illegal content directly from the internet. If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent, then it's equally illegal to invite the painter over your house and have them paint it for you in secret.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent, then it’s equally illegal to invite the painter over your house and have them paint it for you in secret. Despite the hype, AI models aren’t painters, they are paint.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  They are the worst qualities of both in this regard. It is not paint in that you do not have absolute control over its application, and it is not a painter in that it is not sophisticated and independently creative. It is paint in that it is simple, and it is a painter in that content can be generated on the fly and taking any content from it (imo) classifies as a trade.
creer 3y ago
> If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent Not trying to derail the discussion, but there is no legal issue with selling an art portrait without consent, or an art or news photograph of someone who didn't consent. The US legal limitations are elsewhere. Commercial (advertising use), overly piggybacking on someone's notoriety, that kind of thing. And even then, the question is usually more about who will share in the proceeds.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  I'd be curious to know the legality here more concretely. My understanding is that although a lot of it is not enforced, it is technically illegal to sell or publicly display images of another person's likeness without their consent. AFAIK An artist can draw whatever they want for personal use, and this is where I feel the distinction on whether or not an AI produced image is considered personal use or a traded good becomes critically relevant.
  - creer 3y ago
    It depends. Heh. Here is a chart for street photography with people. Even then there are subtleties - perhaps if one person is singled out or there's an undifferentiated group. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi... So, in most of Europe, street photography is just about over. In some countries you can take photos, in some not even, and then you would have to agonize on what can and cannot be sold as art photos or published. Etc, when it comes to other mediums than street photography. In the US in general, the questions are of "expectation of privacy" and of "commercial use" (i.e. advertising and product promotion) and creating fiction showing someone in an untrue and compromising situation, etc. And largely the rest is open. There's no issue with publishing street photography in particular.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent, then it’s equally illegal to invite the painter over your house and have them paint it for you in secret. Despite the hype, AI models aren’t painters, they are paint.

EricMausler 3y ago
They are the worst qualities of both in this regard. It is not paint in that you do not have absolute control over its application, and it is not a painter in that it is not sophisticated and independently creative. It is paint in that it is simple, and it is a painter in that content can be generated on the fly and taking any content from it (imo) classifies as a trade.

creer 3y ago

> If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent Not trying to derail the discussion, but there is no legal issue with selling an art portrait without consent, or an art or news photograph of someone who didn't consent. The US legal limitations are elsewhere. Commercial (advertising use), overly piggybacking on someone's notoriety, that kind of thing. And even then, the question is usually more about who will share in the proceeds.

EricMausler 3y ago
I'd be curious to know the legality here more concretely. My understanding is that although a lot of it is not enforced, it is technically illegal to sell or publicly display images of another person's likeness without their consent. AFAIK An artist can draw whatever they want for personal use, and this is where I feel the distinction on whether or not an AI produced image is considered personal use or a traded good becomes critically relevant.
- creer 3y ago
  It depends. Heh. Here is a chart for street photography with people. Even then there are subtleties - perhaps if one person is singled out or there's an undifferentiated group. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi... So, in most of Europe, street photography is just about over. In some countries you can take photos, in some not even, and then you would have to agonize on what can and cannot be sold as art photos or published. Etc, when it comes to other mediums than street photography. In the US in general, the questions are of "expectation of privacy" and of "commercial use" (i.e. advertising and product promotion) and creating fiction showing someone in an untrue and compromising situation, etc. And largely the rest is open. There's no issue with publishing street photography in particular.