5 ms·

It's odd to me that an image such of this is rejected unless labeled as generated by "AI", yet an image heavily edited in Photoshop or some other software with

It's odd to me that an image such of this is rejected unless labeled as generated by "AI", yet an image heavily edited in Photoshop or some other software with algorithms is not.

blamestross 3y ago
It is almost like intention in the method and process of those tools matters. Rather than bulk exploitation of other people's work.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  There are AI tools like ControlNET that do give you intention in the method and process.
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  Ok - I'm going to pick on you since you responded with this first: Here's my argument: 1. Copyright in some sense is probably a net win for society. 2. Copyright in it's current legal form in the US is - fucking unquestionably - abusive. 7 years with a 7 year renewal after review? Probably ok, feels long in today's digital age. To the author's death? oof, that's a long time to protect works, but maybe I guess, in some specific fields of work. To the author's death PLUS 70 fucking years? Get the fuck out of here. Literally - who the fuck other than giant corporations is POSSIBLY benefiting from this? This is a fucking insane level of protection, and is outrageously harmful to generating new content (Just take a peak at all the fucking remakes that constitute our new films, and the miserable content licensing restrictions that pop up everywhere and kill so many new things) --- So my stance is firmly: Yep, they probably are taking some of your work. But also: Your work is also grounded in the work of others (again - fucking unquestionably). Further - the copyright system at large is SO fucking harmful that I don't really think it should exist anymore (side note: I'm really underplaying my feelings here, "nuke it from orbit" is probably still an understatement... "I'd like to see it suffer before it dies" is probably close). So... if you want to talk about bulk exploitation - go fucking yell at the current media companies, because holy fuck are they the worst fucking companies in the world to make this claim. They are leeches. If you want me to step to your side: CURB THE FUCKING ABUSE. Otherwise... you are the shitty cab company and the LLM is uber: Are they ethical? Eh - Nope. Are they unquestionable better for most people? Yes. Will I take a useful and unethical company over a stagnating and unethical company? Yes, yes I will. Would I prefer real governmental action to either of those? 100%.
  - blamestross 3y ago
    I agree with most of what you are saying, but the key gap is that the victims here are not "unethical companies". They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. If big art was a thing, your argument would be good, but Disney doesn't account for most of the input to these image algorithms.
    - horsawlarway 3y ago
      > They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. But these people are already making essentially zero income from copyright (it's mostly tours/merch), and have been (again, and again, and again) utterly fucked by the current publishing companies that are so interested (financially) in killing this AI work. They are already victims of the current system. I don't see how introducing AI changes their position all that much: They still have low bargaining power, low financial returns (avg is under 6k/year) and mostly aren't doing it as a career. Are a few of them exceptions? Absolutely. Will there keep being successful exceptions with AI: I'd bet yes (with a lot of cash). Will the way they work change? Probably. Some will enjoy the change, and some won't. I just don't see any compelling reason in your comment to argue to keep the current cluster-fuck of abuse that is modern copyright. Arguing that the currently abused might continue to be abused might be a valid reason to reject both systems, but doesn't pass the bar to stopping AI works in my opinion. To argue an alternative: If anything - many indie artists might be much more successful if they're allowed to play/remix/sample/use works that are currently sitting unused behind the outrageous copyright duration we have right now.
DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
The point of copyright is to protect the rights of human creators. AI tools are not human creators. If I go to an artist and say "make me a picture with X, Y, and Z features", they own the copyright unless they agree to transfer it to me. An AI tool never owns the copyright to its work because it's not a person, so you cannot acquire the copyright on the work since you didn't generate it. It's an entirely different process from using Photoshop (&c), and I think conflating them requires either a significant lack of understanding of how AI-based generation tools work (the most common issue) or a deliberate desire to confuse the issue.
- tiborsaas 3y ago
  In this case, the winning image wasn't a single prompt to image. The author generated a lot of images and invested lots of hours into it till he considered it ready. AI was more like a custom stock asset generator in this case. We will need to seriously revise copyright laws in the age of AI because this new technology is simply not compatible with the assumptions the current ones are based on. (regardless how much lobby power are in them)
  - dahfizz 3y ago
    This is addressed in TFA: > The Board finds that the Work contains more than a de minimis amount of content generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”), and this content must therefore be disclaimed in an application for registration. The human-authored portion of the work would be copyrightable if the author disclaimed the portions that were created by an LLM.
    - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
      Does this mean that if I use an even more deterministic tool like, say, autocomplete to write software, that bit (say an auto-generated function definition), doesn't attract copyright? Not that it doesn't make sense to say what they did, but it seems not quite compatible with how copyright already seems to work in practice. Which is, instead another demonstration that copyright in general is a pretty internally-inconsistent system when it comes to the details.
fassssst 3y ago
Especially since many of the tools in Photoshop have been backed by machine learning for many years now.
- 40yearoldman 3y ago
  Given this it would seem running any simple algo such as balance colors or adjust lighting would disqualify the output for copyright. Only change here was the algo used.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    No, that isn’t true. If you do substantial original work and employ AI that is different than if the entire work is the output of AI. Nobody is saying using AI for any one part taints what is otherwise a substantially original work.
    - sgk284 3y ago
      The substantial original work here is the prompt authorship. That’s the “paintbrush” in this work. And the “paint” is the AI. It’s very easy to spend hours iterating on prompts for the perfect photo while using human judgment to figure out how to steer the image. That’s meaningful human involvement and should be able to be protected.
      - nonethewiser 3y ago
        Sure. But where should that exist on the spectrum of copyrightability vs painting with a physical brush? I don’t think we can just handwave AI generated art away but isnt your contribution a lot less than painting?
      - orwin 3y ago
        Does that mean an art gallery curators spending hours, days even over a thousand pictures that people took randomly finally finding the perfect one for a project he has should have the copyright to that picture? Considering it's not a professional, just a tourist that took it.
emodendroket 3y ago
Is it? Should I be able to copyright painting the wall a particular color since, after all, many copyrighted works are created with brushes and paint?
dragonwriter 3y ago
There's a perception (which AI hype has fed) that “AI” systems like MJ and SD are categorically different than traditional or digital artist tools, and are something like brute animals with paint on their paws making images: neither humans whose work copyright protects nor tools wielded by the hand of humans, but forces of nature where the human role is effectively a matter of selecting one of the generated outputs from a metaphorical pile left in the cage. This is a factor in shaping the legal treatment of work generated with the use of “AI” tools.

It's odd to me that an image such of this is rejected unless labeled as generated by "AI", yet an image heavily edited in Photoshop or some other software with algorithms is not.

blamestross 3y ago

It is almost like intention in the method and process of those tools matters. Rather than bulk exploitation of other people's work.

nickthegreek 3y ago
There are AI tools like ControlNET that do give you intention in the method and process.
horsawlarway 3y ago
Ok - I'm going to pick on you since you responded with this first: Here's my argument: 1. Copyright in some sense is probably a net win for society. 2. Copyright in it's current legal form in the US is - fucking unquestionably - abusive. 7 years with a 7 year renewal after review? Probably ok, feels long in today's digital age. To the author's death? oof, that's a long time to protect works, but maybe I guess, in some specific fields of work. To the author's death PLUS 70 fucking years? Get the fuck out of here. Literally - who the fuck other than giant corporations is POSSIBLY benefiting from this? This is a fucking insane level of protection, and is outrageously harmful to generating new content (Just take a peak at all the fucking remakes that constitute our new films, and the miserable content licensing restrictions that pop up everywhere and kill so many new things) --- So my stance is firmly: Yep, they probably are taking some of your work. But also: Your work is also grounded in the work of others (again - fucking unquestionably). Further - the copyright system at large is SO fucking harmful that I don't really think it should exist anymore (side note: I'm really underplaying my feelings here, "nuke it from orbit" is probably still an understatement... "I'd like to see it suffer before it dies" is probably close). So... if you want to talk about bulk exploitation - go fucking yell at the current media companies, because holy fuck are they the worst fucking companies in the world to make this claim. They are leeches. If you want me to step to your side: CURB THE FUCKING ABUSE. Otherwise... you are the shitty cab company and the LLM is uber: Are they ethical? Eh - Nope. Are they unquestionable better for most people? Yes. Will I take a useful and unethical company over a stagnating and unethical company? Yes, yes I will. Would I prefer real governmental action to either of those? 100%.
- blamestross 3y ago
  I agree with most of what you are saying, but the key gap is that the victims here are not "unethical companies". They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. If big art was a thing, your argument would be good, but Disney doesn't account for most of the input to these image algorithms.
  - horsawlarway 3y ago
    > They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. But these people are already making essentially zero income from copyright (it's mostly tours/merch), and have been (again, and again, and again) utterly fucked by the current publishing companies that are so interested (financially) in killing this AI work. They are already victims of the current system. I don't see how introducing AI changes their position all that much: They still have low bargaining power, low financial returns (avg is under 6k/year) and mostly aren't doing it as a career. Are a few of them exceptions? Absolutely. Will there keep being successful exceptions with AI: I'd bet yes (with a lot of cash). Will the way they work change? Probably. Some will enjoy the change, and some won't. I just don't see any compelling reason in your comment to argue to keep the current cluster-fuck of abuse that is modern copyright. Arguing that the currently abused might continue to be abused might be a valid reason to reject both systems, but doesn't pass the bar to stopping AI works in my opinion. To argue an alternative: If anything - many indie artists might be much more successful if they're allowed to play/remix/sample/use works that are currently sitting unused behind the outrageous copyright duration we have right now.

DonaldPShimoda 3y ago

The point of copyright is to protect the rights of human creators. AI tools are not human creators. If I go to an artist and say "make me a picture with X, Y, and Z features", they own the copyright unless they agree to transfer it to me. An AI tool never owns the copyright to its work because it's not a person, so you cannot acquire the copyright on the work since you didn't generate it. It's an entirely different process from using Photoshop (&c), and I think conflating them requires either a significant lack of understanding of how AI-based generation tools work (the most common issue) or a deliberate desire to confuse the issue.

tiborsaas 3y ago
In this case, the winning image wasn't a single prompt to image. The author generated a lot of images and invested lots of hours into it till he considered it ready. AI was more like a custom stock asset generator in this case. We will need to seriously revise copyright laws in the age of AI because this new technology is simply not compatible with the assumptions the current ones are based on. (regardless how much lobby power are in them)
- dahfizz 3y ago
  This is addressed in TFA: > The Board finds that the Work contains more than a de minimis amount of content generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”), and this content must therefore be disclaimed in an application for registration. The human-authored portion of the work would be copyrightable if the author disclaimed the portions that were created by an LLM.
  - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
    Does this mean that if I use an even more deterministic tool like, say, autocomplete to write software, that bit (say an auto-generated function definition), doesn't attract copyright? Not that it doesn't make sense to say what they did, but it seems not quite compatible with how copyright already seems to work in practice. Which is, instead another demonstration that copyright in general is a pretty internally-inconsistent system when it comes to the details.

fassssst 3y ago

Especially since many of the tools in Photoshop have been backed by machine learning for many years now.

40yearoldman 3y ago
Given this it would seem running any simple algo such as balance colors or adjust lighting would disqualify the output for copyright. Only change here was the algo used.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  No, that isn’t true. If you do substantial original work and employ AI that is different than if the entire work is the output of AI. Nobody is saying using AI for any one part taints what is otherwise a substantially original work.
  - sgk284 3y ago
    The substantial original work here is the prompt authorship. That’s the “paintbrush” in this work. And the “paint” is the AI. It’s very easy to spend hours iterating on prompts for the perfect photo while using human judgment to figure out how to steer the image. That’s meaningful human involvement and should be able to be protected.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      Sure. But where should that exist on the spectrum of copyrightability vs painting with a physical brush? I don’t think we can just handwave AI generated art away but isnt your contribution a lot less than painting?
    - orwin 3y ago
      Does that mean an art gallery curators spending hours, days even over a thousand pictures that people took randomly finally finding the perfect one for a project he has should have the copyright to that picture? Considering it's not a professional, just a tourist that took it.

emodendroket 3y ago

Is it? Should I be able to copyright painting the wall a particular color since, after all, many copyrighted works are created with brushes and paint?

dragonwriter 3y ago

There's a perception (which AI hype has fed) that “AI” systems like MJ and SD are categorically different than traditional or digital artist tools, and are something like brute animals with paint on their paws making images: neither humans whose work copyright protects nor tools wielded by the hand of humans, but forces of nature where the human role is effectively a matter of selecting one of the generated outputs from a metaphorical pile left in the cage. This is a factor in shaping the legal treatment of work generated with the use of “AI” tools.