5 ms·
It's a matter of scale. No human being can ingest ALL existing images. If it was the case that the average human artist was able to replicate any other work, wi
by panta 3y ago
It's a matter of scale. No human being can ingest ALL existing images. If it was the case that the average human artist was able to replicate any other work, without effort, probably we would have had two effects: first, we'd have much less works of art (because the gains would have been eliminated, so why bother), and second, copyright law would have been much more restrictive. This is exactly what we should do: avoid applying a law thought for human beings, and create a new more specific law, much more restrictive. Otherwise future art created by actual human beings will suffer greatly (without mentioning the loss of work and human abilities), to the economic benefit of a very small set of monopolistic players.
- thrill 3y agoThe law does not say it is a matter of scale.
- theonlybutlet 3y agoWhat you propose is just a different small set of monopolistic players. Copyright has always been a trade off between the creator and society. It should be enforced the exact same way as it currently is. Fair use is fair use. By your same logic, what is the difference between an AI or a very productive human? Where do you draw the line?
- panta 3y agoFair use by a machine is a concept which has hardly been studied by legislators. Personally I'd draw the line at the human/machine boundary.
- theonlybutlet 3y agoFair enough, if that's is so, there's even less of a case to be made. The person inputting variables (i.e a prompt) into the model that prints out non-fair use outputs would be at fault. The end work would be the actual object subject to litigation. It's just a tool then. The current system still stands then. Arguing a trained model is infringing would then be like arguing the manufacturers of my monitor were infringing as it contained the very same RGB.as the artist.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Fair use by a machine is a concept which has hardly been studied by legislators. I mean, that's true in the sense that "fair use by a pencil is a concept which hardly been studied by legislators" is true. Use (fair or not) isn't by the tool, its by the person using the tool.
- gaganyaan 3y agoThe only way we end up with only monopolistic players being the only ones that benefit from AI is if we misapply the outdated concept of copyright here. Open source models like SD are the path away from monopolization.