4 ms·

> If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a progr

> If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to. > In all seriousness, midjourney is like any other tool. You can break the law with it, big surprise. It should still be on the person that broke the law, not the makers of the tool. that would be midjourney, since they're both the creators and operators of their model. > If you go down the “can’t use my art as training data” how far do you push it? I watched Batman, does that mean if I draw caped super heroes I am stealing training data? Wouldn’t that apply to all comics after Superman? Isn’t he guilty of derivative work himself? you just called AI "a tool", that's why it's different. > Also, nobody is being harmed by this. AI is always derivative. Nobody is interested in copies or impressions of popular art, otherwise the guy selling animes on velvet at the local art fair would be making more money. This just sounds like a Luddite shaking his fist at this perceived enemy. that's an argument against IP law in general, not an argument against holding companies which create and operate deep-learning models to the same standards as everybody else.

boolemancer 3y ago
> > If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! > > in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to. So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer? So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them? At what point does the liability shift? What if all of the functionality is implemented in JavaScript in the browser, rather than running on someone else's server? What if they run all but the last layer of the model on the server, then finish the computation locally? I don't think the situation is nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  > > > If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! > > > > in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to. > So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer? > So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them? But that's not what happening here. If Google docs hat a button, "put Harry Potter books here" that when pressed it puts the whole text of the Harry Potter books into the document. Now who do you think should be liable for copyright infringement, Google who put the whole text of Harry Potter books somewhere into the Google docs source code, or the user who pressed the button? Your argument seems to be the user, but I find that highly illogical. The central issue is that the copyrighted images are already inside midjourney, the user is just getting them out via queries (pressing a button). The user is _not_ adding the copyrighted material to midjourney.
  - coolhand2120 3y ago
    If you were to search any Harry Potter book using google search I'm sure you will find the unlicensed content, served up to you by google, very quickly, with less prompt than midjourney needs. You can hand wave about how it's so different but I see the search example returning a hashed copy vs. midjourney making something you could argue in court is infringement. The thing is, both are already illegal. You don't need additional government meddling in code to make illegal something that is already illegal. In all cases, the person committing the crime is the person to prosecute. What would happen if I used Photoshop to carefully recreate the image by hand? Or even a paint brush and canvas? It would still be illegal! What are you arguing to make illegal? The paint brush? For _some people_ making clones of copyrighted work is very easy, this tool makes is easy for more people. But for you, _it's the tool?_ And in any of these cases you're trying to protect the same IP holders that cut off access to content you purchased, so any idea of fairness in copyright is a joke at this point anyway. I work in that industry so I knew it was possible, but I never thought they would do it with a huge swath of content like what happened to play station owners. IP holders deserve no sympathy or protection under the law after that move. You might say "but these are not the people we're trying to protect". Too bad, that's what any IP law restricting generative AI would protect. And consider the draconian means required to do so.

boolemancer 3y ago

> > If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! > > in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to. So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer? So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them? At what point does the liability shift? What if all of the functionality is implemented in JavaScript in the browser, rather than running on someone else's server? What if they run all but the last layer of the model on the server, then finish the computation locally? I don't think the situation is nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

cycomanic 3y ago
> > > If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! > > > > in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to. > So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer? > So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them? But that's not what happening here. If Google docs hat a button, "put Harry Potter books here" that when pressed it puts the whole text of the Harry Potter books into the document. Now who do you think should be liable for copyright infringement, Google who put the whole text of Harry Potter books somewhere into the Google docs source code, or the user who pressed the button? Your argument seems to be the user, but I find that highly illogical. The central issue is that the copyrighted images are already inside midjourney, the user is just getting them out via queries (pressing a button). The user is _not_ adding the copyrighted material to midjourney.
- coolhand2120 3y ago
  If you were to search any Harry Potter book using google search I'm sure you will find the unlicensed content, served up to you by google, very quickly, with less prompt than midjourney needs. You can hand wave about how it's so different but I see the search example returning a hashed copy vs. midjourney making something you could argue in court is infringement. The thing is, both are already illegal. You don't need additional government meddling in code to make illegal something that is already illegal. In all cases, the person committing the crime is the person to prosecute. What would happen if I used Photoshop to carefully recreate the image by hand? Or even a paint brush and canvas? It would still be illegal! What are you arguing to make illegal? The paint brush? For _some people_ making clones of copyrighted work is very easy, this tool makes is easy for more people. But for you, _it's the tool?_ And in any of these cases you're trying to protect the same IP holders that cut off access to content you purchased, so any idea of fairness in copyright is a joke at this point anyway. I work in that industry so I knew it was possible, but I never thought they would do it with a huge swath of content like what happened to play station owners. IP holders deserve no sympathy or protection under the law after that move. You might say "but these are not the people we're trying to protect". Too bad, that's what any IP law restricting generative AI would protect. And consider the draconian means required to do so.