6 ms·

Art styles aren't copyrighted. Who cares?

by artninja1988 3y ago

wahnfrieden 3y ago
For instance, Nintendo has entries in the artist DB - those affected by Japanese law may care: > Japan’s new guidelines also sketch out pathways to protect artists’ work, but the legalities can quickly get dense. An aggrieved artist will have to prove that a commercially sold, AI-generated piece of art has “similarity” with their own work. > “If a company isn’t careful, artists can sue or demand compensation if their work is used to create parts of commercial products.” They can show the work’s “reliance on an existing image,” according to Taichi Kakinuma, an AI-focused partner at the law firm Storia. The fastest way to prove this is with evidence that the work was used as training data. But since training data sets are not publicly disclosed, they may have no knowledge of its use, let alone be able to secure evidence
- artninja1988 3y ago
  Sounds like propoyed laws crafted by those in power clinging desperately to their control in fear of becoming opsolete. At the end of the day, there is no theft, no matter the pearl clutching moral outrage by those who want to keep some false artificial scarcity for their benefit.
  - iterateoften 3y ago
    Governments around the world have enforced artificial scarcity for centuries. Continuing to do so would be nothing new. It takes resources and time to produce something unique that people want. For centuries governments have offered patents, licenses and protections for individuals so that people would continue to innovate, create something new and move the world forward. Will people continue to do so knowing that at a moments notice someone will rip you off? Time will tell but for me personally I stopped publishing my side projects because why should I work hard for hundreds of hours just so Microsoft and AI companies can make more money using my work without giving me an ounce of credit? Copyright came into being because of the printing press making things to easy to replicate. If the current laws don’t protect works sufficiently history says more laws will be written that do rather than things will be a free for all.
nhinck2 3y ago
I care.
ChatGTP 3y ago
Yeah fuck people and their work and aspirations, we could make money instead /s
- sharperguy 3y ago
  Don't really care about comercial products like midjourney. Open source models are the future, and improving them will benefit all humanity, unless they are hobbled by restrictive copyright lawsuits, forcing everyone underground who isn't a massive corporation with a huge team of lawyers.
  - nhinck3 3y ago
    Whats the difference between a commercial product and an open source product _to_ a commercial entity or a consumer of an artistic endeavour?
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > Whats the difference between a commercial product and an open source product _to_ a commercial entity or a consumer of an artistic endeavour? To a consumer, the difference between a commercial product and an open source product is price, security, dependability, and freedom. Commercial products will cost as much as the company that controls it can get away with charging and if they can charge a lot they will happily price out many people if that still makes them money. companies will also take a commercial product and add anti-features, spy on their users, prevent anyone from building off of the work to create something new, disable/discontinue the product at any time for any reason, etc. To the consumer open source is much better. If I want art and it comes from open source tools, I can use those same tools to modify/copy/customize that art according to my needs or learn to create similar art at no cost. If I want art from a commercial product it will likely be DRM filled trash and I probably won't be able to use the same tools to modify the art or to create my own similar artistic works without being exploited somehow.
mplewis 3y ago
I do.
__loam 3y ago
The irony is you probably make your living producing intellectual property like proprietary code.
- mobiuscog 3y ago
  ...and then having it taken away immediately on first payment, for someone else to constantly make money in the future. There are many problems here, that society has 'built in' from the dawn of the printing press, to move the control and power into the hands of the 'publishers' and control/censorship into the hands of the government. As a programmer, I create. Then my employer takes my work and makes it theirs, with control and ownership (and profits) going forward. I could leave my job, open source my work for the good of society, but maybe not be paid. I could 'license' my own work, and rely on copyright. Licensing is the core of the problems here - the fact that easily (enough) reproducible creations are expected to keep bringing in payment for work done just once. It doesn't happen with most trade skills. It doesn't happen for physical works of art. Perhaps society needs to look at this concept of 'intellectual property' and realise it's just another mechanism for control and power, that has no good effect or benefit to society, only to the wealthy and powerful.
LightFog 3y ago
Just basic human decency is all - who cares about that.
maronato 3y ago
The artists definitely care. Being legal doesn’t make it moral.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  I can assure you that it is 1000% moral, fine and historically, totally cool for artists to copy each other's styles, infact that's really the ONLY thing we do is copy each other. But sure, call it immoral if you want I guess.
  - PeterStuer 3y ago
    One could argue art would be dead if styles would be exclusive property. Ofc, "in the style of" is one thing, literally copying and selling the copy is something else. Diffusion models blur the lines somewhat. Time will tell, but usually exclusive exploitation rights IMHO have not favored the benefit of humanity, but it is a nuanced discussion for sure.
  - LightFog 3y ago
    Yes artists - on small scale and often with some form of attribution or acknowledgement. This is industrial scale copying - often with some other motivation than creativity alone and with active steps taken to avoid even having to think about the human whose work is being used.
    - cwillu 3y ago
      It's not remotely small scale, there isn't a marketing shop, designer, studio musician, producer, etc alive today that doesn't perform do this as a part of their day-to-day work.
      - LightFog 3y ago
        …with payment and attribution as appropriate. Any decent shop will have policies around this - it is not a free-for-all use what you like. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.

Art styles aren't copyrighted. Who cares?

For instance, Nintendo has entries in the artist DB - those affected by Japanese law may care: > Japan’s new guidelines also sketch out pathways to protect artists’ work, but the legalities can quickly get dense. An aggrieved artist will have to prove that a commercially sold, AI-generated piece of art has “similarity” with their own work. > “If a company isn’t careful, artists can sue or demand compensation if their work is used to create parts of commercial products.” They can show the work’s “reliance on an existing image,” according to Taichi Kakinuma, an AI-focused partner at the law firm Storia. The fastest way to prove this is with evidence that the work was used as training data. But since training data sets are not publicly disclosed, they may have no knowledge of its use, let alone be able to secure evidence

artninja1988 3y ago
Sounds like propoyed laws crafted by those in power clinging desperately to their control in fear of becoming opsolete. At the end of the day, there is no theft, no matter the pearl clutching moral outrage by those who want to keep some false artificial scarcity for their benefit.
- iterateoften 3y ago
  Governments around the world have enforced artificial scarcity for centuries. Continuing to do so would be nothing new. It takes resources and time to produce something unique that people want. For centuries governments have offered patents, licenses and protections for individuals so that people would continue to innovate, create something new and move the world forward. Will people continue to do so knowing that at a moments notice someone will rip you off? Time will tell but for me personally I stopped publishing my side projects because why should I work hard for hundreds of hours just so Microsoft and AI companies can make more money using my work without giving me an ounce of credit? Copyright came into being because of the printing press making things to easy to replicate. If the current laws don’t protect works sufficiently history says more laws will be written that do rather than things will be a free for all.

nhinck2 3y ago

I care.

ChatGTP 3y ago

Yeah fuck people and their work and aspirations, we could make money instead /s

sharperguy 3y ago
Don't really care about comercial products like midjourney. Open source models are the future, and improving them will benefit all humanity, unless they are hobbled by restrictive copyright lawsuits, forcing everyone underground who isn't a massive corporation with a huge team of lawyers.
- nhinck3 3y ago
  Whats the difference between a commercial product and an open source product _to_ a commercial entity or a consumer of an artistic endeavour?
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Whats the difference between a commercial product and an open source product _to_ a commercial entity or a consumer of an artistic endeavour? To a consumer, the difference between a commercial product and an open source product is price, security, dependability, and freedom. Commercial products will cost as much as the company that controls it can get away with charging and if they can charge a lot they will happily price out many people if that still makes them money. companies will also take a commercial product and add anti-features, spy on their users, prevent anyone from building off of the work to create something new, disable/discontinue the product at any time for any reason, etc. To the consumer open source is much better. If I want art and it comes from open source tools, I can use those same tools to modify/copy/customize that art according to my needs or learn to create similar art at no cost. If I want art from a commercial product it will likely be DRM filled trash and I probably won't be able to use the same tools to modify the art or to create my own similar artistic works without being exploited somehow.

mplewis 3y ago

I do.

__loam 3y ago

The irony is you probably make your living producing intellectual property like proprietary code.

mobiuscog 3y ago
...and then having it taken away immediately on first payment, for someone else to constantly make money in the future. There are many problems here, that society has 'built in' from the dawn of the printing press, to move the control and power into the hands of the 'publishers' and control/censorship into the hands of the government. As a programmer, I create. Then my employer takes my work and makes it theirs, with control and ownership (and profits) going forward. I could leave my job, open source my work for the good of society, but maybe not be paid. I could 'license' my own work, and rely on copyright. Licensing is the core of the problems here - the fact that easily (enough) reproducible creations are expected to keep bringing in payment for work done just once. It doesn't happen with most trade skills. It doesn't happen for physical works of art. Perhaps society needs to look at this concept of 'intellectual property' and realise it's just another mechanism for control and power, that has no good effect or benefit to society, only to the wealthy and powerful.

LightFog 3y ago

Just basic human decency is all - who cares about that.

maronato 3y ago

The artists definitely care. Being legal doesn’t make it moral.

kylebenzle 3y ago
I can assure you that it is 1000% moral, fine and historically, totally cool for artists to copy each other's styles, infact that's really the ONLY thing we do is copy each other. But sure, call it immoral if you want I guess.
- PeterStuer 3y ago
  One could argue art would be dead if styles would be exclusive property. Ofc, "in the style of" is one thing, literally copying and selling the copy is something else. Diffusion models blur the lines somewhat. Time will tell, but usually exclusive exploitation rights IMHO have not favored the benefit of humanity, but it is a nuanced discussion for sure.
- LightFog 3y ago
  Yes artists - on small scale and often with some form of attribution or acknowledgement. This is industrial scale copying - often with some other motivation than creativity alone and with active steps taken to avoid even having to think about the human whose work is being used.
  - cwillu 3y ago
    It's not remotely small scale, there isn't a marketing shop, designer, studio musician, producer, etc alive today that doesn't perform do this as a part of their day-to-day work.
    - LightFog 3y ago
      …with payment and attribution as appropriate. Any decent shop will have policies around this - it is not a free-for-all use what you like. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.