4 ms·

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.
williamcotton 3y ago
These people are not artists. They are commercial illustrators and barely have any real impact on style to begin with. Almost all of the plaintiffs, ie, complainers, are copying Japanese animation styles from the 80s and 90s. Artists don’t create to get paid. Artists create because their souls demand the activity. Commercial activity might have an impact on art but art will never depend on commerce. We’re literally complaining about the death of the computer, and by that I mean the individual whose job it was to compute calculations by hand without the use of a calculating or computing machine. I have no doubt in my mind that this will end up with negative karma. I know my audience!
- sixothree 3y ago
  > Artists don’t create to get paid. You could say the same for software developers and still be wrong.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    You could think software development was art and be even more wrong.
    - stavros 3y ago
      Software development is a process, the output is either art or not. You could say the same about painting, but painting a house and painting a painting aren't the same amount of art.
      - williamcotton 3y ago
        You’re right, and I could have been less pithy and perhaps made my point a bit more clear. Software development is primary an activity concerned with creating useful products. It’s this usefulness that in contrast with art. Commercial art is useful. Painting for its own sake is not! Art for art’s sake, as they say!
        3y ago
Aeolun 3y ago
There is nothing about midnourney that makes me appreciate artists less. In fact it’s the opposite. It’d be a thousand times easier to describe what I want to a human.

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.

williamcotton 3y ago

These people are not artists. They are commercial illustrators and barely have any real impact on style to begin with. Almost all of the plaintiffs, ie, complainers, are copying Japanese animation styles from the 80s and 90s. Artists don’t create to get paid. Artists create because their souls demand the activity. Commercial activity might have an impact on art but art will never depend on commerce. We’re literally complaining about the death of the computer, and by that I mean the individual whose job it was to compute calculations by hand without the use of a calculating or computing machine. I have no doubt in my mind that this will end up with negative karma. I know my audience!

sixothree 3y ago
> Artists don’t create to get paid. You could say the same for software developers and still be wrong.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  You could think software development was art and be even more wrong.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Software development is a process, the output is either art or not. You could say the same about painting, but painting a house and painting a painting aren't the same amount of art.
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      You’re right, and I could have been less pithy and perhaps made my point a bit more clear. Software development is primary an activity concerned with creating useful products. It’s this usefulness that in contrast with art. Commercial art is useful. Painting for its own sake is not! Art for art’s sake, as they say!
      - 3y ago

Aeolun 3y ago

There is nothing about midnourney that makes me appreciate artists less. In fact it’s the opposite. It’d be a thousand times easier to describe what I want to a human.