7 ms·

> it’s no surprise that the participants insisted that training on their works was a horrible infringement of their rights (something that has still not been de

> it’s no surprise that the participants insisted that training on their works was a horrible infringement of their rights (something that has still not been determined by any court, and would be a disaster for creativity should it be found to be accurate). I cannot currently search the web for any sort of art without drowning in a swamp of AI results. Even if the SEO-tag-laden midjourney slop wasn't ugly as sin (it is), it's drowning out the art made by humans. A 'disaster for creativity' is already happening and if we don't get copyright protections for artists and creators against their works being made into the grist for AI content mills, this will only get worse.

SideQuark 3y ago
I ran a few searches like "Oil paintings for sale" and found the vast majority seem to be human made and sold. Same for "scenic art", "fantasy art", "animals playing cards art", and so on. I've found no searches where AI made art is "drowning out the art made by humans". Do you have some example searches where you find this to be true? Also AI tools will let more people make art they like, and perhaps sell some to others that like it. I suspect this will be like the claims recording music would kill off musicians since up to then music was live. If anything, it expanded music by making it available cheaply and easily to more people. (See the Luddite story on textiles for yet another example).
- kranke155 3y ago
  Why do you think it would show up in searches first? I work in advertising and it's becoming common to hear that concept artists aren't hired anymore. People are using Midjourney and other tools. The thing is, they are likely not asking for a "random" style, there is a list of 400 or 4000 artists (I can't recall off the top of my head) that Midjourney is deliberately set to imitate. That means oh - I like this Star Wars concept design, can I get more in the same style of This Artist in Particular (AI) is a real thing and it's costing people real money. My understanding of fair use is that this might be a violation, since one of the factors to be considered is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. edit: Here is evidence for the list (4000 artist names) https://twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1741545927435784424 https://twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1741545927435784424
  - SideQuark 3y ago
    Why searches? Because the post I replied to stated "I cannot currently search the web for any sort of art without drowning in a swamp of AI results". I don't see anything supporting this claim so I asked for how it was obtained. Also, styles aren't copyrighted. Specific works are. I can paint in the style of anyone and sell it no problem. I can use whatever tools I want for that. If I clone a specific work, then I may be in violation.
    - kranke155 3y ago
      It's been shown that the current Gen AIs are cloning specific works. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466
      - SideQuark 3y ago
        Still irrelevant to the post I replied to about searches drowning out human art. Are we having the same discussion or are you simply injecting your own discussion with yourself into a this thread? Next, your use of the word "clone" is sloppy - those are clearly not clones in any use of the word I have seen. They are very similar, but clone would imply, well, a clone. Indistinguishable. As to whether a tool can make a copy of something when the user controls the tool, courts have ruled consistently and repeatedly that when a tool has significant non-infringing uses, such as copiers, tape recorders, cameras, VCRs, CD burners, etc., that when a user infringes copyright using the tool the company is not liable. Its how we all can have cameras and recorders and DVRs and the Internet and a whole host of modern tech - it can all be used for infringement, but it has significant uses outside that. A user can infringe. Good luck calling this infringement. When the twitter user is asking the tool to infringe that will almost certainly not be MidJourney's liability. I doubt MS indemnified users of it's tools from copyright claims that their lawyers didn't look long and hard at this. Just because most of the internet is ignorant of the nuance of copyright doesn't mean big law groups (and me too) are also ignorant. Now, please if you feel the need to respond, stay on the original topic. No sense in you hijacking this thread further.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > I suspect this will be like the claims recording music would kill off musicians since up to then music was live. If anything, it expanded music by making it available cheaply and easily to more people. Err. It expanded the music industry. It did not expand music. Arguably, it killed music just as people feared. All the money and attention is focused on the top 1% artists who make 77% of the money[1], while other artists have to also get a "real job". The only reason many of my favourite artists make music at all is because they're subsidized by the Canadian government[2]. Think about the effect on innovation when every local garage band with a fresh sound has to "compete" with U2 and The Rolling Stones (and their multi-million marketing budgets). This is the kind of consolidation that the likes of Walmart or Amazon can only dream of. [1] https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2014/03/07/the-long-tail-is-bs-1-of-musicians-make-77-of-the-money/ https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2014/03/07/the-long-tail-... [2] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/music-fund.html https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/...
  - rolph 3y ago
    i would also add, the inevitability of developing a unique musical style only to have it scooped 5 seconds after you debut a demo recording, and getting hit with cease and desist for performing your own piece.
kranke155 3y ago
It's just the start as well. I was thinking today - if training data is allowed to violate all copyright protections, forever, then the incentive for human artists to keep producing works will collapse. Imagine ie eventually you could get new episodes for any podcast in the world through AI. It would ingest the data from the hosts, it would ingest the data from everyone who's ever been interviewed, and you could ask it for say Marc Maron interviewing Abraham Lincoln. Or if you are into conspiracy theories, you could ask it to produce new episodes of Alex Jones on Joe Rogan, using current headlines as data. You could do this forever.
- artninja1988 3y ago
  > Imagine ie eventually you could get new episodes for any podcast in the world through AI. It would ingest the data from the hosts, it would ingest the data from everyone who's ever been interviewed, and you could ask it for say Marc Maron interviewing Abraham Lincoln. Sounds awesome
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Sounds great for everyone but the rights holder, you know, like most violations of copyright always do.
gilleain 3y ago
It's almost as if there could be a web site that featured human-only art (how would this be verified .o(thinks)). Might do very well ...

SideQuark 3y ago

I ran a few searches like "Oil paintings for sale" and found the vast majority seem to be human made and sold. Same for "scenic art", "fantasy art", "animals playing cards art", and so on. I've found no searches where AI made art is "drowning out the art made by humans". Do you have some example searches where you find this to be true? Also AI tools will let more people make art they like, and perhaps sell some to others that like it. I suspect this will be like the claims recording music would kill off musicians since up to then music was live. If anything, it expanded music by making it available cheaply and easily to more people. (See the Luddite story on textiles for yet another example).

kranke155 3y ago
Why do you think it would show up in searches first? I work in advertising and it's becoming common to hear that concept artists aren't hired anymore. People are using Midjourney and other tools. The thing is, they are likely not asking for a "random" style, there is a list of 400 or 4000 artists (I can't recall off the top of my head) that Midjourney is deliberately set to imitate. That means oh - I like this Star Wars concept design, can I get more in the same style of This Artist in Particular (AI) is a real thing and it's costing people real money. My understanding of fair use is that this might be a violation, since one of the factors to be considered is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. edit: Here is evidence for the list (4000 artist names) https://twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1741545927435784424 https://twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1741545927435784424
- SideQuark 3y ago
  Why searches? Because the post I replied to stated "I cannot currently search the web for any sort of art without drowning in a swamp of AI results". I don't see anything supporting this claim so I asked for how it was obtained. Also, styles aren't copyrighted. Specific works are. I can paint in the style of anyone and sell it no problem. I can use whatever tools I want for that. If I clone a specific work, then I may be in violation.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    It's been shown that the current Gen AIs are cloning specific works. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466
    - SideQuark 3y ago
      Still irrelevant to the post I replied to about searches drowning out human art. Are we having the same discussion or are you simply injecting your own discussion with yourself into a this thread? Next, your use of the word "clone" is sloppy - those are clearly not clones in any use of the word I have seen. They are very similar, but clone would imply, well, a clone. Indistinguishable. As to whether a tool can make a copy of something when the user controls the tool, courts have ruled consistently and repeatedly that when a tool has significant non-infringing uses, such as copiers, tape recorders, cameras, VCRs, CD burners, etc., that when a user infringes copyright using the tool the company is not liable. Its how we all can have cameras and recorders and DVRs and the Internet and a whole host of modern tech - it can all be used for infringement, but it has significant uses outside that. A user can infringe. Good luck calling this infringement. When the twitter user is asking the tool to infringe that will almost certainly not be MidJourney's liability. I doubt MS indemnified users of it's tools from copyright claims that their lawyers didn't look long and hard at this. Just because most of the internet is ignorant of the nuance of copyright doesn't mean big law groups (and me too) are also ignorant. Now, please if you feel the need to respond, stay on the original topic. No sense in you hijacking this thread further.
AlexandrB 3y ago
> I suspect this will be like the claims recording music would kill off musicians since up to then music was live. If anything, it expanded music by making it available cheaply and easily to more people. Err. It expanded the music industry. It did not expand music. Arguably, it killed music just as people feared. All the money and attention is focused on the top 1% artists who make 77% of the money[1], while other artists have to also get a "real job". The only reason many of my favourite artists make music at all is because they're subsidized by the Canadian government[2]. Think about the effect on innovation when every local garage band with a fresh sound has to "compete" with U2 and The Rolling Stones (and their multi-million marketing budgets). This is the kind of consolidation that the likes of Walmart or Amazon can only dream of. [1] https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2014/03/07/the-long-tail-is-bs-1-of-musicians-make-77-of-the-money/ https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2014/03/07/the-long-tail-... [2] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/music-fund.html https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/...
- rolph 3y ago
  i would also add, the inevitability of developing a unique musical style only to have it scooped 5 seconds after you debut a demo recording, and getting hit with cease and desist for performing your own piece.

kranke155 3y ago

It's just the start as well. I was thinking today - if training data is allowed to violate all copyright protections, forever, then the incentive for human artists to keep producing works will collapse. Imagine ie eventually you could get new episodes for any podcast in the world through AI. It would ingest the data from the hosts, it would ingest the data from everyone who's ever been interviewed, and you could ask it for say Marc Maron interviewing Abraham Lincoln. Or if you are into conspiracy theories, you could ask it to produce new episodes of Alex Jones on Joe Rogan, using current headlines as data. You could do this forever.

artninja1988 3y ago
> Imagine ie eventually you could get new episodes for any podcast in the world through AI. It would ingest the data from the hosts, it would ingest the data from everyone who's ever been interviewed, and you could ask it for say Marc Maron interviewing Abraham Lincoln. Sounds awesome
- kranke155 3y ago
  Sounds great for everyone but the rights holder, you know, like most violations of copyright always do.

gilleain 3y ago

It's almost as if there could be a web site that featured human-only art (how would this be verified .o(thinks)). Might do very well ...