3 ms·

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 a

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.
    - kranke155 3y ago
      I've said all I needed to say. I agree with you that it's all down to the courts/law interpretation. I don't know anything in particular about it, so I have nothing to add on that subject.

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.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    I've said all I needed to say. I agree with you that it's all down to the courts/law interpretation. I don't know anything in particular about it, so I have nothing to add on that subject.