4 ms·

I'm not sure if it applies here. Midjourney's use intends to substitute the artists' work, and is commercial.

by spookie 3y ago

dtrailin 3y ago
Unless it's a 1 for 1 replica I don't see how it's a substitute in the copyright sense.
- munk-a 3y ago
  We already have laws covering close derivatives - in this case it might not be clear who is the inspiration but there is no novel creativity... everything these networks produce is derived from artists - there is no added novelty.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Imagine how rich you would be if you were the first artist to make a red health bar in a video game.
    - andy99 3y ago
      I think that's exactly the sort of flawed analysis these copyright trolls do. They see something they never would have had a hand in and count it as "theirs", and then greed kicks in. It's like the old MPAA/RIAA calculations of lost revenue that assume someone would have bought a CD if they didn't download a song. Only worse because at least in the downloading case, they are a 1:1 substitute. In almost all cases I'd guess that artists whose style is being copied by many genAI users are getting way more exposure than in some alternate universe where midjourney didn't exist. But nobody looks at it that way, they just see somebody else making profit and think they deserve some.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  it's derived from the original and competes with the original if it was parody or commentary or otherwise found a new market, it might be allowed under fair use, but the fourth factor of fair use concerns the effect on the market value of the original
lolinder 3y ago
That's the question that is currently working its way through the courts in many different cases. We don't yet know the answer.
px43 3y ago
No one is using Midjourney to replace artists. Artists are using Midjourney to speed up the most tedious parts of their work.
- spookie 3y ago
  The term is used here in its legal meaning, therefore as competing in the same space as the original
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Absolutely not true. Non-artists use it to replace the need to purchase art and art services. That said it is unclear if the connection is strong enough between a given artist and their replacement.
- dylan604 3y ago
  That's just BS. If people weren't replacing artists, there would be no need to prompt with "in the style of ___". are you honestly saying that only artistX is using the prompt "in the style of artistX"?
  - andy99 3y ago
    Making a picture in the style of an artist is not replacing them. I don't know why anyone could get that idea. I can sing in the style Janice Joplin, pretty sure I'm not replacing her and that nobody thinks I am.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Nobody cares what you think you sound like in the shower. Nobody If I can make a voice over that sounds like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, why would I pay him to make the voice over for me? If I can make artwork in the style of X why would I commission X to make that artwork instead? Nobody cares if it actually was made by them as long as people think it was made by them. So "them" gets screwed because nobody will use them. We're obviously talking in very strict ones and zeros here with "nobody". Except for the nobody caring what you think you sound like
yieldcrv 3y ago
Direct duplicates are fair use as they are evaluated for criticism and the novelty of it being an actual duplicate at all Everything else is a derivative work which falls outside of copyright claims How would you like the law to change? That’s part of the equation too Of course there are models trained only on licensed materials already, which reaches the same result of the material creators obsolescence

I'm not sure if it applies here. Midjourney's use intends to substitute the artists' work, and is commercial.

dtrailin 3y ago

Unless it's a 1 for 1 replica I don't see how it's a substitute in the copyright sense.

munk-a 3y ago
We already have laws covering close derivatives - in this case it might not be clear who is the inspiration but there is no novel creativity... everything these networks produce is derived from artists - there is no added novelty.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Imagine how rich you would be if you were the first artist to make a red health bar in a video game.
  - andy99 3y ago
    I think that's exactly the sort of flawed analysis these copyright trolls do. They see something they never would have had a hand in and count it as "theirs", and then greed kicks in. It's like the old MPAA/RIAA calculations of lost revenue that assume someone would have bought a CD if they didn't download a song. Only worse because at least in the downloading case, they are a 1:1 substitute. In almost all cases I'd guess that artists whose style is being copied by many genAI users are getting way more exposure than in some alternate universe where midjourney didn't exist. But nobody looks at it that way, they just see somebody else making profit and think they deserve some.
jazzyjackson 3y ago
it's derived from the original and competes with the original if it was parody or commentary or otherwise found a new market, it might be allowed under fair use, but the fourth factor of fair use concerns the effect on the market value of the original

lolinder 3y ago

That's the question that is currently working its way through the courts in many different cases. We don't yet know the answer.

px43 3y ago

No one is using Midjourney to replace artists. Artists are using Midjourney to speed up the most tedious parts of their work.

spookie 3y ago
The term is used here in its legal meaning, therefore as competing in the same space as the original
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Absolutely not true. Non-artists use it to replace the need to purchase art and art services. That said it is unclear if the connection is strong enough between a given artist and their replacement.
dylan604 3y ago
That's just BS. If people weren't replacing artists, there would be no need to prompt with "in the style of ___". are you honestly saying that only artistX is using the prompt "in the style of artistX"?
- andy99 3y ago
  Making a picture in the style of an artist is not replacing them. I don't know why anyone could get that idea. I can sing in the style Janice Joplin, pretty sure I'm not replacing her and that nobody thinks I am.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Nobody cares what you think you sound like in the shower. Nobody If I can make a voice over that sounds like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, why would I pay him to make the voice over for me? If I can make artwork in the style of X why would I commission X to make that artwork instead? Nobody cares if it actually was made by them as long as people think it was made by them. So "them" gets screwed because nobody will use them. We're obviously talking in very strict ones and zeros here with "nobody". Except for the nobody caring what you think you sound like

yieldcrv 3y ago

Direct duplicates are fair use as they are evaluated for criticism and the novelty of it being an actual duplicate at all Everything else is a derivative work which falls outside of copyright claims How would you like the law to change? That’s part of the equation too Of course there are models trained only on licensed materials already, which reaches the same result of the material creators obsolescence