3 ms·
Arguably there is - training is not a copyright violation imo. I think it's more akin to you viewing the art and then later making your own thing, you get an in
by homefree 3y ago
Arguably there is - training is not a copyright violation imo. I think it's more akin to you viewing the art and then later making your own thing, you get an intuition/inspiration from what you've seen.
The other complaints are mostly about how it has become hard to not share to social media, but that's mostly a complaint about how people are.
He can still just post on a website, it's not really the fault of social media companies that people prefer that.
- ParetoOptimal 3y agoIts not like looking and getting inspiration, its looking and being able to almost perfectly duplicate the style. Their complaint is not being able to post art for its own sake because it will be hoovered up into datasets to train more AI: They are forced to submit to helping train AI or not post their art.
- boolemancer 3y ago> Its not like looking and getting inspiration, its looking and being able to almost perfectly duplicate the style. You cannot copyright a style. A person is perfectly within their right to copy your art style when they produce their own work. So, I think "duplicate the style of" and "taking inspiration from" are the same thing in this context.
- Workaccount2 3y agoMost skilled artists are perfectly capable of generating near identical copies of other artists work. This is something that has been going on for millennia.
- ParetoOptimal 3y agoThat's different though because there are social and legal reasons not to do it. Also, the pool of people that can imitate a skilled artist is much smaller than those who can prompt "in the style of Picasso...".