3 ms·

To expand upon this, the majority of the complaints I see are coming from the online community where the largest part of the material seems to be based of IP/co

To expand upon this, the majority of the complaints I see are coming from the online community where the largest part of the material seems to be based of IP/copyright violation by the artists. I've been part of multiple communities who have decided to ban AI art because of a moral clause against using other's peoples works without their permission, but yet which don't like having it pointed out that the IP holders have withheld their permission of their characters being used for unlicensed artwork. While some of this are people practicing their artwork and I don't see any reason we should care what artwork someone practices on, this is also the general trend for artwork being sold. Go to any convention where artists sell work and look at how much artwork is sold of characters the artists do not have license to. While I think one can take a philosophical stance against the current IP laws that outlaw this, such a stance would make it quite hard to oppose the use of content in training an AI. In short, if those making the AI stole IP to train the AI, it was stolen from a community that was fine with IP theft that benefitted them. And if the claim is that it wasn't IP theft because the law was generally tolerating it (as long as no one became so much a target they received a C&D), then unless there are some lawsuits won against the AI it would be equally allowed. (And of course individuals will have their own philosophical stances which might be much more consistent, I'm speaking of the generalized view I have developed from overall interactions with parts of the community and as such it is not meant to be strongly prescriptive to any specific member of the community).

pclmulqdq 3y ago
> the largest part of the material seems to be based of IP/copyright violation by the artists What do you mean by this? Fan art is pretty well known to be fair use, particularly because it is transformative and it has no commercial intent. AI training is transformative alright, but the commercial intent part is a huge factor in the analysis. The fair use analysis is very much not clear at this point.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > it has no commercial intent. Under what possible analysis does art sold at a convention, by full time professional artists, not count as being done for a commercial purpose?
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    Does this actually happen at large scale without the permission of the owner of the IP? I can see someone making a few hundred bucks with their fan art, but doing tens of thousands of dollars of business is a different story. The main commercial factor (per the courts - see the recent Warhol lawsuit) is whether the derivative work competes in the market with the original work. I sincerely doubt that even if there is large-scale selling of fan art at conventions, that fan art is meaningfully competing with (ie reducing) the market for the original IP.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > Does this actually happen at large scale Yes? Go to any convention center. Go commission a piece of art on the internet. It is almost all infringing "fan art". > I can see someone making a few hundred bucks with their fan art Its not some rando person doing this stuff for a hobby. Instead, I am talking about the entire industry. All you'd have to do is go to any gaming/media/comic convention and this is immediately obvious. > that fan art is meaningfully competing with (ie reducing) the market for the original IP. I mean, ok? Then if thats your metric, then you can't complain about the entire open source industry of people making AI art on their home PCs. If you are giving that gigantic, large hole to slip through, then you have now allowed almost the entire open source AI art industry to exist.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        > All you'd have to do is go to any gaming/media/comic convention and this is immediately obvious. Most of the gaming/media/comic conventions I have been to have involved game/media/comic artists selling their own work, not people selling fan art. In fact, the presence of the original artists selling copies of their original works is generally a big draw for the convention. Maybe we go to different conventions or something (I have never been to an anime convention - so maybe that's what you're referring to). The little third-party art I have seen at these conventions is sold with the explicit permission of the original artist/IP holder. So no, it is not "obvious" to me, as someone who has actually gone to a few gaming/comic conventions before, that fan art is a huge industry or that it undercuts demand for the original art. The fan art I have seen is generally drawn by (professional/high-end amateur) artists for free on deviantart because they like the characters or want to practice their skills. Also, nobody is currently suing (or particularly upset) over people making art on their home PCs. People are suing over companies selling AI art generators for $billions that directly compete with the artists and stock photo libraries that were used to train these art generators.
ronsor 3y ago
There is also the fact they have driven themselves mad trying to "detect" or distinguish AI art, and now consistently attempt to tear each other down over claims of AI use.
cdata 3y ago
Personally I think framing this as some kind of double-standard regarding copyright or even a copyright-specific issue misses the forest for the trees. The problem I see is that the generative AI economy hinges on an injustice: the presumption that all art on the internet - no matter the medium, or means or relative notoriety of the artist - shall be candidate training data, and no burden of attribution whatsoever shall be laid upon those who leverage it. Most graphic artists that I know bemoan copyright. But, it's a tool that the law has given them. Also: most graphic artists that I know exist under low economic circumstances - some near poverty - relative to most of the people I know who are building the next great wave of technological innovations with generative AI. I don't see a struggle over copyright. Artists, who exist towards the bottom of the economic ladder as it is, are doing what they can to survive.
- SkyBelow 3y ago
  >no matter the medium, or means or relative notoriety of the artist - shall be candidate training data Why is this a special case? When people were viewing it, reposting it, using it to learn... those were all accepted uses. Passing it off as your own wasn't allowed, but outright plagiarism has pretty consistently been unaccepted. The problem seems to stim from using it in a way that directly competes with the artist, and given your other point about their financial position, is a direct financial threat to them. The morality of the situation seems to be that it is wrong because of the financial harm, but recognizing that such an argument is rarely accepted, it must instead be justified by some other argument, any other argument, that condemns the outcome. I don't think this is anything particularly unique. How often do we find things wrong because of a logical argument as to why it is wrong, and how often do we find a logical argument to justify our felling that something is wrong? There is also a element of helplessness. No matter what the government does, pandora's box has been opened and it can't be closed. While it might slow down the development of better AI, it isn't going to stop it and banning existing software isn't going to be possible. The damage has been done, and even if the artists have an overwhelming victory, they are only going to recover a fraction of lost ground only to eventually lose it again.
  - cdata 3y ago

pclmulqdq 3y ago

> the largest part of the material seems to be based of IP/copyright violation by the artists What do you mean by this? Fan art is pretty well known to be fair use, particularly because it is transformative and it has no commercial intent. AI training is transformative alright, but the commercial intent part is a huge factor in the analysis. The fair use analysis is very much not clear at this point.

stale2002 3y ago
> it has no commercial intent. Under what possible analysis does art sold at a convention, by full time professional artists, not count as being done for a commercial purpose?
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Does this actually happen at large scale without the permission of the owner of the IP? I can see someone making a few hundred bucks with their fan art, but doing tens of thousands of dollars of business is a different story. The main commercial factor (per the courts - see the recent Warhol lawsuit) is whether the derivative work competes in the market with the original work. I sincerely doubt that even if there is large-scale selling of fan art at conventions, that fan art is meaningfully competing with (ie reducing) the market for the original IP.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Does this actually happen at large scale Yes? Go to any convention center. Go commission a piece of art on the internet. It is almost all infringing "fan art". > I can see someone making a few hundred bucks with their fan art Its not some rando person doing this stuff for a hobby. Instead, I am talking about the entire industry. All you'd have to do is go to any gaming/media/comic convention and this is immediately obvious. > that fan art is meaningfully competing with (ie reducing) the market for the original IP. I mean, ok? Then if thats your metric, then you can't complain about the entire open source industry of people making AI art on their home PCs. If you are giving that gigantic, large hole to slip through, then you have now allowed almost the entire open source AI art industry to exist.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      > All you'd have to do is go to any gaming/media/comic convention and this is immediately obvious. Most of the gaming/media/comic conventions I have been to have involved game/media/comic artists selling their own work, not people selling fan art. In fact, the presence of the original artists selling copies of their original works is generally a big draw for the convention. Maybe we go to different conventions or something (I have never been to an anime convention - so maybe that's what you're referring to). The little third-party art I have seen at these conventions is sold with the explicit permission of the original artist/IP holder. So no, it is not "obvious" to me, as someone who has actually gone to a few gaming/comic conventions before, that fan art is a huge industry or that it undercuts demand for the original art. The fan art I have seen is generally drawn by (professional/high-end amateur) artists for free on deviantart because they like the characters or want to practice their skills. Also, nobody is currently suing (or particularly upset) over people making art on their home PCs. People are suing over companies selling AI art generators for $billions that directly compete with the artists and stock photo libraries that were used to train these art generators.

ronsor 3y ago

There is also the fact they have driven themselves mad trying to "detect" or distinguish AI art, and now consistently attempt to tear each other down over claims of AI use.

cdata 3y ago

Personally I think framing this as some kind of double-standard regarding copyright or even a copyright-specific issue misses the forest for the trees. The problem I see is that the generative AI economy hinges on an injustice: the presumption that all art on the internet - no matter the medium, or means or relative notoriety of the artist - shall be candidate training data, and no burden of attribution whatsoever shall be laid upon those who leverage it. Most graphic artists that I know bemoan copyright. But, it's a tool that the law has given them. Also: most graphic artists that I know exist under low economic circumstances - some near poverty - relative to most of the people I know who are building the next great wave of technological innovations with generative AI. I don't see a struggle over copyright. Artists, who exist towards the bottom of the economic ladder as it is, are doing what they can to survive.

SkyBelow 3y ago
>no matter the medium, or means or relative notoriety of the artist - shall be candidate training data Why is this a special case? When people were viewing it, reposting it, using it to learn... those were all accepted uses. Passing it off as your own wasn't allowed, but outright plagiarism has pretty consistently been unaccepted. The problem seems to stim from using it in a way that directly competes with the artist, and given your other point about their financial position, is a direct financial threat to them. The morality of the situation seems to be that it is wrong because of the financial harm, but recognizing that such an argument is rarely accepted, it must instead be justified by some other argument, any other argument, that condemns the outcome. I don't think this is anything particularly unique. How often do we find things wrong because of a logical argument as to why it is wrong, and how often do we find a logical argument to justify our felling that something is wrong? There is also a element of helplessness. No matter what the government does, pandora's box has been opened and it can't be closed. While it might slow down the development of better AI, it isn't going to stop it and banning existing software isn't going to be possible. The damage has been done, and even if the artists have an overwhelming victory, they are only going to recover a fraction of lost ground only to eventually lose it again.
- cdata 3y ago