4 ms·

> However, I do think there needs to be some kind of protection from having your 'style' commoditized without consent, using unauthorized images of your own art

> However, I do think there needs to be some kind of protection from having your 'style' commoditized without consent, using unauthorized images of your own art. 1) Hire artist to copy the style for 10 images 2) Train model on those problem solved. If you choose "using your images specifically" to steal your style as the hill you want to die on, then you're going to find it's a very useless line of defense.

voiceblue 2y ago
That's common enough that there's a name for it [0]. "Stealing the style" is not so much a problem as commoditization, which may find some measure of defense in terms of trademark (not copyright). In this case, for example, the model is named hollieMengert_v1, and we are referring to the style as "Hollie Mengert's art style". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- spywaregorilla 2y ago
  There is absolutely not defense unless "hollie mengert's style" is trademarked; and even then the protection extends only to that name, not the artistic style itself. Clean room design has nothing to do with this. It is perfectly acceptable to overtly copy a style.
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
Just because you hired artists to copy someone else's work doesn't mean your model isn't the result of copyright infringement, indeed it makes it somewhat more obvious imo. Maybe that would be Fair Use, but things like purpose, weak transformation (in the hired artists copies), competition against the original, and business motive would all suggest it relies on non-Fair Use copying. I don't know why you think something that involves direct copying shouldn't be a 'hill to die on' for a copyright infringement claim?
- spywaregorilla 2y ago
  Not copy the work. Copy the style. Because style is not copyrightable. What I'm saying is that if you believe that your personal style is your valuable asset and choose to protect it by saying people can't train on your images; you ought to be aware that it's trivially easy to build a model that replicates your style and does not require your images.
  - burnished 2y ago
    Hiring someone for work is not trivial, though it is practical.
    - spywaregorilla 2y ago
      It's trivial compared to hiring a specific person
astrange 2y ago
Style is largely in the eye of the beholder; SD1.5 was used to make a lot of images that looked like Greg Rutkowski, and people presumably believed they looked like his style, but he wasn't in the training set and it was a coincidence. Of course this is mostly only possible if you limit yourself to looking at digital art. A JPEG of a gigantic abstract art oil painting is pretty different from the real thing.

voiceblue 2y ago

That's common enough that there's a name for it [0]. "Stealing the style" is not so much a problem as commoditization, which may find some measure of defense in terms of trademark (not copyright). In this case, for example, the model is named hollieMengert_v1, and we are referring to the style as "Hollie Mengert's art style". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

spywaregorilla 2y ago
There is absolutely not defense unless "hollie mengert's style" is trademarked; and even then the protection extends only to that name, not the artistic style itself. Clean room design has nothing to do with this. It is perfectly acceptable to overtly copy a style.

pbhjpbhj 2y ago

Just because you hired artists to copy someone else's work doesn't mean your model isn't the result of copyright infringement, indeed it makes it somewhat more obvious imo. Maybe that would be Fair Use, but things like purpose, weak transformation (in the hired artists copies), competition against the original, and business motive would all suggest it relies on non-Fair Use copying. I don't know why you think something that involves direct copying shouldn't be a 'hill to die on' for a copyright infringement claim?

spywaregorilla 2y ago
Not copy the work. Copy the style. Because style is not copyrightable. What I'm saying is that if you believe that your personal style is your valuable asset and choose to protect it by saying people can't train on your images; you ought to be aware that it's trivially easy to build a model that replicates your style and does not require your images.
- burnished 2y ago
  Hiring someone for work is not trivial, though it is practical.
  - spywaregorilla 2y ago
    It's trivial compared to hiring a specific person

astrange 2y ago

Style is largely in the eye of the beholder; SD1.5 was used to make a lot of images that looked like Greg Rutkowski, and people presumably believed they looked like his style, but he wasn't in the training set and it was a coincidence. Of course this is mostly only possible if you limit yourself to looking at digital art. A JPEG of a gigantic abstract art oil painting is pretty different from the real thing.