4 ms·
> Edit: except for image generation. That one sucks Say more? it's just the media thing about intellectual property rights?
by whimsicalism 2y ago
> Edit: except for image generation. That one sucks
Say more? it's just the media thing about intellectual property rights?
- c1sc0 2y agoI asked up thread and people apparently have concerns about the IP and think that AI images often lack taste.
- whimsicalism 2y agoit's fascinating to see this resurgence of people who now like copyright/IP law
- rimunroe 2y agoI don't know why it's that fascinating. Lots of people think some amount of copyright is reasonable but that life of the author + 70 years is far too long.
- jwells89 2y agoExactly, nuance is important. Short term protections are good, but companies shouldn’t be able to keep works from entering public domain for decades on end.
- bbatha 2y agoMeanwhile Adobe is in hot water for generating images in the style of Ansel Adams... https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/3/24170285/adobe-stock-ansel-adams-style-ai-generated-images https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/3/24170285/adobe-stock-ansel...
- Aloisius 2y agoAdobe didn't generate them. Someone uploaded them to their stock photos site. Nor was their issue that the images were in the style of Ansel Adams, but rather that they used his name. That's not a copyright issue. It's a trademark one.
- nsbk 2y agoI was referring to the limitations of the feature which can only generate images in three pre-canned cartoony styles
- Jtsummers 2y agoI wonder if those are to avoid two of the big image generation controversies: 1. Imitation of artists' styles (Make an image in the style of...). The restricted styles are pretty generic, so harder to pin down as being a copy of or imitation of some artist. 2. It's cartoony, which avoids photorealistic but fake images being generated of real people.