5 ms·

On the matter of artwork there's no need for suspicion - it is and has been happening for a while now. There are entire online databases dedicated to providing

by devmor 2y ago

On the matter of artwork there's no need for suspicion - it is and has been happening for a while now. There are entire online databases dedicated to providing non-consenting artist's "styles" as downloadable model parameters by name.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
Try getting Mickey Mouse comics. That should be fun...
satvikpendem 2y ago
Style is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.
- falcolas 2y ago
  In isolation, no. But the produced works can be too close for fair use (as demonstrated with the Prince pieces by Andy Warhol), and passing it off as a piece from the original artist can open you up to forgery/fraud charges. To put another way, the motivations to produce art in another artist's style can still land the artist/buyer in legal trouble regardless of fair use.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Yes that is true, but I don't think the people who use style transfer are actually passing it off as the original, they just like it for the aesthetic value of their own images. In other words, no one using the Van Gogh LoRA is actually trying to forge the Starry Night.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      Given the value of an "authentic" painting of the Starry Night (or more realistically the value of something forged in, say, Samwise Didier's style) I can't agree with "no one". I have to imagine that it's likely quite popular to sell AI generated art that mimics or copies existing works.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        Do you use AI art generators? Flaws are extremely easily found out, it is only good for a rough snapshot (without much fiddling and even then, artifacts remain). I can guarantee you it is definitely not popular to sell existing works made with AI, you are better off hiring an actual forger. In fact, your suggestion is even the first I've even heard of such an idea.
      - 8organicbits 2y ago
        I guess there's always a greater fool, but forging an oil painting using AI digital images seems pretty far fetched.
        Aeolun 2y ago
        You can paint over the printed image? Not that it’d look anything like the artist you are copying, but it’s a fun idea.
- devmor 2y ago
  The legality of using someone’s copyrighted work to train a model to reproduce it without their consent is still under debate - but the morality of the act at least, is not related to its legality - be it positively or negatively; and I personally consider it abhorrent.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Under what morals do you consider it "abhorrent?" I bet got a straight answer from those I've asked about this as the counter arguments seem too easy to make.
    - devmor 2y ago
      It's just pure exploitation. You're using the product of someone's work to create a machine that takes away their work.
      - struant 2y ago
        Why is doing a task with a machine suddenly objectionable when the same task performed by humans is perfectly fine?
        sensanaty 2y ago
        A man with a small canoe catching a few fish with a fishing rod for his dinner is very different to a commercial fishing vessel trawling through the ocean with a massive net to catch thousands of fish at once. The two are treated differently under the law, and have different rules that apply to them due to the difference in scale. Scale matters, and the scale that computers/these AIs operate under are absurd compared to a person doing it manually.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Why does scale matter in terms of AI? Just because a computer can do it at scale doesn't mean it should be treated similarly to your analogy. Rather than using an analogy, please tell me why it matters that computers can do something like AI at scale rather than individuals doing it.
CuriouslyC 2y ago
I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, I'd like to move through society invisibly and only show myself when it benefitted me. Unfortunately, the only answer is to stay inside if I don't want people to see me.
- vkou 2y ago
  > I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, You aren't allowed to use photos featuring a non-consenting person to, for instance promote a product. You are allowed to use photos including a non-consenting person. There's a lot of complicated law, differing between different jurisdictions to cover this question, and to balance the needs of the public with commercial desires. It's not as simple as you make it sound, and there's no reason we should just default to bending over backwards for commercial interests. Laws exist to serve society, not the other way around.
  - CuriouslyC 2y ago
    I'm sure that the people who are being constantly victimized by paparazzi would like to know those rules that you just quoted, and have them be enforced.
    - vkou 2y ago
      If you had done a little research into this question, you'd realize that 1A use cases ('journalism') are treated by law quite differently than use of likeness for commercial intent. This is my whole point. There isn't a single, one-size-fits-all rule that a five year old can comprehend that describes any particular country's legal framework around the many, many different dimensions of tension between public and private interests on this incredibly broad question. And none of the existing frameworks fit the new use cases well, and we should probably have an open political debate about what we want to do going forward.
      - CuriouslyC 2y ago
        I'll happily take your picture against your will and put it on the internet with the tag "vkou mad at photographer, news at 11"

by devmor 2y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

Try getting Mickey Mouse comics. That should be fun...

satvikpendem 2y ago

Style is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.

falcolas 2y ago
In isolation, no. But the produced works can be too close for fair use (as demonstrated with the Prince pieces by Andy Warhol), and passing it off as a piece from the original artist can open you up to forgery/fraud charges. To put another way, the motivations to produce art in another artist's style can still land the artist/buyer in legal trouble regardless of fair use.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Yes that is true, but I don't think the people who use style transfer are actually passing it off as the original, they just like it for the aesthetic value of their own images. In other words, no one using the Van Gogh LoRA is actually trying to forge the Starry Night.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    Given the value of an "authentic" painting of the Starry Night (or more realistically the value of something forged in, say, Samwise Didier's style) I can't agree with "no one". I have to imagine that it's likely quite popular to sell AI generated art that mimics or copies existing works.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      Do you use AI art generators? Flaws are extremely easily found out, it is only good for a rough snapshot (without much fiddling and even then, artifacts remain). I can guarantee you it is definitely not popular to sell existing works made with AI, you are better off hiring an actual forger. In fact, your suggestion is even the first I've even heard of such an idea.
    - 8organicbits 2y ago
      I guess there's always a greater fool, but forging an oil painting using AI digital images seems pretty far fetched.
      - Aeolun 2y ago
        You can paint over the printed image? Not that it’d look anything like the artist you are copying, but it’s a fun idea.
devmor 2y ago
The legality of using someone’s copyrighted work to train a model to reproduce it without their consent is still under debate - but the morality of the act at least, is not related to its legality - be it positively or negatively; and I personally consider it abhorrent.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Under what morals do you consider it "abhorrent?" I bet got a straight answer from those I've asked about this as the counter arguments seem too easy to make.
  - devmor 2y ago
    It's just pure exploitation. You're using the product of someone's work to create a machine that takes away their work.
    - struant 2y ago
      Why is doing a task with a machine suddenly objectionable when the same task performed by humans is perfectly fine?
      - sensanaty 2y ago
        A man with a small canoe catching a few fish with a fishing rod for his dinner is very different to a commercial fishing vessel trawling through the ocean with a massive net to catch thousands of fish at once. The two are treated differently under the law, and have different rules that apply to them due to the difference in scale. Scale matters, and the scale that computers/these AIs operate under are absurd compared to a person doing it manually.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Why does scale matter in terms of AI? Just because a computer can do it at scale doesn't mean it should be treated similarly to your analogy. Rather than using an analogy, please tell me why it matters that computers can do something like AI at scale rather than individuals doing it.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, I'd like to move through society invisibly and only show myself when it benefitted me. Unfortunately, the only answer is to stay inside if I don't want people to see me.

vkou 2y ago
> I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, You aren't allowed to use photos featuring a non-consenting person to, for instance promote a product. You are allowed to use photos including a non-consenting person. There's a lot of complicated law, differing between different jurisdictions to cover this question, and to balance the needs of the public with commercial desires. It's not as simple as you make it sound, and there's no reason we should just default to bending over backwards for commercial interests. Laws exist to serve society, not the other way around.
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  I'm sure that the people who are being constantly victimized by paparazzi would like to know those rules that you just quoted, and have them be enforced.
  - vkou 2y ago
    If you had done a little research into this question, you'd realize that 1A use cases ('journalism') are treated by law quite differently than use of likeness for commercial intent. This is my whole point. There isn't a single, one-size-fits-all rule that a five year old can comprehend that describes any particular country's legal framework around the many, many different dimensions of tension between public and private interests on this incredibly broad question. And none of the existing frameworks fit the new use cases well, and we should probably have an open political debate about what we want to do going forward.
    - CuriouslyC 2y ago
      I'll happily take your picture against your will and put it on the internet with the tag "vkou mad at photographer, news at 11"