5 ms·
Style is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.
by 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 agoIn 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 agoYes 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 agoGiven 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 agoDo 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 agoI guess there's always a greater fool, but forging an oil painting using AI digital images seems pretty far fetched.
- Aeolun 2y agoYou 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 agoThe 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 agoUnder 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 agoIt's just pure exploitation. You're using the product of someone's work to create a machine that takes away their work.
- struant 2y agoWhy is doing a task with a machine suddenly objectionable when the same task performed by humans is perfectly fine?
- sensanaty 2y agoA 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 agoWhy 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.