5 ms·

Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists? (2023)

37 points by teddyh 2y ago

minimaxir 2y ago
This post is from 2023, and the mentioned lawsuit is still ongoing, with the last update in May 2024 saying the lawsuit can go forward: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stability-ai-midjourney-should-face-artists-copyright-case-judge-says-2024-05-08/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stability-ai-midjou...
gnabgib 2y ago
(2023) Discussions (19+16 points, 1 year ago, 90+16 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744059
petesergeant 2y ago
I have to believe the answer will be found to be yes, but, unencumbered or appropriately licensed datasets will show up (and are probably being actively sourced by major players). I have some sympathy for artists whose style can be mimicked by people just name-checking them.
- XorNot 2y ago
  You've never been able to copyright a style though.
  - dartos 2y ago
    No, but a style has also never been able to be automatically extracted and packaged as a product in and of itself.
  - colonelspace 2y ago
    But if I create a magic box that generates work in the style of a specific artist, based on me feeding that artist's work into the magic box, then sell access to the output of the magic box, notably output that results from a request using the artist's name, that seems to deprive the artist of something, based on my use of the artist's work. Copyright isn't really the issue, it's a company exploiting the work of others. It's literally the only value of the magic box.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      That's how human brains work too. There are people who can mimic styles very well. They need to be "fed" the style first though.
      - digging 2y ago
        Scale and availability matter
        Pet_Ant 2y ago
        So if you put one buggy whip maker out of work a year, it's okay. But if you put hundreds of over the course of a couple of years, now it's wrong? Cars must be illegal. When have we ever put the scope of the impact as part of the judgement of the legality of disruptive businesses? When did the impact of WalMart on small businesses matter legally, or Amazon on independent bookstores, or iTunes music store on independent music stores, or Netflix on video rental stores? Or NAFTA on American factory workers? Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the scale of the impact transformative impacts the question of legality; it never has before. If you are talking about the social problem of skilled people willing to work who cannot find meaningful employment: well, let's address that directly, but not by banning generative AI.
        dj_mc_merlin 2y ago
        > it never has before. Look up the Digital Markets Act.
        colonelspace 2y ago
        The buggy whip analogy doesn't work because car makers didn't and don't sell buggy whips in the specific style of specific buggy whip makers.
        bb88 2y ago
        Ever hear the term, "Horseless Carriage?" The entire point was to sell something familiar to people, just without the horse. To be honest, this is a rabbit hole worth going down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseless_carriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseless_carriage And from that page is this, and and this cracked a smile on my face. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsey_Horseless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsey_Horseless Look at the 1908 Model T. https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/the-model-t.html https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/the-model-t.html And then compare that with the Curricle, say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curricle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curricle
  - roughly 2y ago
    There’s been an implicit expectation in the past that copying someone’s style requires talent, though.
- falcolas 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - blibble 2y ago
    if society decides it is a derivative work then it's easy to hem them in 1. mandatory licensing of all models 2. licensing requires disclosure of all sources used in the training set then if OpenAI/Meta/... trains on your property without respecting your copyright then it's standard civil copyright infringement (and potentially criminal if done on a large scale) this would fall apart if training becomes significantly cheaper (but with the current state of Moore's law we're a long way off that)
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    Can you define how it is stealing?
    - falcolas 2y ago
      By the common IP definition. Reproducing something, in part or in whole, and making money off it. And before the whole "Copyright should be abolished" assertion rears it's head (again, it's already in this post at least twice), almost 50% of the US economy is based, in whole or in part, on copyright protections on IP. Copyright and IP are going nowhere.
      - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
        So I researched one particular AI system (Stable Diffusion) a bit when I was helping out a friend. By your definition, at very least Stable Diffusion is not stealing, and cannot possibly be stealing - at very least to the limits of my skill to satisfy my self of this as fact. * It does not in fact reproduce specific copyrightable things in part or in whole (except by accident, and these accidents have been reduced over time. This makes 'mens rea' hard to argue.) * Its output (being not by humans) is by definition in the public domain. This makes it a little hard to claim that it is being exploited for monetary gain. I won't deny that there are potential indirect effects, but if you go by direct legal definitions, it's - interesting. New law may be needed, but there too, things might be interesting. It's certainly not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be here, at least not for Stable Diffusion. * "Copyright protections on IP" seems to be a bit muddled. Can you explain how you are using the terms of art here? * Do you have a source for "Almost 50% of the US economy is based, in whole or in part, on copyright protections on IP"? Doesn't need to be extensive. I just wonder where you are getting the 50% number from, and I wonder if there's a breakdown available. + it seems lawsuit(s) on this are still ongoing, so it'll be interesting to see what the judge(s) actually rule.
breck 2y ago
[flagged]
- nuforia 2y ago
  You seem to be suffering from RAD
  - breck 2y ago
    I suffer from every 3 letter acronym and half the 4 letter ones
throwadobe 2y ago
[flagged]
ravenstine 2y ago
If AI art is stealing then perhaps a significant number of us should be behind bars right now.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- EGreg 2y ago
  Tons of people on HN love to downplay ANY serious problem with AI and I am here for it. Very amusing And always the same arguments too — not much detail but just throw & go LOL: “it was the same before AI, so if this is a problem then stuff humans have done is a problem, relax my luddite bro” LOL
- amonith 2y ago
  "AI art is stealing" is an oversimplification of "companies are stealing unlicensed user generated content to create a commercial product" which is absolutely true. Nobody grants commercial use rights to their output by default, you have to ask for that. Nobody cares that humans learn in principle the same way as AI. Law - which is meant to protect and help individuals to foster healthy competition & innovation without disrupting the social order + prevent monopolies - allows that. Large corporate entities should not be allowed to use that unlicensed content the same way. That's it. That's the whole point. Content was stolen to create commercial AI products.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    Stealing is a particular legal term of art though. I can't and won't deny people's feelings on the matter, but if we accept them as true, then they do seem to be using the word "to steal" in a novel way.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
This question is increasingly equivalent to asking if everyone is stealing from everyone else. The short answer is no. But it is possible that a lot of activities will become impossible to do if their value is moved to some AI
- 112233 2y ago
  Isn't the short answer "it depends on cultural norms"? Like how taking a photo of person or private location is a legal minefield right now?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
moose44 2y ago
A photocopier isn't an artist, even if it can re-create the Mona Lisa.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
(2023) why the post OP? Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031
- teddyh 2y ago
  I just happened to see it, and I had not seen the previous discussion.
NuSkooler 2y ago
These discussions continue to come up, and I feel like it's wasting time on the wrong issues. Is AI *borrowing concepts* from artists? Yep. Do artists borrow concepts from other artists? Yep. Is AI or humans in a vacuum when creating new art? Nope. Is the cat out of the bag? Yep. Is this the same with text? Code? Literally anything AI generates? Yep. A major problem is AI being used to replace humans, which of course, is borrowing concepts from humans... which, oops, you just replaced. It's not just artists. We have much bigger issues than "AI is stealing my art". It's really not. It's just being used to "optimize" you, the human, out of the equation.

37 points by teddyh 2y ago

This post is from 2023, and the mentioned lawsuit is still ongoing, with the last update in May 2024 saying the lawsuit can go forward: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stability-ai-midjourney-should-face-artists-copyright-case-judge-says-2024-05-08/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stability-ai-midjou...

gnabgib 2y ago

(2023) Discussions (19+16 points, 1 year ago, 90+16 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744059

petesergeant 2y ago

I have to believe the answer will be found to be yes, but, unencumbered or appropriately licensed datasets will show up (and are probably being actively sourced by major players). I have some sympathy for artists whose style can be mimicked by people just name-checking them.

XorNot 2y ago
You've never been able to copyright a style though.
- dartos 2y ago
  No, but a style has also never been able to be automatically extracted and packaged as a product in and of itself.
- colonelspace 2y ago
  But if I create a magic box that generates work in the style of a specific artist, based on me feeding that artist's work into the magic box, then sell access to the output of the magic box, notably output that results from a request using the artist's name, that seems to deprive the artist of something, based on my use of the artist's work. Copyright isn't really the issue, it's a company exploiting the work of others. It's literally the only value of the magic box.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    That's how human brains work too. There are people who can mimic styles very well. They need to be "fed" the style first though.
    - digging 2y ago
      Scale and availability matter
      - Pet_Ant 2y ago
        So if you put one buggy whip maker out of work a year, it's okay. But if you put hundreds of over the course of a couple of years, now it's wrong? Cars must be illegal. When have we ever put the scope of the impact as part of the judgement of the legality of disruptive businesses? When did the impact of WalMart on small businesses matter legally, or Amazon on independent bookstores, or iTunes music store on independent music stores, or Netflix on video rental stores? Or NAFTA on American factory workers? Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the scale of the impact transformative impacts the question of legality; it never has before. If you are talking about the social problem of skilled people willing to work who cannot find meaningful employment: well, let's address that directly, but not by banning generative AI.
        dj_mc_merlin 2y ago
        > it never has before. Look up the Digital Markets Act.
        colonelspace 2y ago
        The buggy whip analogy doesn't work because car makers didn't and don't sell buggy whips in the specific style of specific buggy whip makers.
        bb88 2y ago
        Ever hear the term, "Horseless Carriage?" The entire point was to sell something familiar to people, just without the horse. To be honest, this is a rabbit hole worth going down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseless_carriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseless_carriage And from that page is this, and and this cracked a smile on my face. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsey_Horseless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsey_Horseless Look at the 1908 Model T. https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/the-model-t.html https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/the-model-t.html And then compare that with the Curricle, say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curricle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curricle
- roughly 2y ago
  There’s been an implicit expectation in the past that copying someone’s style requires talent, though.
falcolas 2y ago
[flagged]
- blibble 2y ago
  if society decides it is a derivative work then it's easy to hem them in 1. mandatory licensing of all models 2. licensing requires disclosure of all sources used in the training set then if OpenAI/Meta/... trains on your property without respecting your copyright then it's standard civil copyright infringement (and potentially criminal if done on a large scale) this would fall apart if training becomes significantly cheaper (but with the current state of Moore's law we're a long way off that)
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  Can you define how it is stealing?
  - falcolas 2y ago
    By the common IP definition. Reproducing something, in part or in whole, and making money off it. And before the whole "Copyright should be abolished" assertion rears it's head (again, it's already in this post at least twice), almost 50% of the US economy is based, in whole or in part, on copyright protections on IP. Copyright and IP are going nowhere.
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      So I researched one particular AI system (Stable Diffusion) a bit when I was helping out a friend. By your definition, at very least Stable Diffusion is not stealing, and cannot possibly be stealing - at very least to the limits of my skill to satisfy my self of this as fact. * It does not in fact reproduce specific copyrightable things in part or in whole (except by accident, and these accidents have been reduced over time. This makes 'mens rea' hard to argue.) * Its output (being not by humans) is by definition in the public domain. This makes it a little hard to claim that it is being exploited for monetary gain. I won't deny that there are potential indirect effects, but if you go by direct legal definitions, it's - interesting. New law may be needed, but there too, things might be interesting. It's certainly not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be here, at least not for Stable Diffusion. * "Copyright protections on IP" seems to be a bit muddled. Can you explain how you are using the terms of art here? * Do you have a source for "Almost 50% of the US economy is based, in whole or in part, on copyright protections on IP"? Doesn't need to be extensive. I just wonder where you are getting the 50% number from, and I wonder if there's a breakdown available. + it seems lawsuit(s) on this are still ongoing, so it'll be interesting to see what the judge(s) actually rule.

breck 2y ago

[flagged]

nuforia 2y ago
You seem to be suffering from RAD
- breck 2y ago
  I suffer from every 3 letter acronym and half the 4 letter ones

throwadobe 2y ago

[flagged]

ravenstine 2y ago

If AI art is stealing then perhaps a significant number of us should be behind bars right now.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
EGreg 2y ago
Tons of people on HN love to downplay ANY serious problem with AI and I am here for it. Very amusing And always the same arguments too — not much detail but just throw & go LOL: “it was the same before AI, so if this is a problem then stuff humans have done is a problem, relax my luddite bro” LOL
amonith 2y ago
"AI art is stealing" is an oversimplification of "companies are stealing unlicensed user generated content to create a commercial product" which is absolutely true. Nobody grants commercial use rights to their output by default, you have to ask for that. Nobody cares that humans learn in principle the same way as AI. Law - which is meant to protect and help individuals to foster healthy competition & innovation without disrupting the social order + prevent monopolies - allows that. Large corporate entities should not be allowed to use that unlicensed content the same way. That's it. That's the whole point. Content was stolen to create commercial AI products.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  Stealing is a particular legal term of art though. I can't and won't deny people's feelings on the matter, but if we accept them as true, then they do seem to be using the word "to steal" in a novel way.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

This question is increasingly equivalent to asking if everyone is stealing from everyone else. The short answer is no. But it is possible that a lot of activities will become impossible to do if their value is moved to some AI

112233 2y ago
Isn't the short answer "it depends on cultural norms"? Like how taking a photo of person or private location is a legal minefield right now?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

moose44 2y ago

A photocopier isn't an artist, even if it can re-create the Mona Lisa.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

(2023) why the post OP? Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031

teddyh 2y ago
I just happened to see it, and I had not seen the previous discussion.

NuSkooler 2y ago

These discussions continue to come up, and I feel like it's wasting time on the wrong issues. Is AI *borrowing concepts* from artists? Yep. Do artists borrow concepts from other artists? Yep. Is AI or humans in a vacuum when creating new art? Nope. Is the cat out of the bag? Yep. Is this the same with text? Code? Literally anything AI generates? Yep. A major problem is AI being used to replace humans, which of course, is borrowing concepts from humans... which, oops, you just replaced. It's not just artists. We have much bigger issues than "AI is stealing my art". It's really not. It's just being used to "optimize" you, the human, out of the equation.