6 ms·

But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones, he creates a perfect copy and I hang it on my fridge. Where did I (or the artist) vi

But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones, he creates a perfect copy and I hang it on my fridge. Where did I (or the artist) violate any copyright (or other) laws? It is the artist that is replaced by the AI, not the copyrighted IP.

mcmcmc 2y ago
Depends on if you paid him or not. If he sold it to you, then he is infringing on Disney’s IP and depriving them of that revenue.
- eb0la 2y ago
  If you're paying for tokens used to generate that...
  - mcmcmc 2y ago
    Then the service that sold you tokens and delivered copyright infringing content is violating the law
Velorivox 2y ago
That does infringe copyright...you're just unlikely to get in trouble for it. You might get a cease and desist if the owner of the IP finds out and can spare a moment for you.
- RajT88 2y ago
  Totally agree. LLM's are just automating that infringement process. If you make money off it, it's no longer fair use; it's infringement. Even if you don't make money off it, it's not automatically fair use. My own favorite crazy story about copyright violations: Metallica sued Green Jello for parodying Enter Sandman (including a lyric where it says "It's not Metallica"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Harley_House_(of_Love) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Harley_House_(of_Love... They lost that case. The kicker? Metallica were guest vocalists on that album.
  - the_af 2y ago
    > LLM's are just automating that infringement process. That's my take as well. Gen AI is turning small potatos, "artisanal" infringement into a potentially large scale automated process.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  This doesn't make any sense to me. No media is getting copied, unless the drawing is exactly the same as an existing drawing. Shouldn't "copy"right apply to specific, tangible artistic works? I guess I don't understand how the fantasy of "IP" works. What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones but he's carrying a bow and arrow instead of a whip? Is it infringement? What if it's a really bad drawing of Indiana Jones, so bad that you can't really tell that it's the character? Is that infringement? What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones, but in the style of abstract expressionism, so doesn't even contain a human shape? Is it infringement? What if it's a good drawing that looks very much like Indiana Jones, but it's not! The person's name is actually Iowa Jim. Is that infringement? What if it's just an image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip, but otherwise doesn't look anything like Indiana Jones? Is it infringement?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Velorivox 2y ago
    Here's some reading material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fictional_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Wow, that's very informative, actually. It's surprisingly complex and leaves a lot up to the judgment and tastes of the legal system.
piyh 2y ago
Presumably the artist is a human who directly or indirectly paid money to view a film containing an archaeologist with the whip. I don't think this is about reproduction as much as how you got enough data for that reproduction. The riaa sent people to jail and ruined their lives for pirating. Now these companies are doing it and being valued for hundreds of billions of dollars.
- the_af 2y ago
  Plus the scale of it all. A human friend can get tired and there's so many request he/she can fulfill and at a max rate. Even a team of human artists have a relatively low limit. But Gen AI has very high limits and speeds, and it never gets tired. It seems unfair to me.
- RataNova 2y ago
  You're right, it's not just about reproduction, it's about how the data was collected
layer8 2y ago
The artist is violating copyright by selling you that picture. You can’t just start creating and distributing pictures of a copyrighted property. You need a license from the copyright holder. You also can’t sell a machine that outputs such material. And that’s how the story with GenAI becomes problematic. If GenAI can create the next Indiana Jones or Star Wars sequel for you (possibly a better one than Disney makes, it has become a low bar of sorts), I think the issue becomes obvious.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
the_af 2y ago
I think framing this as "IP theft" is a mistake. Nobody can prevent you from drawing a photo realistic picture of Indy, or taking a photo of him from the internet and hanging it on your fridge. Or asking a friend to do it for you. And let's be honest -- because nobody is looking -- said friend could even charge you a modest sum to draw a realistic picture of Indy for you to hang on your fridge; yes, it's "illegal" but nobody is looking for this kind of small potatos infringement. I think the problem is when people start making a business out of this. A game developer could think "hey, I can make a game with artwork that looks just like Ghibli!", where before he wouldn't have anyone with the skills or patience to do this (see: the 4-second scene that took a year to make), now he can just ask the Gen AI to make it for them. Is it "copyright infringement"? I dunno. Hard to tell, to be honest. But from an ethical point of view, it seems odd. And before you actually required someone to take the time and effort to copy the source material, now it's an automated and scalable process that does this, and can do this and much more, faster and without getting tired. "Theft at scale", maybe not so small potatos anymore. -- edit: nice, downvotes. And in the other thread people were arguing HN is such a nice place for dissenting opinions.
- kridsdale3 2y ago
  I would argue that countless games have already been made by top tier professional artists that IP-Steal the Ghibli theme. Breath of the Wild, and Tears of the Kingdom should be included there.
  - the_af 2y ago
    I don't think those look like Ghibli. Maybe they drew inspiration, but are different enough. I would never confuse one for the other. Regardless, those games required the hard work and countless hours of animators. Gen AI doesn't.
- eb0la 2y ago
  I believe when we talk about this there's a big misunderstanding between Copyright, Trademarks, and Fair use. Indy, with its logo, whiplash, and hat, is a trademark from Disney. I don't know the specific stuff; but if you sell a t-shirt with Indiana Jones, or you put the logo there... you might be sued due to trademark violation. If you make copies of anything developed, sold, or licensed by Disney (movies, comics, books, etc) you'll have a copyright violation. The issue we have with AI and LLM is that: - The models compress information and can make a lot of copies of it very cheaply. - Artist wages are quite low. Higher that what you'd pay OpenAI, but not enough to make a living even unless you're hired by a big company (like Marvel or DC) and they give you regular work ($100-120 for a cover, $50-80/page interior work. One page needs about one day to draw.) - AI used a lot of images from the internet to train models. Most of them were pirated. - And, of course, it is replacing low-paying jobs for artist. Also, do not forget it might make verbatim copies of copyrighted art if the model just memorized the picture / text.
rdtsc 2y ago
> But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones, Sure, assuming the artist has the proper license and franchise rights to make and distribute copies. You can go buy a picture of Indy today that may not be printed by Walt Disney Studios but by some other outfit or artists. Or, you mean if the artist doesn't have a license to produce and distribute Indiana Jones images? Well they'll be in trouble legally. They are making "copies" of things they don't own and profiting from it. Another question is whether that's practically enforceable. > Where did I (or the artist) violate any copyright (or other) laws? When they took payment and profited from making unauthorized copies. > It is the artist that is replaced by the AI, not the copyrighted IP. Exactly, that's why LLMs and the companies which create them are called "theft machines" -- they are reproducing copyrighted material. Especially the ones charging for "tokens". You pay them, they make money and produce unauthorized copies. Show that picture of Indy to a jury and I think it's a good chance of convincing them. I am not saying this is good or bad, I just see this having a legal "bite" so to speak, at least in my pedestrian view of copyright law.
- alphan0n 2y ago
  That’s not how copyright law works. Commissioned work is owned by the commissioner unless otherwise agreed upon by contract. So long as the work is not distributed, exhibited, performed, etc, as in the example of keeping the artwork on their refrigerator in their home, then no infringement has taken place.
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    > Commissioned work is owned by the commissioner unless otherwise agreed upon by contract. I think the LLM example is closer to the LLM and its creator being like a vendor selling pictures of Indiana Jones on the street corner than hiring someone and performing work for hire. Yes, if it was a human artist commissioned to create an art piece, then yeah, the commissioner owns it.
  - Velorivox 2y ago
    As far as I know, if you're speaking of the United States, the copyright of commissioned work is owned by the creator, unless otherwise agreed upon specifically through a "work made for hire" (i.e. copyright transfer) clause in the contract.

mcmcmc 2y ago

Depends on if you paid him or not. If he sold it to you, then he is infringing on Disney’s IP and depriving them of that revenue.

eb0la 2y ago
If you're paying for tokens used to generate that...
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  Then the service that sold you tokens and delivered copyright infringing content is violating the law

Velorivox 2y ago

That does infringe copyright...you're just unlikely to get in trouble for it. You might get a cease and desist if the owner of the IP finds out and can spare a moment for you.

RajT88 2y ago
Totally agree. LLM's are just automating that infringement process. If you make money off it, it's no longer fair use; it's infringement. Even if you don't make money off it, it's not automatically fair use. My own favorite crazy story about copyright violations: Metallica sued Green Jello for parodying Enter Sandman (including a lyric where it says "It's not Metallica"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Harley_House_(of_Love) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Harley_House_(of_Love... They lost that case. The kicker? Metallica were guest vocalists on that album.
- the_af 2y ago
  > LLM's are just automating that infringement process. That's my take as well. Gen AI is turning small potatos, "artisanal" infringement into a potentially large scale automated process.
ryandrake 2y ago
This doesn't make any sense to me. No media is getting copied, unless the drawing is exactly the same as an existing drawing. Shouldn't "copy"right apply to specific, tangible artistic works? I guess I don't understand how the fantasy of "IP" works. What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones but he's carrying a bow and arrow instead of a whip? Is it infringement? What if it's a really bad drawing of Indiana Jones, so bad that you can't really tell that it's the character? Is that infringement? What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones, but in the style of abstract expressionism, so doesn't even contain a human shape? Is it infringement? What if it's a good drawing that looks very much like Indiana Jones, but it's not! The person's name is actually Iowa Jim. Is that infringement? What if it's just an image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip, but otherwise doesn't look anything like Indiana Jones? Is it infringement?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Velorivox 2y ago
  Here's some reading material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fictional_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Wow, that's very informative, actually. It's surprisingly complex and leaves a lot up to the judgment and tastes of the legal system.

piyh 2y ago

Presumably the artist is a human who directly or indirectly paid money to view a film containing an archaeologist with the whip. I don't think this is about reproduction as much as how you got enough data for that reproduction. The riaa sent people to jail and ruined their lives for pirating. Now these companies are doing it and being valued for hundreds of billions of dollars.

the_af 2y ago
Plus the scale of it all. A human friend can get tired and there's so many request he/she can fulfill and at a max rate. Even a team of human artists have a relatively low limit. But Gen AI has very high limits and speeds, and it never gets tired. It seems unfair to me.
RataNova 2y ago
You're right, it's not just about reproduction, it's about how the data was collected

layer8 2y ago

The artist is violating copyright by selling you that picture. You can’t just start creating and distributing pictures of a copyrighted property. You need a license from the copyright holder. You also can’t sell a machine that outputs such material. And that’s how the story with GenAI becomes problematic. If GenAI can create the next Indiana Jones or Star Wars sequel for you (possibly a better one than Disney makes, it has become a low bar of sorts), I think the issue becomes obvious.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

the_af 2y ago

I think framing this as "IP theft" is a mistake. Nobody can prevent you from drawing a photo realistic picture of Indy, or taking a photo of him from the internet and hanging it on your fridge. Or asking a friend to do it for you. And let's be honest -- because nobody is looking -- said friend could even charge you a modest sum to draw a realistic picture of Indy for you to hang on your fridge; yes, it's "illegal" but nobody is looking for this kind of small potatos infringement. I think the problem is when people start making a business out of this. A game developer could think "hey, I can make a game with artwork that looks just like Ghibli!", where before he wouldn't have anyone with the skills or patience to do this (see: the 4-second scene that took a year to make), now he can just ask the Gen AI to make it for them. Is it "copyright infringement"? I dunno. Hard to tell, to be honest. But from an ethical point of view, it seems odd. And before you actually required someone to take the time and effort to copy the source material, now it's an automated and scalable process that does this, and can do this and much more, faster and without getting tired. "Theft at scale", maybe not so small potatos anymore. -- edit: nice, downvotes. And in the other thread people were arguing HN is such a nice place for dissenting opinions.

kridsdale3 2y ago
I would argue that countless games have already been made by top tier professional artists that IP-Steal the Ghibli theme. Breath of the Wild, and Tears of the Kingdom should be included there.
- the_af 2y ago
  I don't think those look like Ghibli. Maybe they drew inspiration, but are different enough. I would never confuse one for the other. Regardless, those games required the hard work and countless hours of animators. Gen AI doesn't.
eb0la 2y ago
I believe when we talk about this there's a big misunderstanding between Copyright, Trademarks, and Fair use. Indy, with its logo, whiplash, and hat, is a trademark from Disney. I don't know the specific stuff; but if you sell a t-shirt with Indiana Jones, or you put the logo there... you might be sued due to trademark violation. If you make copies of anything developed, sold, or licensed by Disney (movies, comics, books, etc) you'll have a copyright violation. The issue we have with AI and LLM is that: - The models compress information and can make a lot of copies of it very cheaply. - Artist wages are quite low. Higher that what you'd pay OpenAI, but not enough to make a living even unless you're hired by a big company (like Marvel or DC) and they give you regular work ($100-120 for a cover, $50-80/page interior work. One page needs about one day to draw.) - AI used a lot of images from the internet to train models. Most of them were pirated. - And, of course, it is replacing low-paying jobs for artist. Also, do not forget it might make verbatim copies of copyrighted art if the model just memorized the picture / text.

rdtsc 2y ago

> But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones, Sure, assuming the artist has the proper license and franchise rights to make and distribute copies. You can go buy a picture of Indy today that may not be printed by Walt Disney Studios but by some other outfit or artists. Or, you mean if the artist doesn't have a license to produce and distribute Indiana Jones images? Well they'll be in trouble legally. They are making "copies" of things they don't own and profiting from it. Another question is whether that's practically enforceable. > Where did I (or the artist) violate any copyright (or other) laws? When they took payment and profited from making unauthorized copies. > It is the artist that is replaced by the AI, not the copyrighted IP. Exactly, that's why LLMs and the companies which create them are called "theft machines" -- they are reproducing copyrighted material. Especially the ones charging for "tokens". You pay them, they make money and produce unauthorized copies. Show that picture of Indy to a jury and I think it's a good chance of convincing them. I am not saying this is good or bad, I just see this having a legal "bite" so to speak, at least in my pedestrian view of copyright law.

alphan0n 2y ago
That’s not how copyright law works. Commissioned work is owned by the commissioner unless otherwise agreed upon by contract. So long as the work is not distributed, exhibited, performed, etc, as in the example of keeping the artwork on their refrigerator in their home, then no infringement has taken place.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > Commissioned work is owned by the commissioner unless otherwise agreed upon by contract. I think the LLM example is closer to the LLM and its creator being like a vendor selling pictures of Indiana Jones on the street corner than hiring someone and performing work for hire. Yes, if it was a human artist commissioned to create an art piece, then yeah, the commissioner owns it.
- Velorivox 2y ago
  As far as I know, if you're speaking of the United States, the copyright of commissioned work is owned by the creator, unless otherwise agreed upon specifically through a "work made for hire" (i.e. copyright transfer) clause in the contract.