6 ms·

I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. You're welcome to even take the style and

I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. You're welcome to even take the style and add enough personal creativity that it becomes a different work and sell that, but only if a random on the street doesn't look at it and say "wow, what Studio Ghibli film is that from?". That's the problem here, there's no creative input apart from the prompt, so obviously the source is blatant (and often in the prompt).

sshine 11mo ago
> I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. Technically, you can't, but there's no way to enforce copyright infringement on private work. You can paint a Studio Ghibli-style painting -- the style isn't protected. These rules assume that copying the style is labor intensive, and righteously rewards the worker. When an LLM can reproduce thousands and thousands of Ghibli-style paintings effortlessly, not protecting the style seems less fair, because the work of establishing the Ghibli-style was harder than copying it large-scale. I'm in the "don't fight a roaring ocean, go with the flow" boat: If your entire livelihood depends on having the right to distribute something anyone can copy, get a stronger business.
- polotics 11mo ago
  I think we can put your last sentence in a more compact form: If your entire livelihood depends on your art, get a stronger business. or even better: if you make art, get a stronger business or maybe simply: stop making art
  - quxbar 11mo ago
    A lot of people will need to stop identifying as 'someone who makes art with enough value to trade it for the decent wage'. Millions of egos destroyed, not a dollar of GDP lost.
    - thankyoufriend 11mo ago
      So I guess you don't read books/comics, watch TV/Movies/plays, play video games or listen to music? People aren't born skilled artists, that takes time and effort. Being able to prompt GenAI well just makes you a skilled prompter, not a skilled artist. Over time, we will lose a lot of skilled artists and that is something worth thinking more deeply about, instead of giving a callous hot take. Artists are trained to view the world critically, and I want more critical thinkers - not less.
      - sshine 11mo ago
        My wife and I went for wall decoration. There’s an art gallery and a poster shop right next to each other. The price difference is a factor 100 for an average art piece. In the poster shop you can choose between a bunch of classics, or you can upload your own AI-generated picture and have that printed as a poster. Art was always expensive, and posters as an alternative to paintings existed way before AI. Same with copying all kinds of art. The main difference seems to be that we can’t clearly pay royalties to anyone for AI artwork, because it’s not obvious exactly where it came from. There was a YouTube channel dedicated to Warhammer lore narrated by an AI David Attenborough. It got taken down for infringing on his voice, but its replacement came up, starting out with a generic old man’s voice and over time gradually more Attenborough-like. When should the Attenborough estate start to get royalties? At 60% Attenborough? Or at 80% Attenborough?
        thankyoufriend 11mo ago
        In my original comment I was asking people to follow me into an imaginary future where there are less artists. Artists reveal something about the world that speaks to us, which they do through critically breaking down and reforming what they see. I can't remember who said it, but they said when art speaks to you, it's a momentary bridge between the artist's soul and yours. I'll answer your question, but my question for you is: why were you buying wall decorations in the first place? To me, it sounds like you were searching for a product category, and not specifically for art. Regarding your example, if the AI is capable of imitating David Attenborough by including his name in the prompt, then it was probably trained on his data. If he didn't consent, then I might argue that is ethically wrong and, in my view, theft. If the channel was not monetized and done without his consent, I might argue that is just an ethical failing. In using his voice, the channel betrays the fact that it has value, otherwise they would continue to use the random old man voice.
  - sshine 11mo ago
    Or just: stop That’s not really what I’m saying. Large brand copyright holders gonna sue. It is part of their core business. If you’re a musician, you gotta tour to make money. If you’re a painter, you need patrons. There already were a ton of ways organised IP theft would make money on your creative force. AI training seems different because it can gobble up anything out of order and somehow digest it into something valuable without human intervention. The training is absurdly expensive, but considering how they capture the profit on the value created, and the training input owners won’t, will just mark the end of the open internet for non-FOSS normies.
- bcraven 11mo ago
  The works by Bill Mudron skirt an intersting line with Ghibli-style prints: https://www.billmudron.com/ghibli-prints https://www.billmudron.com/ghibli-prints
thedevilslawyer 11mo ago
Your belief is incorrect. There's no copyright law that is dependent on whether someone is made for selling or not.
- horsawlarway 11mo ago
  This is incorrect. Two of the four core tests for fair use hinge on this. 1. Purpose and character of the use. With emphasis on whether the copy was made for commercial use. 4. Effect on the work's value, and the creator's ability to exploit their work. --- Both can be dramatically impacted by the intent of the copy, usually with enforcement and punishment also being considerably stronger if the copy is being made for commercial gain and not private use.
  - thedevilslawyer 11mo ago
    This for the actual work, definitely not for transformative works like llm output. So a ghibli style image of me is fine legally, whether I sell it or not.
    - horsawlarway 11mo ago
      Yes, I agree. Style is not subject to copyright, only actual works. But even for actual works, the above is incorrect. How you use the copy absolutely matters.

sshine 11mo ago

> I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. Technically, you can't, but there's no way to enforce copyright infringement on private work. You can paint a Studio Ghibli-style painting -- the style isn't protected. These rules assume that copying the style is labor intensive, and righteously rewards the worker. When an LLM can reproduce thousands and thousands of Ghibli-style paintings effortlessly, not protecting the style seems less fair, because the work of establishing the Ghibli-style was harder than copying it large-scale. I'm in the "don't fight a roaring ocean, go with the flow" boat: If your entire livelihood depends on having the right to distribute something anyone can copy, get a stronger business.

polotics 11mo ago
I think we can put your last sentence in a more compact form: If your entire livelihood depends on your art, get a stronger business. or even better: if you make art, get a stronger business or maybe simply: stop making art
- quxbar 11mo ago
  A lot of people will need to stop identifying as 'someone who makes art with enough value to trade it for the decent wage'. Millions of egos destroyed, not a dollar of GDP lost.
  - thankyoufriend 11mo ago
    So I guess you don't read books/comics, watch TV/Movies/plays, play video games or listen to music? People aren't born skilled artists, that takes time and effort. Being able to prompt GenAI well just makes you a skilled prompter, not a skilled artist. Over time, we will lose a lot of skilled artists and that is something worth thinking more deeply about, instead of giving a callous hot take. Artists are trained to view the world critically, and I want more critical thinkers - not less.
    - sshine 11mo ago
      My wife and I went for wall decoration. There’s an art gallery and a poster shop right next to each other. The price difference is a factor 100 for an average art piece. In the poster shop you can choose between a bunch of classics, or you can upload your own AI-generated picture and have that printed as a poster. Art was always expensive, and posters as an alternative to paintings existed way before AI. Same with copying all kinds of art. The main difference seems to be that we can’t clearly pay royalties to anyone for AI artwork, because it’s not obvious exactly where it came from. There was a YouTube channel dedicated to Warhammer lore narrated by an AI David Attenborough. It got taken down for infringing on his voice, but its replacement came up, starting out with a generic old man’s voice and over time gradually more Attenborough-like. When should the Attenborough estate start to get royalties? At 60% Attenborough? Or at 80% Attenborough?
      - thankyoufriend 11mo ago
        In my original comment I was asking people to follow me into an imaginary future where there are less artists. Artists reveal something about the world that speaks to us, which they do through critically breaking down and reforming what they see. I can't remember who said it, but they said when art speaks to you, it's a momentary bridge between the artist's soul and yours. I'll answer your question, but my question for you is: why were you buying wall decorations in the first place? To me, it sounds like you were searching for a product category, and not specifically for art. Regarding your example, if the AI is capable of imitating David Attenborough by including his name in the prompt, then it was probably trained on his data. If he didn't consent, then I might argue that is ethically wrong and, in my view, theft. If the channel was not monetized and done without his consent, I might argue that is just an ethical failing. In using his voice, the channel betrays the fact that it has value, otherwise they would continue to use the random old man voice.
- sshine 11mo ago
  Or just: stop That’s not really what I’m saying. Large brand copyright holders gonna sue. It is part of their core business. If you’re a musician, you gotta tour to make money. If you’re a painter, you need patrons. There already were a ton of ways organised IP theft would make money on your creative force. AI training seems different because it can gobble up anything out of order and somehow digest it into something valuable without human intervention. The training is absurdly expensive, but considering how they capture the profit on the value created, and the training input owners won’t, will just mark the end of the open internet for non-FOSS normies.
bcraven 11mo ago
The works by Bill Mudron skirt an intersting line with Ghibli-style prints: https://www.billmudron.com/ghibli-prints https://www.billmudron.com/ghibli-prints

thedevilslawyer 11mo ago

Your belief is incorrect. There's no copyright law that is dependent on whether someone is made for selling or not.

horsawlarway 11mo ago
This is incorrect. Two of the four core tests for fair use hinge on this. 1. Purpose and character of the use. With emphasis on whether the copy was made for commercial use. 4. Effect on the work's value, and the creator's ability to exploit their work. --- Both can be dramatically impacted by the intent of the copy, usually with enforcement and punishment also being considerably stronger if the copy is being made for commercial gain and not private use.
- thedevilslawyer 11mo ago
  This for the actual work, definitely not for transformative works like llm output. So a ghibli style image of me is fine legally, whether I sell it or not.
  - horsawlarway 11mo ago
    Yes, I agree. Style is not subject to copyright, only actual works. But even for actual works, the above is incorrect. How you use the copy absolutely matters.