61–70 of 365 posts
Finding similar pictures in an embedding space does not mean any of those pictures are part of the attribution chain any more than anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The discussion over novelty is useless, all these legal structures like copyrights patents royalties and licenses are about creating business structures to allow artist or inventors be compensated. They were already imperfect in it and now suddenly a new technology drags their work into the wilderness with no stuctures for compensation. The images created by the AI are indeed novel but they feed on the work of people…
This is no different than professional calligraphers losing their jobs because of the printing press and then later due to customizable fonts on printers. I have a ton of respect for calligraphers and believe they are artists, but at the same time I don't think that the millions of people who create custom fonts or use custom fonts are doing a bad thing.
This is a great website, but not in the way the authors intended. Based on some of the examples they explicitly provided, it is clear to me Stable Diffusion creates novel art. Here's a random example https://www.stableattribution.com/?image=a2666aee-0a1a-411b-... I will admit this is a nice tool for verifying the creations of SD aren't pure copies, so I think it will be useful for a time. But as AI-generated images s…
The discussion over novelty is useless, all these legal structures like copyrights patents royalties and licenses are about creating business structures to allow artist or inventors be compensated. They were already imperfect in it and now suddenly a new technology drags their work into the wilderness with no stuctures for compensation. The images created by the AI are indeed novel but they feed on the work of people…
The idea of a specific artist having a unique style they learn is dying right now: the faster and cheaper way to develop a style will be to train an AI model on public domain work, and tweak till you get something you like. Then use it as part of a process to go from sketch and composition to output. If you must, play with your own style and make a custom model - that technology has gotten very accessible very quickly.
This is a gnashing of teeth over an unexpected price shock: creatives have been feeling pretty assured that automation wasn't coming for their revenue because what they did was a unique human endeavor that a soulless machine could not possibly threaten. It was meant to be factory workers and retail staff first.
People aren't worried about copyright. People are worried that a skillset acquired at substantial sacrifice is about to become irrelevant and are desperately latching on to any perceived lifeline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What's a camera to you?
Does a paintbrush also make art? A chisel? These are tools that humans use.
So is the AI. It doesn’t act of it’s own accord. A human has to give it a prompt and often refine the output.
This is a great website, but not in the way the authors intended. Based on some of the examples they explicitly provided, it is clear to me Stable Diffusion creates novel art. Here's a random example https://www.stableattribution.com/?image=a2666aee-0a1a-411b-... I will admit this is a nice tool for verifying the creations of SD aren't pure copies, so I think it will be useful for a time. But as AI-generated images s…
The discussion over novelty is useless, all these legal structures like copyrights patents royalties and licenses are about creating business structures to allow artist or inventors be compensated. They were already imperfect in it and now suddenly a new technology drags their work into the wilderness with no stuctures for compensation. The images created by the AI are indeed novel but they feed on the work of people…
But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. If that were the case, we would have outlawed the loom because it displaced weavers, and the camera (sorry portrait painters) and the iPhone. (How many telegraph operators are left? None!)
When an artist learns to draw, they copy almost all their ideas from other art they’ve seen that they like. That’s how humans learn. I’m learning to compose music at the moment and everything that sounds good to me is probably a remix of musical ideas I’ve heard before in other songs. If I grew up in a different music tradition (say, ancient India) then all of my ideas about musicality would be different.
It seems to me that the only difference between me and stable diffusion is that stable diffusion copies less than I do, but from more sources.
Also, the idea that artists can’t learn each other’s styles is totally wrong. I heard an interview years ago with an art director at blizzard. The interviewer pointed out that blizzard’s games all have different art styles, and asked how they swap between styles. “Do you have different art teams?”. The art director laughed and said that was the difference between amateur artists and professionals. Professional artists can be given a style and a brief and they can draw in the style. When they move between games, he said, the whole art team spends about 2 weeks practicing concept art for game they’re moving to and critiquing each others’ work to align their styles. Then it’s smooth sailing. That’s how they hire artists too - they ask them to draw some concept art in the style of one of their games.
Sounds far fetched? That’s what we do when we hire and onboard programmers. Art for hire isn’t any different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The discussion over novelty is useless, all these legal structures like copyrights patents royalties and licenses are about creating business structures to allow artist or inventors be compensated. They were already imperfect in it and now suddenly a new technology drags their work into the wilderness with no stuctures for compensation. The images created by the AI are indeed novel but they feed on the work of people…
This is no different than professional calligraphers losing their jobs because of the printing press and then later due to customizable fonts on printers. I have a ton of respect for calligraphers and believe they are artists, but at the same time I don't think that the millions of people who create custom fonts or use custom fonts are doing a bad thing.
Just to be clear, I think art made with AI also can have value because it's a tool after all. My concern is, it breaks the business for the people that feeds on and that's not OK.
I like this because they are trying to show how AI is a copyright laundry. I can see other commenters picking apart its method of heuristically guessing at source images from training data. That obviously won't be accurate, or a full picture, but I wonder if it would convince a judge. An interesting challenge for these heuristics would be to take the picture under test along with its prompt, retrain the model without…
Kind of a sidebar, but interesting you chose Thomas Kinkade, who has been dead 10 years, and yet new "Thomas Kinkade Studios" work with his signature (i.e. "in the style of Thomas Kinade") is still being produced by by his family, who are probably stoked to be able to use an AI to quickly create "new" works.
Uploading works by real human artists gives you a batch of results that resemble a reference board (mood board, inspiration board, etc) the artist could have been looking at while creating their original work of art. Obviously it’s not the actual reference board, the only way to get that is to ask the artist yourself, but it sure looks like what you’d expect their reference board to look like. This site is grift, of…
The only reference material it has is the training set. Most images are not actually retained in the model; but certain statistically significant or repeated images will be. So if the model is regurgitating a training set image, this will alert you to that fact. But you are correct that it is not strictly speaking "attribution". You still need a human to say whether or not the images are just "in the same style" or close enough to actually be a straight copy.
This is also only talking about the "type prompt, insert bacon" kind of AI art. There are plenty of people who are feeding other people's work into an AI as a sort of automated tracing tool, and this won't catch them if they're not tracing images that were in the training set. Unfortunately these are also the most egregious and awful abuses of AI art generators.
The story sounds like either satire or blatant misrepresentation of reality. The Internet was full of images without attribution way before Stable Diffusion appeared. Why do people feel compelled to invent nonsensical narratives to demonize AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is no different than professional calligraphers losing their jobs because of the printing press and then later due to customizable fonts on printers. I have a ton of respect for calligraphers and believe they are artists, but at the same time I don't think that the millions of people who create custom fonts or use custom fonts are doing a bad thing.
It's completely different. The customizable fonts did not violate copyright.