Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stable Attribution

stableattribution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#71

Post by coastermug »

friedman23 wrote: post #62
gitfan86 wrote: post #56

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.

Incidentally, copyright law etc on fonts is very interesting. Many places license their fonts via in-page JavaScript. However, I believe that such a protection against the font designer doesn’t necessarily apply if for instance you use the font to create a logo. ( I’m sure I’ve missed some nuance here.)

Re: Stable Attribution

#72

Post by timmaxw »

jxf wrote: post #17
throwaway-blaze wrote: post #11

I was taught to paint by instructors, and then refined my abilities by studying paintings of the old masters, right down to their brushwork and core techniques visible in the paintings to all who see them. Now I go and create a painting called Sunflowers. Does Van Gogh's estate own some of my work?

No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut. What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh or to pretend that you don't know what you practiced on.

> No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut.

But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right?

> What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh

Stable Diffusion is definitely not claiming that it didn't train on human artists.

Re: Stable Attribution

#73

Post by josephg »

friedman23 wrote: post #62
gitfan86 wrote: post #56

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.

That’s a sloppy answer. Right and wrong isn’t defined by how copyright law is written right now.

That’s kind of the whole point of this debate. Should we change the laws and if so, how?

Re: Stable Attribution

#74

Post by strangescript »

I am influenced by everything I have ever seen, read, or heard. No one is asking me to attribute where my influences came from when I create something.

Yes, AI is still a bit crude now, but in 10 years this is going to like an old man yelling at the wind.

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/an-unrestrai...

Re: Stable Attribution

#75

Post by mrtksn »

josephg wrote: post #65
mrtksn wrote: post #46

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…

The core of your concern (& argument) seems to be the problem of existing business models becoming disrupted by this technology. 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 dra…

Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine.

As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated.

I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.

Re: Stable Attribution

#76

Post by mrtksn »

XorNot wrote: post #63
mrtksn wrote: post #46

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 presumes the "style" is unique. It probably is, but it's also influenced by what was already out there. 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 mu…

> This presumes the "style" is unique

Doesn't presume such thing.

Re: Stable Attribution

#77

Post by stonith »

mrtksn wrote: post #46
goldemerald wrote: post #8

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…

> So let's say, if an artist developed a particular style and someone wants to hire them for a business project like a game they can't feasibly just learn that style and use it so they hire the artist. Later other people catch on this style and develop over it. It only works because monetising through copying the style is not very feasible.

I don't think copying an art style is that hard. Professional artists in your example of the game industry can absolutely imitate each other upon request. If using the same style as another artist were so difficult games with multiple artists wouldn't have a coherent art style, but they do because the studio will develop a style guide and use their senior artists to guide the juniors.

> How is the artist supposed to be compensated for spending years of developing that style?

They haven't been in the past and they shouldn't be. They're compensated for the specific works they produce which are granted copyright. This is a good thing because otherwise the artistic domain would be horrendously polluted with claims, and producing original art would be like navigating a legal minefield.

Re: Stable Attribution

#78

Post by mrtksn »

stonith wrote: post #77
mrtksn wrote: post #46

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…

> So let's say, if an artist developed a particular style and someone wants to hire them for a business project like a game they can't feasibly just learn that style and use it so they hire the artist. Later other people catch on this style and develop over it. It only works because monetising through copying the style is not very feasible. I don't think copying an art style is that hard. Professional artists in your…

> hey haven't been in the past and they shouldn't be

So what's your suggestion, free food and housing for the artistic types or mercy killings?

Re: Stable Attribution

#79

Post by fastball »

friedman23 wrote: post #62
gitfan86 wrote: post #56

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.

Stable Diffusion isn't violating copyright for the same reason artists aren't violating copyright when they look at a bunch of images and make something similar.

Re: Stable Attribution

#80

Post by beepbooptheory »

throwaway-blaze wrote: post #11

I was taught to paint by instructors, and then refined my abilities by studying paintings of the old masters, right down to their brushwork and core techniques visible in the paintings to all who see them. Now I go and create a painting called Sunflowers. Does Van Gogh's estate own some of my work?

I doubt even then you could make a work that would be worthwhile enough that any lawyer could care, but just because you are doing it for the wrong reasons (to prove a point). You need to live a full life and have passion to make art like Van Gogh.

Its not simply that he had good technique. Its that he felt something deep down. He felt it ever since he was a child, and made constant and frustrating (to him) attempts to then manifest that feeling. He would sometimes linger by a roadside too long and become his own little philosopher, seeing a new treatise in the ebb and flow of landscape from the sky. He had loves and heartbreak and fantasies, and found no other place to recover from those things than in patient work with the canvas. His whole life was a sacrifice, a sacred devotion to the spirit of humanity only art can capture so thoroughly and universally. You can't just do that.

Post reply on HN