It's pretty funny that most people that hate AI art and want it banned because of copyright violations, don't understand that the only difference that will make is that instead of having open models, you will only have closed models owned by Adobe who will license all the imagery from Getty, Disney, etc. AI art isn't going away, and it better be open instead of in full control of just 2 or 3 companies.
[flagged]
Do you also hate Human Artists who trained by viewing copies of your artwork and incorporating elements of your style into theirs? Do you sue all Human Artists that create art vaguely similar to yours?
Do you also hate Human Artists who trained by viewing copies of your artwork and incorporating elements of your style into theirs? Do you sue all Human Artists that create art vaguely similar to yours?
no because it's not done on an industrial scale
the purpose of producing art is for people to see it
not for some megacorp to ingest it on a huge scale to then make the entire concept of art redundant
It's pretty funny that most people that hate AI art and want it banned because of copyright violations, don't understand that the only difference that will make is that instead of having open models, you will only have closed models owned by Adobe who will license all the imagery from Getty, Disney, etc. AI art isn't going away, and it better be open instead of in full control of just 2 or 3 companies.
The AI process isn't going away, but suits like these will preserve the opportunity for artists and coders alike to get paid for their work or choose the terms under which it is shared.
Without enforcing copyright rules on AI, it may mean the end of copyright entirely.
I share a lot of images under CC-BY-SA-NC and share code under the GPL. If someone can train a model off my work and disregard the terms under which I have shared it, copyright is my only enforcement mechanism.
In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art that is really close to Picasso. He will lose in court because of IP. Now an AI does the same thing and suddenly no copyright ? What should be done maybe is explicitly asking for every art generated to ask to pay for it and this money goes for the copyrights. But…
nothing changes
if I create a picture with a style simiar to an existing picture/ artist who has IP on it, then I would get sued
should it be relevent how it was created, either by hand or using AI?
It's pretty funny that most people that hate AI art and want it banned because of copyright violations, don't understand that the only difference that will make is that instead of having open models, you will only have closed models owned by Adobe who will license all the imagery from Getty, Disney, etc. AI art isn't going away, and it better be open instead of in full control of just 2 or 3 companies.
Baffling to me they don't see this, attacking stable diffusion will only harm open and free AI tooling, megacorps will always just "unethically" train.
Also find it laughable that a lot of the most vocal artists against it make their money drawing characters they don't own anyway.
Approaching this as a designer so obviously these tools will impact me but as long as I can run them on my own hardware without paying tax to Adobe/OpenAI I can at least benefit.
It doesn't really matter if you can't put the AI back in the bottle so to speak. If (in the USA) it's found that AI generated images (based on copyrighted materials) are not fair use, then effectively it will be poisonous to use in your (USA-based) company. This will definitely prevent it from being mainstream. That being said, nothing is stopping Getty images, for example, from releasing their own image generator, t…
That's what Adobe Firefly is already doing, it's trained on Adobe Stock photos along with copyright-free content https://www.adobe.com/sensei/generative-ai/firefly.html
The tricky bit is that those stock photos include generative images too. Many of which aren't labeled as generative. So I wonder if theirs is already including potentially problematic content.
AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint? Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.
Yes that’s covered by law https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm... > Le droit moral de l’artiste est «perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible». Il est lié à la personne de l’auteur qui ne peut y renoncer ni le céder à autrui > The moral right of the artist is "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible". It is linked to the person of the author who can neither renounce it nor transfer it to a…
So you can be charged if you create a painting in the style of Picasso and try to sell it as a true Picasso work. Which is obvious. Nothing here says Picasso's style in of and itself can be copyrighted.
This is a pretty good summary of the complexity of the issue legally (worth reading the whole thing). The plaintiffs pretty clearly either don’t know how ML works or are deliberately misconstruing the facts. But the real question is how a judge and/or jury will look at this given how tricky the debate is (as evidenced by comments in the many posts about GPT-like models right here on HN). There are a lot of emotions a…
I see why you're saying what you are about the "facts," but I'm not at all convinced that it's so clear-cut that the plaintiffs are all that wrong. Which is to say, compare these models to e.g. simple image compression. If compressed images can violate, the argument that "this is merely VERY GOOD and VERSATILE image compression" probably has enough legal legs to do something with.
From the article: researchers were able to reproduce training images (and bad versions of them at that) 0.03 percent of the time. Not 3 percent, mind you, but 109 out of 350,000 images could be reproduced. And if you go back to the paper, these tended to be images which were heavily duplicated in the training set, so the failure modes should be easy to guard against...
>Building cutting-edge generative AI would require getting licenses from thousands—perhaps even millions—of copyright holders. The process would likely be so slow and expensive that only a handful of large companies could afford to do it. Even then, the resulting models likely wouldn’t be as good. And smaller companies might be locked out of the industry altogether. Isn't this what Adobe has done? The results are act…
An open AI, no matter how it's trained is inherently more "ethical" than any AI Adobe trains.
I'd rather a million artists have their work "stolen", including my own if it ensures future generations wont be locked into Adobe like my work is.
"legal earthquake" Why is everyone talking in apocalyptic terms about AI? A new legal framework will have to be constructed around this, just like with any new technology. Copyright holders will get relief or we don't have a legal system that works. Have we lost faith in our system so much that we think we live in a disaster movie?
Because it's good clickbait-generating content. Much like their picture of Mickey promoting a McDonald's.
Back in the 70's it was the population bomb and the coming ice age. I just wish they'd leave AI alone. I like it.