151–160 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I made a reasonable argument: the intent with Stable Diffusion is to do the same thing that many startups have done, i.e. break the law enough that you establish a dominant market position/raise a ton of money, but create enough externalities that the state has to intervene. Then, bribe politicians to legalize your former law breaking and to lock out any of your competitors. This is what myriad companies in the gig e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe anyone has a right to a monopoly on information, even if they created it. I don't believe in the validity of intellectual property in general. Even 5, 10, or 20 years is a compromise. The Library of Congress is just an example, I'm sure some international agreement could be made for an independent entity. As for the Berne Convention or TRIPS, I wasn't just talking about the US. The international copyr…
Here's a photograph I created nearly 20 years ago - https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Burney-Falls-1-H-43105... Why shouldn't I be the only one with the right to sell that image? The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery."
The real question is why should you? Copyright is not a natural right (if it was, it wouldn't require enforcement actions on people who never interacted with the original copy). It's a privilege meant to provide an incentive for artists (the effectiveness of which is questionable, even without taking into consideration the negative side-effects).
> The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery."
And that is entirely within your rights. But once your photo is disseminated into the public sphere, it's information that you no longer have control over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Artists own the art they created, they don't own the style that they might have invented.
Not necessarily under moral rights. Moral rights are... at best a mess. They can be very wide, very up to interpretation and vary depending on the country. They're essentially meant as the ultimate stop button for an artist if their works get used in a way the artist deeply disapproves of[0]. Actual interpretation can vary a lot and cloning an artists style as specifically as SD allows you to do (with "...in the styl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a reasonable argument: the intent with Stable Diffusion is to do the same thing that many startups have done, i.e. break the law enough that you establish a dominant market position/raise a ton of money, but create enough externalities that the state has to intervene. Then, bribe politicians to legalize your former law breaking and to lock out any of your competitors. This is what myriad companies in the gig e…
[flagged]
https://theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-rev...
Oh, but of course, only if I set aside the “kool-aid” of citing the examples of the dominant startup players of the past decade.
Perhaps you should, again, grow beyond your ideological name-calling to a rational engagement with the world, which actually involves everything I’ve described.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I would be surprised if they hadn't externalized that risk when they started their stock photo library. Generally, whenever a company buys a photo, there's a release form where the claimed-author of the photo has to state that they own the rights to the photo. So, the infringement is on the part of the seller, and you have a high barrier to sue Adobe for that.
No, you don’t, Adobe just has a low barrier to suck the source of the image into the case as an additio al defendano and a potential additional de¹1¹fense against any claim of willful infringement.
OTOH, Adobe would like potential plaintiffs to think that it works the way you describe.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily under moral rights. Moral rights are... at best a mess. They can be very wide, very up to interpretation and vary depending on the country. They're essentially meant as the ultimate stop button for an artist if their works get used in a way the artist deeply disapproves of[0]. Actual interpretation can vary a lot and cloning an artists style as specifically as SD allows you to do (with "...in the styl…
Has any artist ever successfully sued for relief where some other artist merely used their style?
In this case, you can reasonably consider that the strong stance that a good chunk of artists have taken about AI art, that using their work in these models is deliberately altering/distorting the work (Since training these models involves serializing the art down to patterns that can be replicated and iterated on) in a way that is damaging to their reputation.
As for whether or not relief has been granted, do keep in mind that requiring relief for a lawsuit is largely a US only thing. The court systems of other countries tend to lean more towards stop orders rather than immediately pulling out the financial compensation card. That's also the context in which moral rights exist - they are intended to be a stop order, not intended to be something you can financially gain from having it be violated (which is why they exist separate from economic rights, which are well... typical copyright stuff).
Do keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, US or otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It seems as if I live more in the “real world” than your fantasies about how the world of business actually operates: https://theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-rev... Oh, but of course, only if I set aside the “kool-aid” of citing the examples of the dominant startup players of the past decade. Perhaps you should, again, grow beyond your ideological name-calling to a rational engagement with the world,…
Or are you claiming that the word "lobby" in the phrase "attempts to lobby Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz and George Osborne" actually meant 'bribe'?
And despite you frantically scouring Google for something to backup your 'bribery' claims with, the above article ended up being the only thing you could find.
So basically, you essentially spent your own time to prove my point. Thanks.
I'll repeat again what I told you earlier: grow up and stop gorging yourself on conspiracy theories.
Signing off!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has any artist ever successfully sued for relief where some other artist merely used their style?
Largely irrelevant - like I said, moral rights exist in civil law countries, so these things will be pursued on a case by case basis rather than by existing precedent. They tend to deal with (quoting WP here) "The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation".[3] Anything else that may…
A issuing a ”stop order” (e.g., in US law, a permanent injunction or something similar) is granting relief, financial compensation isn’t the only kind fo relief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems as if I live more in the “real world” than your fantasies about how the world of business actually operates: https://theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-rev... Oh, but of course, only if I set aside the “kool-aid” of citing the examples of the dominant startup players of the past decade. Perhaps you should, again, grow beyond your ideological name-calling to a rational engagement with the world,…
I did a word search of the linked article you posted, and I didn't see a single incidence of the words 'bribe' or 'bribery' in it. Or are you claiming that the word "lobby" in the phrase "attempts to lobby Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz and George Osborne" actually meant 'bribe'? And despite you frantically scouring Google for something to backup your 'bribery' claims with, the above article ended up being the only thing you…