This is _exactly_ how it looks when a society commits suicide.
Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
41–50 of 321 posts
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#42I'm going to try to plead my case for images generated using sophisticated prompt engineering to be copyrightable. For example, at the point that I've written a prompt with 20 tags, 10 negative prompt tags, some loras, custom weights, embeddings merges, and prompt editing, I'm now writing what is effectively a "program", which should be copyrightable and so should its outputs. It's total BS to me that a book of midjo…
The training model for Stable Diffusion has a lot of copyrighted images mixed together into an output which makes the plagiarism non-obvious, but let's reduce the set by 1 image. Shouldn't affect the output too much, right? Maybe some prompt will have a slightly different image. Now let's reduce it by another image. Again, less options for what to display, fewer images to take pixels from, but still a lot of options,…
You are describing transformative use, which is permitted. Otherwise I could create a picture with every possible RGB pixel and then claim all other artists are infringing on 0.1% of my work.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#43I’ve made so much money stacking my pitch decks and websites with AI generated media that I don't care if someone copy and pastes it and uses it commercially too People married to their prompt engineering outputs are really missing the forest for the trees
An entire forest of hallucinated trees, sounds tranquil yet disturbing.
[flagged]
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then yes, it is about the human input into the process. Thats what I just said. Having large amounts of human input is the thing that matters for this stuff, which is the case for many forms of AI art. In the same way how photoshop uses a computer, and the computer creates the art, the resulting computer generate art can still have copyright protections. (because of the large amount of human input, even though yes…
The product of your human work is the input, not the ai generated image. You are merely commissioning some system to do the work on which you have very little actual future authorship except the commission. For art we don't grant the copyright to someone commissioning work, they have to negotiate with the artist for that. But your artist is not human, so cannot create copyrightable works, so you can't even bargain fo…
> The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them.
In your opinion then, using this same line of logic, Photoshop is not protected.
The courts disagree with you though.
Using your line of logic, you could say that the computer is authoring the work using Photoshop.
It is the computer printing out the picture using bits and bytes. That's not a human! That a computer program named photoshop!
Then follow the exact line of logic from there.
> characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain,
We know this to be false though, because a character created by Photoshop is done on a computer though.
Therefore, it is clear that yes a machine can be used in the process, unless you are going to claim that Photoshop is not protected because it is run on a computer.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#45I'm going to try to plead my case for images generated using sophisticated prompt engineering to be copyrightable. For example, at the point that I've written a prompt with 20 tags, 10 negative prompt tags, some loras, custom weights, embeddings merges, and prompt editing, I'm now writing what is effectively a "program", which should be copyrightable and so should its outputs. It's total BS to me that a book of midjo…
The training model for Stable Diffusion has a lot of copyrighted images mixed together into an output which makes the plagiarism non-obvious, but let's reduce the set by 1 image. Shouldn't affect the output too much, right? Maybe some prompt will have a slightly different image. Now let's reduce it by another image. Again, less options for what to display, fewer images to take pixels from, but still a lot of options,…
How does this square with something like Cariou v Prince? http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is why we should halt AI completely and do a more thorough analysis of its societal-level implications before blindingly putting it out there. Because when new technology is introduced, it makes it almost impossible to stop using it due to the way our current society is setup (as a sensitive machine that is very quick to reward any gains in efficieny and economic output as opposed to sustainability).
Define AI.
This isn't a math quiz. For practical purposes, we can start with a list of technologies that are clearly harmful. Generative AI like ChatGPT, AI image generators, AI text generators that write something based on a prompt, etc. all halted.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#47I'm going to try to plead my case for images generated using sophisticated prompt engineering to be copyrightable. For example, at the point that I've written a prompt with 20 tags, 10 negative prompt tags, some loras, custom weights, embeddings merges, and prompt editing, I'm now writing what is effectively a "program", which should be copyrightable and so should its outputs. It's total BS to me that a book of midjo…
The training model for Stable Diffusion has a lot of copyrighted images mixed together into an output which makes the plagiarism non-obvious, but let's reduce the set by 1 image. Shouldn't affect the output too much, right? Maybe some prompt will have a slightly different image. Now let's reduce it by another image. Again, less options for what to display, fewer images to take pixels from, but still a lot of options,…
This viewpoint is about as coherent as "every image file is copyright infringing because every pixel in it exists somewhere in some other image somewhere".
Derivative works, when substantially changed, are not infringing. If I take an image of the Mona Lisa and rearrange all its pixels so it looks like a picture of a cat, that's not infringement.
If I sample lines and curves and colors and styles from several images and make something new, that's not infringement.
The actual problem with image models is that they can sometimes be coaxed into outputting images that are quite similar to an image they were trained on. That constitutes infringement.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#48Creative works are incompatible with capitalism. We’ve create a thin finicky interface between them with copyright laws, but it hardly works. I’m not saying artists and creators shouldn’t have financial security in this system, quite the opposite. I don’t have a better idea, but I hope we can come up with something that doesn’t conflate ownership with attribution and also protects the livelihood of people who want to share their creations.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#49I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
My problem with this is that artists learn by studying other artists, cutting that off because it's AI rather than focusing on whether the resulting work is derivative, seems more of a problem to me. It seems to me that an AI can be used for either original work or derivatives, proving that you can get derivatives out of it has always struck me as no different than commissioning a copy of someone's work from a human artist and being shocked that you got what you asked for.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#50I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
> This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its sources that allows this sort of transformation and presentation
That is a fairly illogical leap. From your text alone, “should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material” would be: “the AI’s maintainer should have a fairly reliable (but not infallible) system to output how likely it generated something that is a direct derivative work of something in its dataset”. As a human you don’t need to attribute/license every piece of art you’ve seen of clouds if you draw a cloud. So if an AI draws a cloud that is actually derivative of the millions of clouds it has seen, then it doesn’t need any permission from the millions of creators to draw one either.