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

Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 442 posts

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#21

Post by alphanullmeric »

gumballindie wrote: post #20
alphanullmeric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.

Well, by law, i do and you do owe me royalties. Hopefully these people hire better lawyers next time. Also people tend to get upset when their ownership of things is violated, pixels or otherwise.

Sure then, by law I could have had slaves too. Glad you’re honest about the side of history you sit on.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#22

Post by zirgs »

gamblor956 wrote: post #15
artninja1988 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. How do you see the Getty v stability lawsuit going? That looks much worse for stability. Do you think they will just settle and stability will pay them some licensing fee?

Getty has a much stronger case, given that warped versions of the Getty logo have shown up in a number of SD-generated images, so it's obvious that there was impermissible copying. I'm not sure Stability will agree to a licensing fee, since part of the rationale for the last version of SD was to remove the infringing images from their training sets going forward.

I've never seen a getty logo in any of my generated images so I suspect that they used img2img or some weird prompt.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#23

Post by zirgs »

gumballindie wrote: post #18
alphanullmeric wrote: post #7

Intellectual property shouldn’t be a thing. If you still have it after I’ve supposedly stolen it from you, then it’s not real property. The easiest test of consistency is simply to ask about both piracy and AI training data. If you support IP in one case but not the other then you’re a hypocrite. There is no third option where your support of something depends not on what it is but who it benefits.

You do realise that if people’s intellectual work is not protected there wont be any intellectual work left, right? Why would i create something knowing you can just grab it and use it? Communism did the same to physical property, where you didnt own much and everything belonged to everyone. That didnt end particularly well because people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation. Sur…

Copyright activists really lost a lot of respect because of those silly music industry lawsuits, the mickey mouse protection act, software patents of trivial stuff and the like.

This lawsuit is even sillier than the previous ones.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#24

Post by anigbrowl »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #19
gumballindie wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise that if people’s intellectual work is not protected there wont be any intellectual work left, right? Why would i create something knowing you can just grab it and use it? Communism did the same to physical property, where you didnt own much and everything belonged to everyone. That didnt end particularly well because people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation. Sur…

And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.

Do you think the creator of a piece of art has any rights whatsoever? You're basically endorsing the idea that if you stumble across some original work that you're able to make a copy of, there's nothing wrong with falsely declaring yourself the author of it and collecting money from anyone you can trick into believing this.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#25

Post by gumballindie »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #21
gumballindie wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, by law, i do and you do owe me royalties. Hopefully these people hire better lawyers next time. Also people tend to get upset when their ownership of things is violated, pixels or otherwise.

Sure then, by law I could have had slaves too. Glad you’re honest about the side of history you sit on.

The concept of intellectual property came about at the same time that slavery was fading away. Essentially at the time when people progressed into something better than basic primates that thought enslaving one another is a good idea. So technically speaking advocates for the abolition of copyright are projecting a reversal of progress. I want actual ai that actually learns and that doesnt rely on brute forcing simulated intelligence using a clever mix of people’s ideas. By tolerating this fakery you are really just handing over the bastardisation of the holy grail of tech - ai - to a handful of grifters who’s success relies on taking what’s mine for free and giving it to others for a fee. At scale and with government protection.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#26

Post by alphanullmeric »

gumballindie wrote: post #25
alphanullmeric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure then, by law I could have had slaves too. Glad you’re honest about the side of history you sit on.

The concept of intellectual property came about at the same time that slavery was fading away. Essentially at the time when people progressed into something better than basic primates that thought enslaving one another is a good idea. So technically speaking advocates for the abolition of copyright are projecting a reversal of progress. I want actual ai that actually learns and that doesnt rely on brute forcing simul…

Irrelevant. You said “it’s the law”. I responded with “it’s the law”. You lack consistency, more at 12.

I already made it clear in my original comment that unlike you, my position on IP holds universally and not just in situations that benefit me. The fact that you continue to try to argue how beneficial it would be to have IP makes me believe that you simply do not care about being consistent, so I’d like to hear it from you personally. You believe in IP when it comes to stopping AI but not when it prevents you from pirating, agree or disagree? If I don’t get a one word answer I’ll answer for you.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#27

Post by eindiran »

gumballindie wrote: post #25
alphanullmeric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure then, by law I could have had slaves too. Glad you’re honest about the side of history you sit on.

The concept of intellectual property came about at the same time that slavery was fading away. Essentially at the time when people progressed into something better than basic primates that thought enslaving one another is a good idea. So technically speaking advocates for the abolition of copyright are projecting a reversal of progress. I want actual ai that actually learns and that doesnt rely on brute forcing simul…

This notion that the creators and artists are raking up the wealth generated by people consuming their creations is obviously wrong. Intellectual property in general, but especially copyright, has been a colossal failure -- rent-seeking middlemen have emerged to swallow up the financial dividends of the creative. The idea that someone can sell access to your work without you being rewarded is ALREADY how things work. Copyright as it stands is just a way to give rent-seeking middlemen a moat, not a protection for creatives.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#28

Post by alphanullmeric »

anigbrowl wrote: post #24
alphanullmeric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.

Do you think the creator of a piece of art has any rights whatsoever? You're basically endorsing the idea that if you stumble across some original work that you're able to make a copy of, there's nothing wrong with falsely declaring yourself the author of it and collecting money from anyone you can trick into believing this.

You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels. Do you believe copying is force? That’s a yes or no question, and if I don’t get a yes or no answer then I’ll answer for you.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#29

Post by ChadNauseam »

anigbrowl wrote: post #24
alphanullmeric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.

Do you think the creator of a piece of art has any rights whatsoever? You're basically endorsing the idea that if you stumble across some original work that you're able to make a copy of, there's nothing wrong with falsely declaring yourself the author of it and collecting money from anyone you can trick into believing this.

Tangential question, but if I buy a copy of Hamlet by someone claiming to have written it, are they not committing fraud?

(Regardless, a “solution” to the problem of copyright that destroys people’s ability to profitably write books or make movies seems silly to me)

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#30

Post by ChadNauseam »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #28
anigbrowl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the creator of a piece of art has any rights whatsoever? You're basically endorsing the idea that if you stumble across some original work that you're able to make a copy of, there's nothing wrong with falsely declaring yourself the author of it and collecting money from anyone you can trick into believing this.

You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels. Do you believe copying is force? That’s a yes or no question, and if I don’t get a yes or no answer then I’ll answer for you.

> You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels.

This just sounds like your opinion, why do you think this? I really like that people can profitably write books and make movies and I think some force to allow that to happen seems reasonable.

Post reply on HN