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

181–190 of 442 posts

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

#181

Post by gedy »

bakugo wrote: post #143
gedy wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just not that different from people seeing works and learning or being inspired, so how do you "ban AI" without adding more crazy DRM/DMCA stuff for legitimate use?

[flagged]

Look I consider myself an artist, and am very creative. But the vast majority of art and artists are following after other's previous work. It's really not that unique, and frankly why AI can generate some things so well - because everybody's doing it!

Artists who focus on truly new art aren't "in some AI" because it's unique or not easily reduced to some model weights.

The economics of all this are challenging for graphic artists and illustrators for sure!

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

#182

Post by jcranmer »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #178
jcranmer wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17 USC §411 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411 ): > Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),[1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. [NB:…

Exactly what I was baiting for and you took it: "there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material" Your point is exactly what people in power want. IT IS CODIFIED IN LAW that unless you go through a kafkaesque process, your work can be reused and you get no compensation for it. That is precisely the OPPOSITE of "just" and the law was written by capitalists fo…

So why are you angry at the judge and not Congress?

(Also, fwiw, your copyright registration being denied is sufficient to bring action. You just now have to plead why you have copyright despite the US Copyright Office disagreeing.)

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

#183

Post by ativzzz »

nologic01 wrote: post #172
marcinzm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? Because they enjoy it? Or do you see artists as some type of corporate drone who hates the very act of making art? That's like asking why anyone wo…

Excuse me? What moral and economic planet are you living on? Enjoyment is an important drive behind any creative person, so much is true. But at least part of the enjoyment comes from other people appreciating, acknowledging and, yes, remunerating that creative work. The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime…

> The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange.

The entire software industry is built on open source software written for free by other software devs

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

#184

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

marcinzm wrote: post #145
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument gets repeated often enough that it implies that there are a significant number of people who actually believe it. This is pretty depressing, as the only way you could think that a human is not fundamentally more capable of creativity than an LLM is if you are incapable of imagining anything other than a life of ‘consuming content’.

So specifically what is there except the sum total of our experiences and our genetics?

"Experiences" and "content" are not equivalent. To take a very simple example: Go outside. Look at some geraniums. There are probably other examples, but red geraniums are pretty common and cheap in temperate climates. If you've been looking at screens for a long time, geranium petals look impossibly red. Red roses also work. Why is that? Because they're a real physical object whose colour properties cannot be accurately reproduced in an image using standard RGB colour. Even after billions of dollars of R&D and decades of research, the best sensors and screens in the world cannot still accurately reproduce the simple act of looking at a flower. And yet here you are claiming that these models that've been fed nothing but digitised facsimiles that we know can't even accurately represent common situations are equivalent to the experiences of living beings?

Here's a common experience most people will have had: Think about what it feels like to slip and fall on a wet road and skin your palms on some gritty tarmac. Think about how many senses that involves, and how it's a basic experience most people have had. And now consider how we aren't even remotely close to the process of beginning to digitise such a basic experience.

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

#185

Post by myaccountonhn »

roenxi wrote: post #106
rvz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright is something we made up to extend the logic of commodities to the full value chain for books, which made sense 200 years ago. But it makes no sense to apply the logic of commodities to digitally produced and distributed media. Great! So given your articles are in the public domain on your website I can make millions out of it without given you a cent or direct credit and sources without paying you and can…

Anyone who programs for a living should be making whatever preparations are possible for being replaced by an AI. If AIs are good at art they'll be better at coding. I have sympathy for the artists, but frankly this is progress and it can't be stopped. The economics are so lop-sided in favour of silicon that the law won't be able to hold it back without crippling society at large. Artists aren't the only ones affecte…

> I have sympathy for the artists, but frankly this is progress and it can't be stopped.

Kinda sad that artists having their income even more crippled is seen as progress.

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

#186

Post by gumballindie »

kmeisthax wrote: post #55
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…

This is how moneyheads think the world works: that everything is a series of monetary incentives to be linked together to make an end result. Most humans don't actually think this way, and in specific a LOT of creative work is made without calculating exactly what the profit is going to be. This doesn't mean that artists don't want to be paid, but that artists focus on making their work first and monetizing it later.…

> This is how moneyheads

Yeah people need to pay bills and such. I know in communism that may seem unecessary but it is. AI fueled techno communism will fail as all other flavours of the same ideology. Can't take from the few and give to the many even if that's a digital product. What's mine is mine.

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

#187

Post by bawolff »

nologic01 wrote: post #172
marcinzm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? Because they enjoy it? Or do you see artists as some type of corporate drone who hates the very act of making art? That's like asking why anyone wo…

Excuse me? What moral and economic planet are you living on? Enjoyment is an important drive behind any creative person, so much is true. But at least part of the enjoyment comes from other people appreciating, acknowledging and, yes, remunerating that creative work. The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime…

But yet there are a great number of amatur artists where none of this is true and yet they still keep creating.

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

#188

Post by nologic01 »

naasking wrote: post #173
nologic01 wrote: post #134

Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…

> Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission Creative people will create regardless of financial incentives. Fan fiction and free art is already everywhere, for instance.

In your universe apparently "creative people" don't need to spend a lifetime of study to hone their art, don't need food and shelter every single day etc.

Its amazing how callous tech people have become as they salivate for their unicorns or whatever they are pursuing.

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

#189

Post by pkdpic »

naasking wrote: post #173
nologic01 wrote: post #134

Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…

> Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission Creative people will create regardless of financial incentives. Fan fiction and free art is already everywhere, for instance.

Agreed, working with generative AI tools at work and independently over the past year has only made me want to make weirder more personal paintings / drawings with less interest in mass appeal or artistic professional viability. It's felt unexpectedly liberating and inspiring.

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

#190

Post by Filligree »

chankstein38 wrote: post #158
czl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> warped versions of the Getty logo have shown up in a number of SD-generated images. If you create art that has a Pepsi logo on a depicted vending machine etc Pepsi has no copyright claim on your art does it? All it shows is the art was made with the knowledge of the logo and the logo was included as an element inside the art. When logos are shown in a context that may cause confusion (about who made a product etc)…

So I'm only guessing here but my thought is because a Pepsi logo just indicates that the input image was an ad, a Getty Images logo means that the input images were owned by Getty and likely used without their consent.

We know input images were used without consent. That’s not in question, it just also isn’t all that relevant.
Post reply on HN