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

331–340 of 442 posts

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

#331

Post by xeckr »

thrill wrote: post #154
panta wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of scale. No human being can ingest ALL existing images. If it was the case that the average human artist was able to replicate any other work, without effort, probably we would have had two effects: first, we'd have much less works of art (because the gains would have been eliminated, so why bother), and second, copyright law would have been much more restrictive. This is exactly what we should do: avo…

The law does not say it is a matter of scale.

Scalable GenAI hardly existed as a sci-fi concept when the law was passed.

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

#332

Post by hunter2_ »

corethree wrote: post #292
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 accura…

Sure but the minute you look at copywrited work you made a copy of it in your brain and have broken the law.

Isn't the more severe offense, and the one relevant here, more about distributing a recording than making a recording? Nobody will care if your brain has a copyrighted melody saved in it, but they'll care if you start putting it (or something substantially equivalent) all over the place where others can obtain it.

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

#333

Post by theonlybutlet »

panta wrote: post #77
ballenf wrote: post #66

Can someone explain again how an ML system scanning and training on a copyrighted work is different from a highly skilled artist doing the same? There are artists that can study a painting for a few minutes and then recreate it from memory. There are artists who study a particular body of work so long that they can create more works indistinguishable in style. If an artist recreates a copyrighted work or creates a de…

It's a matter of scale. No human being can ingest ALL existing images. If it was the case that the average human artist was able to replicate any other work, without effort, probably we would have had two effects: first, we'd have much less works of art (because the gains would have been eliminated, so why bother), and second, copyright law would have been much more restrictive. This is exactly what we should do: avo…

What you propose is just a different small set of monopolistic players. Copyright has always been a trade off between the creator and society. It should be enforced the exact same way as it currently is. Fair use is fair use. By your same logic, what is the difference between an AI or a very productive human? Where do you draw the line?

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

#334

Post by theonlybutlet »

raincole wrote: post #115
ballenf wrote: post #66

Can someone explain again how an ML system scanning and training on a copyrighted work is different from a highly skilled artist doing the same? There are artists that can study a painting for a few minutes and then recreate it from memory. There are artists who study a particular body of work so long that they can create more works indistinguishable in style. If an artist recreates a copyrighted work or creates a de…

> how an ML system scanning and training on a copyrighted work is different from a highly skilled artist doing the same? You just answered it? One is a ML system and one is a human? I'm really, really baffled why people keep using this argument. Like you guys know machines are not humans, right? ...right? Humans are special cases in laws. Always have been and always will be (until AGI). A pedestrian is treated differ…

In law there is such a thing as legal person as opposed to natural person. When it comes to commercial law, its provisions tends to relate to legal persons.

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

#335

Post by theonlybutlet »

kranke155 wrote: post #110
shkkmo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why isn't it that an artist could say, hey I'm letting you see this painting, but you are not allowed to sit down with a canvas and learn how to reproduce it? Because you can do that in galleries - no photos, no reproductions. But you can't stop people from sitting and studying your painting and then painting stuff similar to it. One of the core assertions that is being decided in this case is if there is any actua…

I find the whole comparison "it´s just like a person learning" to be a tiring trope. It's demonstrably not. Like I said to another poster - you've probably seen a Picasso. Can you make me a copy? Because a Diffusion model can. But you can't. Why not? Your denial that there is a demonstrable difference between human and machine attention is part of the core obfuscation these companies are using to win this battle, so…

So do you put a sign outside your gallery, "No Savants"?

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

#336

Post by joquarky »

kranke155 wrote: post #276
EnergyAmy wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your job will only be replaced if you're unwilling to adapt. It's like saying that C made assembly programmers obsolete. There's a lot fewer people programming in assembly, but the correct view is that there's a lot more programmers now than there were in the days that you had to know assembly. "Under the cover of darkness and without permission" implies quite a bit, but you're coming at it from the wrong angle, whic…

This is a completely misled interpretation of events, since automating my work to the scale of generative AI, there won't be any work left for humans. This "but progress" argument is tiring. The Industrial Revolution was a complete failure if you measure quality of life in its first decades. It got turned around by people who you know, fought back, created unions, and demanded fair pay.

> This "but progress" argument is tiring

But progress is part of the foundational purpose of copyright:

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

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

#337

Post by theonlybutlet »

kranke155 wrote: post #208
shkkmo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have a general AI, it sees someone wearing a t-shirt containing a licensed, copyrighted image. This AI now needs to pay the copyright holder of that image? How I think it should work is the sa.e for any other intelligent system. Systems can view publicly available images, memorize them, and even reproduce them for certain fair uses. The systems have to pay for a license to right holders for the non fair uses o…

You're saying it sees someone as if AI is walking around and this all happened by random chance. No. What happened was AI scientists deliberately built a giant corpus of training data based off unlicensed imagery that was conveniently pre-tagged - Artstation and other sites of the same type. And it was trained to deliberately create images of the exact same type as it was ingesting. It wasn't "randomly learning about…

By that same logic, would the manufacturer of my monitor be liable for displaying the unlicensed image at my request? It's a tool. The end user, inputting variables into the model is generating that image.

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

#338

Post by MacsHeadroom »

kranke155 wrote: post #210
rpdillon wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is just leveraging value in the data that wasn't used before. In the same way we can automate jobs by watching how the human workers do the job, we can automate writing text or producing a picture. As we drive to work, we do so so we can get to work, but cameras on other vehicles watch us drive, and take all the judgement and learning we put into driving to try and create automated drivers. Should all drivers be c…

>Should all drivers be compensated when their driving style is used to train an autonomous vehicle? Yes.

That's plainly ridiculous.

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

#339

Post by csnover »

raynr wrote: post #220
csallen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I despise the underlying belief here. That belief that the only reason people create art is based on desires for fame and monetary gain. Which is so demonstrably incorrect that it boggles my mind. This is where centuries of copyright law have gotten us, brainwashing people into thinking ideas are property ("intellectual property") and should be treated as rivalrous goods, and that the only reason to be an artist is t…

I didn't get that from the poster you're replying to. I agree with you that people will create because people are people and want to create. But people also have to eat, need shelter, want kids, have to take care of health issues, and so on. For that they need money. If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.

> If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.

On the other hand, artists who adapt AI into their workflows will have vastly improved productivity, so the amount of time they need to create new works can also be much smaller for the same amount of output.

There will still be some artists who can avoid using AI and make a living, but like all skilled industries that have already been disrupted by automation, the market for that kind of work will become smaller and more exclusive, and that’s probably OK. Live musicians were the only way to get music on the radio, or in the cinema, or at a party, until audio recordings decimated the industry[0]. You can still buy hand-made furniture, or clothing, or cars, but most people today get them from a factory.

I do think there are serious issues with large players attempting to corner the market and extract all the wealth for themselves, but this is an old problem[1], and I think on balance these lawsuits perpetuate, rather than attempt to solve, the root problem: a missing social safety net and no guarantee that people will not have to scramble to survive every time a disruptive technology emerges.

[0] https://timeline.com/live-musicians-were-so-terrified-of-rec...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

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

#340

Post by satvikpendem »

RavingGoat wrote: post #317
tiahura wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That there has been a steady march forward in the quality of judicial output. There are still dumb judges and crooked judges, but overall, my experience is that younger judges are more willing to listen and be educated than judges of yesteryear. Additionally, Westlaw is hated by all for its pricing, but it’s almost impossible to comprehend how significantly it’s improved, and equalized, legal research.

I can only assume that you aren't in the US because that couldn't be further from the truth here.

Upon what basis are you saying this? Because just saying "that couldn't be further from the truth here" doesn't mean anything concretely.
Post reply on HN