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

Post by csnover » Sun, Nov 05, 2023, 8:09 PM UTC

antifa wrote: post #438

csnover wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 livin…

> On the other hand, artists who adapt AI into their workflows This will benefit people who spam garbage 100x more than it will benefit the natural human desire to create art.

This part of the discussion is mainly about economics, not expression.

The parent argument was that AI will force artists to spend more time engaging in non-artistic pursuits because the amount of money the market will pay for artwork will go down. The counterpoint is that the amount of time the artist needs to spend on creating artwork is also reduced. In other words, if the market value for creating one artwork goes down by 50%, but the amount of time it takes also goes down by 50%, then there is no change except that the artist gets to double the amount of work they produce for the same amount of time.

Regarding the natural human desire to create art, unless you’re famous, making money as a creative involves mostly shitwork. Most commercial projects are just not very fun or interesting. Tools like generative AI can help to automate away a lot of the shitwork, so when the really interesting projects come along, they can be given more energy. This, to me, also seems like a win.

Post by csallen » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

xeckr wrote: post #434

csallen wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright law only gives owners limited power to decide how copies are used. Not unlimited power. They have the sole right to make, distribute, perform, or display copies of their work… but that's it. They can't forbid others from learning or training by viewing copies of their work. And there are also strong exceptions, notably Fair Use, which outlines situations that allow copyrighted works to be used without anyon…

Yes, I am a web programmer, and I understand that anytime you are using the internet you are downloading a copy of whatever content it is that you are accessing. You don't even have to invoke fair use here, as the copyright holder gives you the right to access a copy by putting it on the open internet. That does not mean that you automatically have a right to do whatever you please with this copy. If you want to redi…

I agree that copyright owners have rights. But what you're missing in your response is the fact that these rights are limited. And their limits are very specifically outlined by the law.

When it comes to their works, copyright owners have the right to block reproduction (e.g. making a copy), adaptation (e.g. turning a book into a movie version), distribution (e.g. selling copies), public performance, and public display. That's it. And there are even some important exceptions for Fair Use, too.

They can't block other things. There is no law granting them the power to do so.

For example. they can't stop me from talking about a copy of their work. They can't stop me from analyzing the copy. They can't stop me from learning from it. From describing it. From memorizing it. From looking at it whenever I want. From extracting lessons from it, or extracting patterns from it. Or from hiring a friend or a company to do these things for me. Or from writing a computer program that does these things. Etc.

It's perfectly legal for me to browse the web, look at copyrighted images that my browser has downloaded, study them, consider the patterns and techniques within them, and then re-use these same or similar techniques to create new art, so long as it's not so close to the original that it counts as a reproduction or adaptation. There is no power granted to copyright holders to limit my ability to do this, nor should their be.

This kind of inspired learning is the engine of societal creativity. Copyright was not created to kill this. Copyright was created to help artists profit from their exact work and its likeness, not to capture, own, and profit from inspiration that springs forth from the rest of society.

Yes, I get why it sucks for artists that the technology now exists for computers to also engage in the above process. But I still don't think we should be modifying or creating laws to stop that. Artists can adapt their business models, just like people in every other field when tech starts to compete. The world will be fine.

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

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