On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
1–10 of 957 posts
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#2Yeah, there really needs to be a solution to situations like this honestly.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#3I have no patience for midjourney’s hacky-ass discord interface so - is anyone with access able to weigh in on how effectively one can generate images aping the style of ‘cat and girl?’
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#4If the artist's license was for non-commercial use, isn't using it for training an AI for commercial use a clear violation ?
I would love to know why not.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#5The sooner anyone making profit from models trained on creators proprietary content start paying for the content they’re using the better for creators, society and even the AI companies. It’s pretty tiring hearing people argue about whether copyright law applies to AI companies or not. It applies. Just get on and sort out a proper licensing model.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#6If the artist's license was for non-commercial use, isn't using it for training an AI for commercial use a clear violation ? I would love to know why not.
Fair use, if it does indeed apply, doesn't care about license
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#7If the artist's license was for non-commercial use, isn't using it for training an AI for commercial use a clear violation ? I would love to know why not.
Fair use. Licenses like that are enforced under copyright, if the use is not subject to copyright, the license terms are irrelevant.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#8If the artist's license was for non-commercial use, isn't using it for training an AI for commercial use a clear violation ? I would love to know why not.
Fair use is an argument to explain why you violated the license/copyright. It relies on the fact that you did make a copy without permission.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#9The argument here seems more mad at the decline of the ability of an individual to promote their work on social media channels (which is indeed a problem that's getting worse for reasons unrelated to generative AI) rather than losing money to people making AI art with Midjourney.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#10The sooner anyone making profit from models trained on creators proprietary content start paying for the content they’re using the better for creators, society and even the AI companies. It’s pretty tiring hearing people argue about whether copyright law applies to AI companies or not. It applies. Just get on and sort out a proper licensing model.
s/profit/any revenue what so ever