On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney • Hacker News Board

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#11

Post by wlesieutre » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:21 PM UTC

On the same topic from another webcomic: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/01/03/terminarter

(text commentary below the comic, in case your OS has decided to conceal the scroll bar from you and you didn't notice the page is longer)

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#12

Post by jmole » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:21 PM UTC

muststopmyths wrote: post #4

If 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.

And if so, should that non-commercial-use qualifier extend to works co/created with that AI?

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#13

Post by Wissenschafter » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:22 PM UTC

rimeice wrote: post #5

The 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.

It's pretty tiring hearing people think anything like what you're saying is going to happen. The horse is out of the barn already, deal with it.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#14

Post by rideontime » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:22 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #11

On the same topic from another webcomic: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/01/03/terminarter (text commentary below the comic, in case your OS has decided to conceal the scroll bar from you and you didn't notice the page is longer)

This would explain why I find midjourney art so hideous.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#15

Post by __loam » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:23 PM UTC

andy99 wrote: post #7

muststopmyths wrote: post #4

If 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.

We should note that whether AI training is actually fair use has yet to be tested in court. In particular, there's some wording in fair use about the effect on the market for the original and whether the derivative work can substitute for the original that I think a lot of programmers who blindly say this is fair use ignore. I am not a lawyer though.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#16

Post by encomiast » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:23 PM UTC

rimeice wrote: post #5

The 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.

> It applies.

If only saying it would make it so.

Unfortunately, it's not easy to make this legal argument given how copyright law only protects fixed, tangible expressions, not ideas, concepts, principles, etc. and has a gaping hole called 'fair use.'

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#17

Post by croes » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:23 PM UTC

andy99 wrote: post #7

muststopmyths wrote: post #4

If 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.

Making money from the trained model isn't fair use anymore.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#18

Post by esafak » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:24 PM UTC

ParetoOptimal wrote: post #2

Yeah, there really needs to be a solution to situations like this honestly.

It's called paying copyright owners -- artists. The economic model can be worked out, but it's not the status quo, where software companies take all the profit and artists are left with nothing.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#19

Post by MWil » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:24 PM UTC

mock-possum wrote: post #3

I 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?’

this is what I get explicitly asking for "Cat and Girl" in the style of Dorothy Gambrell.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1098302916395270235/1...

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#20

Post by ipsum2 » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:25 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #17

andy99 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use. Licenses like that are enforced under copyright, if the use is not subject to copyright, the license terms are irrelevant.

Making money from the trained model isn't fair use anymore.

No, fair use does not preclude making money.