Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

catandgirl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 957 posts

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

#91

Post by grotorea »

ben_w wrote: post #71
madeofpalk wrote: post #36

> But I can't even get cartoons to most people for free now, without doing unpaid work for the profit-making companies who own the most use channels of communication This is the sticking point for me. OpenAI isn't a profit-making company, but it's certainly a valuable company. A valuable company that is built from the work of content others created without transferring any value back to them. Regardless of legalities…

> Put it this way - you remove all the copyrighted, permission-less content from OpenAIs training, what value does OpenAI have? What you probably get is a LLM that can perfectly understand well written text as you might find on Wikipedia, but which would struggle severely with colloquial language of the kind found on Reddit and Twitter. > then it should give some of that value back to the content. That's literally bu…

Can it train on the Wikipedia meta community? Maybe we could get an LLM that talks like "You're wrong, see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WTF".

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

#92

Post by nightski »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #76
Minor49er wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better explanation is that the vast majority of users don't try any prompt parameters or different styles and just rely on its default settings

Nah. Even the "good" stuff feels cheap. It's the art version of ho-hos and twinkies. Every once in a while I see one and think, "oh, neat, wonder how they got it to do that?", but usually I'm just left slightly queasy and with a bad taste.

Then it's no problem right? Or are you just in a minority.

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

#93

Post by caconym_ »

surfingdino wrote: post #31

AI business model is that of a school bully who a) steals a cup of lemonade from your lemonade stand, b) drinks it, c) pees into the cup, d) sells it to others, e) convinces the cheerleaders to go around telling everyone that you are not going to be able to make or sell your own lemonade anymore.

It's a perfect example of the "if you're making a shitload of money, whatever you're doing to make it must be okay" rationalization that pervades SV and America in general.

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

#95

Post by rideontime »

twism wrote: post #62
rideontime wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that they no longer have a choice not to enrich profit-seeking companies with their unpaid labor, because by posting to those sites, you're generating the content they place their ads beside. And then pointing out that at least with social media, they had a choice in the matter, while AI scrapers just take it, wherever they might have posted it.

going to take some HN karma hit for this but i just don't get it. the price of anything you sell (or do not wish to give away for free) is not how much it cost to build but how much someone else is willing to pay for it. If you think the work is so great. charge for it. let the market decide. i think twitter/x does this now somewhat. how is this not similar to thinking google owes me money because my tweet appeared i…

You seem to be missing the point. The artist has already compromised their personal ethics by choosing to post their work to social media. Now, with AI, they don't even have a choice in the matter.

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

#96

Post by ska »

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.

Fair use is a defence you can use when you infringe copyright [edit for clarity] or in other words the action you take would otherwise infringe.

It's not fair use because you want it to be, and it's not at all legally clear if this defence is valid in the case of AI training. But it's not clear it isn't, either.

This is basically what all the noise and PR money is about, currently, in hope that shaping the narrative will shape the legal decisions.

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

#97

Post by seshagiric »

An independent artist who was already struggling now got bamboozled by Midjourney. Instead of listing the Artist somewhere in the midst of a million attributions, every instance Midjourney draws a cartoon in the Artist's style should at least have a (clickable link) attribution to the artist's website.

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

#98

Post by spencerflem »

twism wrote: post #62
rideontime wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that they no longer have a choice not to enrich profit-seeking companies with their unpaid labor, because by posting to those sites, you're generating the content they place their ads beside. And then pointing out that at least with social media, they had a choice in the matter, while AI scrapers just take it, wherever they might have posted it.

going to take some HN karma hit for this but i just don't get it. the price of anything you sell (or do not wish to give away for free) is not how much it cost to build but how much someone else is willing to pay for it. If you think the work is so great. charge for it. let the market decide. i think twitter/x does this now somewhat. how is this not similar to thinking google owes me money because my tweet appeared i…

If they don't link to you, but instead take the content of the link and show it alongside ads, they do owe you money, at least in some jurisdictions.

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

#99

Post by mattgreenrocks »

Jasper_ wrote: post #41
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.

> "The bottom line is this," the firm, known as a16z, wrote. "Imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will either kill or significantly hamper their development." > The firm said payment for all of the copyrighted material already used in LLMs would cost the companies that built them "tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year in royalty payments." https://www.bus…

Starting a business is huge amounts of risk to begin with. Just because you may lose more doesn't mean you're magically exempt from being able to ignore that.

Watching the superstars of venture capital whine that copyright is unfair is quite something, though.

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

#100

Post by jdiff »

eigenket wrote: post #55
encomiast wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.'

The new York Times has examples where GPT will reproduce world for word exactly paragraphs of their (copyrighted) text if you ask it to. That's a pretty fixed tangible expression I think.

MidJourney, too.

https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466

It's frankly impressive how well this image is embedded in the weights of their model, down to tufts of hair. And it's far from the only one.

Post reply on HN