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

241–250 of 957 posts

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

#241

Post by soulofmischief »

fragmede wrote: post #226
Aeolun wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I read a lot of stories in a certain genre that I like, and I later write my own story, it’s almost by definition going to be a mish-mash of everything I like. Should I pay the authors of the books I read when I sell mine?

Did you not pay them when you bought their book to read it in the first place? That dead trees don't lend themselves to that sort of payoff is a limitation of the technology. In music, sampling is a well-accepted mechanism for creating new music, and the original authors of the music they used do get paid when the new one is used.

No, I bought the books used for 25 cents at a local booksale, and the authors did not benefit from my secondary market transaction.

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

#242

Post by itronitron »

theLiminator wrote: post #144

I'm not sure how to feel about this, ultimately any work you put on the internet can be used in a way to enrichen other people. If you write free software, if you write a poem, if you draw art, etc. People will be free to heavily copy or be inspired by your work (and the distinction between copy and inspire is very muddy/gray). The real question is about the scale and how "original" ai works are. Does generative ai e…

Let's say I develop an AI that is trained on all of the software IDEs in existence and then make the AI available for people to generate their own IDE from a set of prompts, like "jetbrains python" or "visual studio". As the developer of the AI model am I at all accountable if people use specific prompts to generate copycats of proprietary IDEs?

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

#243

Post by brigadier132 »

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.

> The new York Times has examples where GPT will reproduce world for word exactly paragraphs of their (copyrighted) text if you ask it to

You are forgetting the massive asterisk that you need to provide multiple paragraphs of the original article in order to get verbatim output from chatgpt. In what world are people doing that to avoid paying the NYT?

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

tedivm wrote: post #185
bawolff wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Put it this way - you remove all the copyrighted, permission-less content from OpenAIs training, what value does OpenAI's products have? If you think OpenAI is less valuable because it can't use copyrighted content, then it should give some of that value back to the content Couldn't we say the same thing about search engines? What value would google have without content to search for? Is the conclusion we should ma…

Search engines don't replicate the content, they index and point to it. When search engines have been caught replicating content they have been sued or had to work out licenses.

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by rideontime »

WesternMAGeek wrote: post #154
chrisknyfe wrote: post #88

Those of you who are desperately trying to soften the blow - "they're talking about facebook, not OpenAI", "it's fair use, the license terms are irrelevant", "nothing has been taken from them" - you need to allow yourself to think the thought that maybe your AI startup's business model is only valuable because of theft. You need to let yourself entertain the idea that maybe you are only getting paid a cushy tech sala…

And those who are getting paid those great tech salaries, should be willing to send 100% of their paychecks to artists while they code for free. Because . . . they're not creating value with their code. It took them years to learn how to code well. All that effort should be contributed to the world for free.

Good point! The software engineers whose work was used to train Copilot, etc. should also be getting paid.

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

#247

Post by throwboatyface »

dmazzoni wrote: post #167
KaiserPro wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to have been added to something like MidJourney. The thing they are railing against is that they can't do that anymore 1) because someone is generating art in their style 2) because all the channels that drive traffic are controlled by apple, Google, Meta and now microsoft. 3) what little money the did make has now evaporated.

Let's say instead of AI, it was cheap artists in a third-world country reproducing art in their style. How would you feel then? That's completely legal. Artists don't own a "style". And nobody has the "right" to continue to earn money just because they did in the past.

You can't just write an unlicensed harry potter book, or make an unlicensed sequel to Fast and Furious. Why would you think it's broadly permissible to rip off someone's comics (which have an identifiable style but also characters, etc).

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

#248

Post by huimang »

Aeolun wrote: post #211
tedivm wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I firmly believe that training models qualifies as fair use. I think it falls under research, and is used to push the scientific community forward. I also firmly believe that commercializing models built on top of copyrighted works (which all works start off as) does not qualify as fair use (or at least shouldn't) and that commercializing models build on copyrighted material is nothing more than license laundering. C…

If I read a lot of stories in a certain genre that I like, and I later write my own story, it’s almost by definition going to be a mish-mash of everything I like. Should I pay the authors of the books I read when I sell mine?

How many books can you write per second?

How how many books per second can you read to influence and change your personal style?

I don't think any person who actually has worked on anything creative in their life would compare a personal style to a model that can output in nearly any style at extreme speeds. And even if you're inspired by a specific author, invariably what happens is it becomes mix of yourself + those influences, not a damn near-copy.

With visual mediums it's even worse, because you have to take the time [months, years] to specialize in that specific medium/style.

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

#249

Post by smt88 »

8note wrote: post #235
tedivm wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search engines don't replicate the content, they index and point to it. When search engines have been caught replicating content they have been sued or had to work out licenses.

How do they make the index without ingesting a copy of the content?

Storing a copy of the content isn't the relevant part. It's what that copy is used for.

In a search engine, it's used to direct traffic to the original author. In Midjourney, it's used to create an alternative to the original author.

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

#250

Post by melagonster »

sandworm101 wrote: post #118
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…

>> If you think OpenAI is less valuable because it can't use copyrighted content, then it should give some of that value back to the content. But we are allowed to use copyrighted content. We are not allowed to copy copyrighted content. We are allowed to view and consume it, to be influenced by it, and under many circumstances even outright copy it. If one doesn't want anyone to see/consume or be influenced by one's…

a lot of popular AIy tool is designed to mimic a specific artist's style. human is not permitted to draw so similar graph.
Post reply on HN