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

411–420 of 957 posts

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

#411

Post by shadowgovt »

tedivm wrote: post #177
sandworm101 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

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…

I think it's worth noting that one of the things that makes this question so vexing is that this topic really is pretty novel. We've only had a few machines like this in history and almost no legal precedent around how they should be treated. I can't remember anyone ever bringing suit over a Markov chain engine, for example, and fabricating one is basically "baby's first introductory 'machine intelligence' project" these days (partially because the output sucks, so nobody has ever felt they have something to lose from competing with a Markov engine).

Existing copyright precedent serves this use-case poorly, and so the question is far more philosophical than legal; there's a good case to be made that there's no law clearly governing this kind of machine, only loose-fit analogies that degenerate badly upon further scrutiny.

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

#412

Post by DFHippie »

brigadier132 wrote: post #261
esafak wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Amazing how everyone is an intellectual property zealot now.

Maybe because it's more relevant? If you see one artist being ripped off, it's sad, but it's an outlier. When you see the entire sector being ripped off, you start paying attention. It helps if you care about the people being ripped off, which most people are capable of, having an instinct for empathy.

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

#413

Post by CrimsonRain »

nullptr_deref wrote: post #355
csallen wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers and machines have been capable of mass production for decades, and humans have used them as tools. In the past 170 years, these tools of mass production have already diminished many thousands of professions that were staffed by people who had to painstakingly craft things one at a time. Why is art some special case that should be protected, when many other industries were not? Why should we kill this techno…

Redacted.

Too much wall of text for nothing. Nobody is stopping you from buying hand crafted masterpiece. Just get out of the way of progress.

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

#414

Post by kibbi »

I'd find it hard to argue against this, or the Penny Arcade's statements, since I'm having trouble understanding their concrete arguments in between the rhetoric. I'd be hesitant to even discuss this in their comment sections or social media channels.

One might ask: Under what circumstances would AI art be acceptable then?

For example, does it really matter if these models are created by large corporations? I don't see what the legal or ethical difference would be if it was an individual who created such a model.

Is it relevant whether their artworks were used in the training data? Well, what if a new model that is trained only on public domain photos, videos and artworks turns out to be just as capable? What if a future model is able to imitate an art style after seeing merely one or two examples of it?

It might just be a matter of time until such a model is developed. Would it be alright then? If not, why?

(Personally, I think it's the responsibility of the AI model user to use the AI art legally and ethically, as if the user made the image themselves.)

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

#415

Post by madeofpalk »

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…

Would that be less valuable?

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

#416

Post by ben_w »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #252
ben_w wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, looks like funding a UBI study. As the IP owners are approximately "everyone" in law, UBI is kinda the only way to compensate all the IP owners. https://openai.com/our-structure

> As the IP owners are approximately "everyone" in law That makes no sense. If I write a book by myself, post part of it on my website and OpenAI ingests part of it - how does that make anyone besides me myself and I an "owner" of the IP?

I don't understand why you're confused, but I think it's linguistics.

If you write a book by yourself and post parts on your website and they ingest it, you are the copyright holder of that specific IP, and when I post this specific comment to Hacker News I am the copyright holder of this specific IP.

In aggregate you and I together are the copyright holders of that book sample and this post, and I don't know any other way of formulating that sentence, though it sounds like you think I'm trying to claim ownership of your hypothetical book while also giving you IP ownership of this post? But that's not my intent.

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

#417

Post by Ferret7446 »

ls612 wrote: post #366
scythe wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. It's important to consider in any legalistic argument over copyright that, unlike conventional property rights which are to some degree prehistoric, copyright is a recent legal construct that was developed for…

Copyright only makes any sense for goods with a high fixed cost of production and low to zero marginal cost. Any further use beyond solving that problem is pure rent seeking behavior Also, with computers being functional copyright has become a tool of social control; any function in a physical object can be taken away from you at a whim with no recourse so long as a computer can be inserted into the object. Absent a…

No, copyright only makes sense insofar that it provides a net positive value for society: that it promotes/protects more creativity leading to economic output than it prevents.

That is, does the amount of creative/economic output dissuaded by allowing AI (preventing people who would not be able to or not want to create art if they couldn't get paid) exceed the creative/economic output of letting people develop and use such AIs?

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

#418

Post by Workaccount2 »

mirekrusin wrote: post #67

There is simple way to fix this. Ban private large models trained on public data, require them to be public weights. If a company wants to train large private model, they can do it with their own data.

The simple fix is another AI that checks the output for copyright violation.

The issue here is models generating copy written work verbatim.

People claiming that training on copyrighted work is a violation of copyright (its not) have no legal legs to stand on. They are purposelessly muddying concepts though to make it seem like it is. However any competent judge is going to see right through this.

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

#419

Post by Ajedi32 »

nullptr_deref wrote: post #355
csallen wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers and machines have been capable of mass production for decades, and humans have used them as tools. In the past 170 years, these tools of mass production have already diminished many thousands of professions that were staffed by people who had to painstakingly craft things one at a time. Why is art some special case that should be protected, when many other industries were not? Why should we kill this techno…

Redacted.

I'm confused about your point. Are you saying we should ban $10 mass produced shirts so that more people can make a living hand-crafting $100 shirts?

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

#420

Post by nullptr_deref »

csallen wrote: post #405
nullptr_deref wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redacted.

Mass production hasn't killed art and never will. What's killing art is this idea by a vocal minority of "artists" that they need to mass produce their work, enter the market, and attempt to make millions of dollars by selling and distributing it to millions. That's not art. That's capitalism. That's competing to produce something that customers will want to buy more than what your competitors offer. If you want to c…

Redacted.
Post reply on HN