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

651–660 of 957 posts

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

#651

Post by Tao3300 »

andy99 wrote: post #425
dylan604 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just BS. If people weren't replacing artists, there would be no need to prompt with "in the style of ___". are you honestly saying that only artistX is using the prompt "in the style of artistX"?

Making a picture in the style of an artist is not replacing them. I don't know why anyone could get that idea. I can sing in the style Janice Joplin, pretty sure I'm not replacing her and that nobody thinks I am.

Media companies don't care if you think it's replacing her or not. They care that (1) they made something that will sell and that (2) they made it cheaper than they did before.

All content will be behind a subscription and the algorithm will say "you like Janis Joplin? Let's autoplay some close-enough AI artists that don't exist that we won't have to pay any royalties to!" You'll get an offer to upgrade to Double Pro+ for a special introductory rate to skip those tracks.

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

#652

Post by ClumsyPilot »

csallen wrote: post #364
bluefirebrand wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is art some special case that should be protected, when many other industries were not? It shouldn't be. As soon as someone makes an AI that can produce it's own artwork without requiring ingesting every piece of stolen artwork it can, then I'm on board. But as long as it needs to be trained on the work of humans it should not be allowed to displace those people it relied on to get to where it is. Simple as tha…

Are there any humans that can produce artwork without ingesting inspiration from other art? Do you know any artists that lived in a box their whole life and never saw other art? Do you know any writers who'd never read a book? Are they any human artists who can't, if requested, draw or write something that's a copy of some other person's drawings or writings? Also, FYI, you can't steal digital artwork. You can only c…

> Are there any humans that can produce artwork without ingesting inspiration from other art?

This sounds so detached from human experience that I am tempted to ask if you are a human or just a disembodied spirit that haunts the internet.

When the first neanderthal drew a deer on the walls of a cave, where did they get inspiration?

When a little child draws a tree for the first time, where do they draw inspiration? Do you think they were reviewing works of Picasso?

When the firm man made an axe, chopped a tree, made a bed, sown some clothes, discovered fire, where did they draw inspiration?

Do you not have eyes, ears, do you not perceive and get inspiration from the natural world around you?

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

#653

Post by yreg »

croes wrote: post #572
yreg wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value of a company has nothing to do with whether copyright applies.

Unless the value of the company is based on one product with alleged copyright infringement. OpenAI has one asset: GPT. >Commercial use does not automatically make the use copyright infringement, but it is an important deciding factor. https://saltiellawgroup.com/2021/10/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bcan-yo...

That says nothing about the value of the company.

If it's an infringement when OpenAI does it, it would be an infringement when a company with 1/1000th the value did it.

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

#654

Post by c0pium »

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…

That’s literally what human artists do, and how they work. Art is iteratively building on the work of others. That’s why it’s so easy to trace its evolution.

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

#655

Post by c0pium »

chx wrote: post #538
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…

> I firmly believe that training models qualifies as fair use There's a hell lot of money to be made from this belief so of course the HN crowd will hold it. Some of us here who have been around the copyright hustle for a little longer laugh at this bitterly and pray that the courts and/or Doctorow's activism saves us. But there's so much money to be made from automatized plagiarism and the forces against are so weak…

Generative models are just a tool. Artists are mad because this tool empowers other people, who they view as less talented, to make art too.

The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings, it just enabled more people to have control over what was on their walls.

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

#656

Post by Aeolun »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #648
csallen wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't need to kill it. Just pay your dang labor. > But if we are treating proper compensation as stifling technology, I'm not surprised people are against it. That's just it, nobody looking to get paid by OpenAI actually did any labor for OpenAI. They did labor for other reasons, and were happy with it. OpenAI found a way to benefit by learning from these images. The same way that every artist on the planet bene…

> That's just it, nobody looking to get paid by OpenAI actually did any labor for OpenAI. They did labor for other reasons, and were happy with it Nobody working on a new cancer drug actually did any work for me. They did labour for other reasons, and were happy with it. There it is okay for me to steal their recipe and sell their cancer drug.

Nope, but it’s ok for you to read their recipe if they place it on the internet (research paper), and use it to make your own drug.

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

#657

Post by s1artibartfast »

blibble wrote: post #461
s1artibartfast wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont necessarily disagree, but by what logic or argument do you make that case? Does that mean that models that can not produce copies of X length ARE fair use?

> Does that mean that models that can not produce copies of X length ARE fair use? not necessarily "sufficient but not necessary" I believe is the term

Sure, but then you need an additional line of rationale and logic to cover those other cases.

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

#658

Post by chlorion »

squidbeak wrote: post #567
chlorion wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>CD-ROM burners They can be used in an illegal way if used to copy copyrighted material, yes.

And are the burners themselves illegal because you can name illegal uses for them?

No, and I don't think anyone is arguing that LLMs should be illegal either.

I personally am not against LLMs training on things the operator has rights to, and even training on copyrighted things, but I am against it laundering those things back out and claiming it's legal.

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

#659

Post by the_af »

brigadier132 wrote: post #647
the_af wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes you did. Plus I edited my comment to elaborate more on why I disagree with your comment. Edit: so you don't care about meaning? It's one of the fundamental human traits, I think. Just existing isn't enough for a lot of people, and I disagree there's something biblical about this.

I care more about peoples lives being better. I didnt introduce this line of questioning. Learn to reread and maybe tjink a little more deeply about the good outcomes of automating intelligence. You just have to be a complete moron to think more intelligence in the world is a bad thing.

Ah, insults in reply to polite conversation? Time for me to bow out of this trainwreck of an "argument".

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

#660

Post by cosiiine »

pushedx wrote: post #560
idopmstuff wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a strange criticism to me - if you're posting your illustrations on social media, it's presumably because you feel that you're getting value out of doing so. Who cares if they're also getting value out of you doing it, particularly when that value comes at no cost to you? If you sell your art, then art marketplaces and printers and shipping services all profit from your work, but I don't imagine she's…

> Who cares if they're getting value out if it. Perhaps your artwork has an anti-capitalist message, and you do not want it to appear anywhere near an Ad for the latest beauty cream. In the early days of the Internet, there were places to promote a webcomic with no commerical interest, like usenet and forums, and it was typical to visit an artist's website directly. These days, the average new Internet user might not…

This and social media and almost always the worst possible representation of an artwork. Crunched, cropped and compressed into an inferior version of itself.

We’ve forgotten how to appreciate digital artworks.

Post reply on HN