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

891–900 of 957 posts

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

#891

Post by CaptainFever »

edent wrote: post #854
CaptainFever wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you brought up coercion as a reason for consent, do note that when your works are used, no action is being done upon you. So what coercion is being done here? On the other hand, copyright proponents are the ones trying to coerce other people, restricting them from using what they already have access to via the use of copyright laws, backed by state violence. We do not consent to copyright laws. Of course, the c…

Ah yes. Property is theft. So I'm allowed to take your car because you're trying to restrict me from using something I have easy access to once I break your window. No harm has come to you, has it? Unfortunately, we live in a world governed by laws and society. For 300 years copyright has been the law of the land (in varying degrees). It was bought about, in part, because people feel that someone mis-using their prop…

Do note that (1) personal property differs from private property, (2) IP laws are definitely private property in that they give the owner power over the consumers, and (3) you cannot compare scarce resources (e.g. a car) to abundant resources (e.g. information), essentially, don't commit the "you wouldn't download a car" fallacy.

> It was bought about, in part, because people feel that someone mis-using their property is undesirable.

Really? Wasn't it to promote the progress of the arts and sciences? The whole point of IP laws is to, ultimately, benefit the public domain. Feelings by themselves aren't a really good argument either, when talking about a law that does harm to the general public.

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

#892

Post by romwell »

ta8645 wrote: post #748
romwell wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done. There's such thing as consent , I hope you've heard of it. No artist whose work was used to train the AIs consented to such use. Particularly if they released their work online before generative AI was a possibility. >it's really there for everyone to view and be inspired by Generative AI model is not "everyone". It's a model , a combination of data tha…

> There's such thing as consent. When you release something into the world, you have to accept that things beyond your control will engage with it. When you walk outside, down the street, you consent to being in public, and being recorded by video cameras, whether you like it or not. Even if a new 3D camera you don't know about exists and is recording you in ways you don't understand. And in the same way, when you re…

>Nobody is being ripped off.

>Nobody should feel entitled to such a reset.

>Please don't be a bigot.

Please don't project.

>We should start protecting their rights in law today.

LOL.

You can't have it both ways:

-AI is just a tool, work produced with AI is original work of the user

-AI is an intelligence that gets "inspired" by data it's trained on

Anyway. I don't want to regulate the AI.

I want to regulate the humans that make the choice of which data goes into training an AI.

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

#893

Post by cwkoss »

jprete wrote: post #532
nulld3v wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume I agree that copyright holders should be compensated for their works (because I do in some sense). How would this compensation work? Let's say a portion of profits from LLMs that were trained on copyrighted work should be sent to the copyright holders. How would we allocate which portion of the profits go to which creators? The only "fair" way here would be if we could trace how much a specific work influenced…

This is what licensing negotiations are for. One doesn't get to throw up their hands and say "I don't know how to fairly pay you so I won't pay you at all".

Your argument is ridiculous, because it could identically be applied to "every human artist should have to pay a license to every artist whose work they were inspired by". That would obviously be a horrible future, but megacorps like Disney would love it.

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

#894

Post by Minor49er »

rideontime wrote: post #885
Minor49er wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is unfortunate

It is also not an uncommon opinion, which you should keep in mind if you intend to use AI-generated imagery in your products.

Actually, it's an opinion that's going to dwindle as AI tooling becomes more commonly available. I am not worried about it

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

#895

Post by cwkoss »

caconym_ wrote: post #328
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

This is a load of bullshit and I sincerely hope you know that as well as I do. As a thought experiment, let's say I pirate enough ebooks to stock a virtual library roughly equivalent in scope to a large metropolitan library system, then put up a website where you can download these books for free. I make money on the ads I run on this website, etc. This is theft, but as "compensation" I put some percentage of my reve…

I sincerely think you (in the thought experiment) sounds like an incredible hero.

Libraries are awesome and great for reducing inequality, using ads to support that cause and also funneling cash to UBI initiatives? Even better

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

#896

Post by romwell »

tekknik wrote: post #860
romwell wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Generative models are just a tool. Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work . If it's "just a tool" in and of itself , then there's no problem keeping it away from other people's art. >The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings Because the copyright laws were extended to include photographic reproduction of art as something you need to obtain a permission (and a license) f…

If you graduated from school and only used work that was public domain, would you have all the knowledge you currently have? Have you learned anything from anybody since graduating? Where is the line? It’s ok for humans to learn from others work but not a machine?

>Where is the line? It’s ok for humans to learn from others work but not a machine?

Yes.

The machine doesn't get to make its own choices. Once it does, we'll have a different conversations.

Presently, humans decide what goes into the training set, and what comes out. Those humans are the ones that we need to regulate.

Hot take: The LLM is learning as much as a ZIP file is learning.

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

#897

Post by cwkoss »

sethish wrote: post #837
joe_the_user wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under what circumstances would AI art be acceptable then? I hate to make a sort-of standard Internet retort but artists (and "society") don't have any obligation to reserve some space for AI art to be OK within culture. Maybe such a possibility exists and maybe it doesn't. But given that present AI is something like a complex but semi-literal average of the art works various largish companies could find, it seems rea…

And society doesn't have to keep paying artists. It's a terrible, distopian future, but there's nothing to say we can't.

Society has "underpaid" artists for millennia.

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

#898

Post by Animats »

mftrhu wrote: post #844
Animats wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot "copy" a piece of clothing without a truly astonishing amount of effort. Sure you can. There's a whole industry making knockoffs.

GP compared copying a piece of clothing to copying digital art. I'd say that setting up a factory to make knockoffs - or even "just" buying a sewing machine, finding and buying the right fabric, laying out the piece you want to copy, tracing it, cutting the fabric, sewing it, and iterating until it comes out right - would qualify as "a truly astonishing amount of effort" for a person.

You can outsource. Look for "knockoff clothing manufacturers".

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

#899

Post by freejazz »

wrsh07 wrote: post #857
freejazz wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I represent tiny independent artists and the best thing you can do is hope that some moneyed media company infringes your work. They never have an excuse and they always pay up.

But that's not what happens on Instagram This isn't like some TV ad using a song they forgot to license

I've recovered for uses on Instagram

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

#900

Post by xyproto »

inference-lord wrote: post #766
xyproto wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you remove all the copyrighted, permission-less content from a human's training, what value does the human have, in connection with work? When is AI good enough that the contents it contains can be comparable to human brain content, copyright wise? And conversely, now that we can read signals from neurons in a human brain, and create images from dreams and audio from thoughts, would not that also break the copyrig…

There is absolutely zero comparison between living in the world and experiencing it, and building a model, loading in copyrighted, carefully curated material and then charging for the outputs of said model without paying royalties. It's hard to even believe people can't understand the difference. The fact is, the majority of people do not want to steal others work for profit, and for those bottom feeders that do, the…

Yes. Copyright is just like stealing a car, and not at all like sharing information, and you wouldn't steal a car, right?
Post reply on HN