311–320 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an unautharized copy, it's unauthorized distribution. By the same metric me seeing the image and copying it by hand is also unauthorized copy (or reproduction is you will)
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure copying an image by hand is copyright violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nightshaded images aren't intended for portfolios. They're mean to be uploaded enmasse and scraped later.
To where? A place no one sees them and they aren't scraped?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists So are the copyright and intellectual property laws that artists rely on. From my perspective, you are the capital and I am the one being fucked. So are you ready to abolish all that?
Right. This new outrage is just the copyright owners realising that their power is not safe. Where is the outrage when self checkouts happened?
They are the quintessential representation of capital. And they come here to ask us to "resist" the other forms of capital on principle.
I'm sorry but... No. I'm gonna resist them instead. It's my sincere hope that this AI technology hammers in the last nails on the coffin of copyright and intellectual property as a whole. I want all the models to leak so that it becomes literally impossible to get rid of this technology no matter how much they hate it. I want it to progress so that we can run it on our own machines, so that it'll be so ubiquitous it can't be censored or banned no matter how much they lobby for it.
I really don't understand the anxiety of artists towards AI - as if creatives haven't always borrowed and imitated. Every leading artist has had acolytes, and while it's true no artist ever had an acolyte as prodigiously productive as AI will be, I don't see anything different between a young artist looking to Picasso for cues and Stable Diffusion or DALL-E doing the same. Styles and methods haven't ever been subject…
[flagged]
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right, AI is nothing but a tool akin to a pen or a brush. If you draw Mickey Mouse with a pencil and you publish (and sell) the drawing who is getting the blame? Is the pencil infringing the copyright? No, it's you. Same with AI. There is nothijg wrong with using copyrighted works to train an algorithm, but if you generate an image and it contains copyrighted materials you are getting sued.
But there is. You are arguably making unauthorized copies to train.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not obvious to me that using a copyrighted image to train a model is copyright infringement. It’s certainly not copyright infringement when used to train a human who may end up creating works that are influenced by (but not copies of) the original works. Now, if the original copyrighted work can be extracted or reproduced from the model, that’s obviously copyright infringement. OpenAI etc should ensure they don’…
Reproduced to what fidelity? 100%? If OpenAI's output reproduces a copyrighted image with one pixel changed, is that valid in your view? Where does the line end? Copyrighted material should never be used for nonacademic language models. "Garbage in, garbage out." All results are tainted. "But being forced to use non-copyrighted works will only slow things down!" Maybe that's a good thing, too. Copyright is something…
This is the DRM problem again. However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now have that idea too. If you share words on paper, then someone with eyes and a brain might memorize them (or much more likely, just grasp and retain the ideas conveyed in the words). If you let someone hear your music, then the ideas (phrasing, style, melody, etc)…
You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?
Because this isn’t simple law. It feels like simple infringement, but there’s no actual copying going on. You can’t open up the database and find a given duplicate of a work. Instead you have some abstraction of what it takes to get to a given work.
Also it’s important to point out that nothing in the law is sure. A good lawyer, a sympathetic judge, a bored/interested/contrarian juror, etc can render “settled law” unsettled in an instant. The law is not a set of board game rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies. No, that right doesn't exist. If you put your work of art out there for people to see, people will see it and learn from it, and be inspired by it. It's unavoidable. How could it possibly work otherwise? Artist A: You studied my work to produce yours, even when I asked people not to do that! Artist B: Prove it. What kind of evidence or argume…
The right to not use my things exists everywhere, universally. Good people usually ask before they use something of someone else's, and the person being asked can say "no." How hard is that to understand? You might believe they don't have the right to say "no," but they can say whatever they want. Example: If you studied my (we will assume "unique") work and used it without my permission, then let us say I sue you. A…
You have a right to say anything you want. Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it.
>If you studied my (we will assume "unique") techniques and used them without my permission, then let us say I sue you. At that point, you would claim "fair use,"
On what grounds would you sue me? You think my defense would be "fair use", so you must think my copying your style constitutes copyright infringement, and so you'd sue me for that. Well, no, I would not say "fair use", I'd say "artistic style is not copyrightable; copyright pertains to works, not to styles". There's even jurisprudence backing me up in the US. Apple tried to use Microsoft for copying the look-and-feel of their OS, and it was ruled to be non-copyrightable. Even if was so good that I was able to trick anyone into thinking that my painting of a dog carrying a tennis ball in his mouth was your work, if you've never painted anything like that you would have no grounds to sue me for copyright infringement.
Now, usually in the artistic world it's considered poor manners to outright copy another artist's style, but if we're talking about rights and law, I'm sorry to say you're just wrong. And if we're talking about merely studying someone's work without copying it, that's not even frowned upon. Like I said, it's unavoidable. I don't know where you got this idea that anyone has the right to or is even capable of preventing this (beyond simply never showing it to anyone).