An artist fights Midjourney • Hacker News Board

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#11

Post by everforward » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

vunderba wrote: post #5

I'm not sure this really qualifies as anything new. It's been well known for a long time that many generative AI models are capable of reconstructing copyrighted works (copilot, SD, etc.) from their original training data with nearly 100% fidelity, but until we have a definitive legal ruling it doesn't really matter.

Somewhat unrelated, but I wonder if it makes a legal difference if the AI acts like a browser and goes out, finds and image and downloads it.

Basically the AI doesn't have a copyrighted image in its data set, but it will go grab YouTube screenshots or images from Google Images or something.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#12

Post by coolhand2120 » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does!

In all seriousness, midjourney is like any other tool. You can break the law with it, big surprise. It should still be on the person that broke the law, not the makers of the tool. If you go down the “can’t use my art as training data” how far do you push it? I watched Batman, does that mean if I draw caped super heroes I am stealing training data? Wouldn’t that apply to all comics after Superman? Isn’t he guilty of derivative work himself?

Also, nobody is being harmed by this. AI is always derivative. Nobody is interested in copies or impressions of popular art, otherwise the guy selling animes on velvet at the local art fair would be making more money. This just sounds like a Luddite shaking his fist at this perceived enemy.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#13

Post by kingkawn » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

Glyptodon wrote: post #9

Should you pay royalties if someone says to you "remember that scene from Blade Runner" or "imagine if Jean Luc Picard beamed into the middle of a Batman movie" and visualize something similar to something highly similar to a movie or TV show you've seen?

If they’re making money producing images of IP then…

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#14

Post by passwordoops » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:45 AM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #6

A web browser lets you easily commit copyright infringement by right clicking on a copyrighted image you do not have the rights to and selecting download. It is also shockingly easy to do.

I can't understand how people tie themselves into knots with non-equivalent whataboutism when it comes to these correlation black boxes.

The generative "AI" sports out an image it's owners claim is original. That's the infringement.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#15

Post by Glyptodon » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:46 AM UTC

passwordoops wrote: post #8

buildartefact wrote: post #4

Asks for screenshot from movie. Image generator gives screenshot from movie. Who’s at fault here?

The image generator that provided the screenshot without licensing/permission. This isn't complicated, we have laws on the books, and I hope legislators learned their lesson after the "Uber's not a taxi company, and AirBNBs are not like hotels"

I don't know. This sort of thing will lead to stuff like recording your own memories requiring a licensing fee if not careful. I also think there's a reasonable argument that the prompter is the one creating infringement.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#16

Post by fallingknife » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:46 AM UTC

passwordoops wrote: post #8

buildartefact wrote: post #4

Asks for screenshot from movie. Image generator gives screenshot from movie. Who’s at fault here?

The image generator that provided the screenshot without licensing/permission. This isn't complicated, we have laws on the books, and I hope legislators learned their lesson after the "Uber's not a taxi company, and AirBNBs are not like hotels"

If I go to Google and ask for screenshots from a movie, it will also produce copyrighted material. So you're right that it isn't complicated. Tools with the same capability already exist and are perfectly legal, and therefore, so is Midjourney.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#17

Post by sjfjsjdjwvwvc » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:48 AM UTC

kingkawn wrote: post #13

Glyptodon wrote: post #9

Should you pay royalties if someone says to you "remember that scene from Blade Runner" or "imagine if Jean Luc Picard beamed into the middle of a Batman movie" and visualize something similar to something highly similar to a movie or TV show you've seen?

If they’re making money producing images of IP then…

Who was making any money in this instance? I’m not super familiar with midjourney but it looks to me like he used the free version

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#18

Post by Glyptodon » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:49 AM UTC

kingkawn wrote: post #13

Glyptodon wrote: post #9

Should you pay royalties if someone says to you "remember that scene from Blade Runner" or "imagine if Jean Luc Picard beamed into the middle of a Batman movie" and visualize something similar to something highly similar to a movie or TV show you've seen?

If they’re making money producing images of IP then…

So if someone sketches Batman do you sue Bic?

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#19

Post by sjfjsjdjwvwvc » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:49 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #3

ksjskskskkk wrote: post #2

he's asking for "movie screenshot" those are probably stills from press releases. meh.

When the cops search your car for meth and they find coke instead, they don't merrily send you on your way.

Absolutely baffling comparison, not sure what you’re trying to say

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#20

Post by passwordoops » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 1:50 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #16

passwordoops wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The image generator that provided the screenshot without licensing/permission. This isn't complicated, we have laws on the books, and I hope legislators learned their lesson after the "Uber's not a taxi company, and AirBNBs are not like hotels"

If I go to Google and ask for screenshots from a movie, it will also produce copyrighted material. So you're right that it isn't complicated. Tools with the same capability already exist and are perfectly legal, and therefore, so is Midjourney.

Does Google claim the image is it's own? No. Does Google include a message that the image is copyrighted? Yes.

Does MidJourney attribute the source of the image? No. Does MidJourney's owners claim the requested image is an original generated by their black box correlation machine? Yes.

That's the infringement. Period.