101–110 of 337 posts
If the image is freely viewable (say you can browse to it), and you just look at it, are you violating any rights?
It seems that violation would only come if you would use the model to produce images that are derivative of that original image, the same way a counterfeiter would make a copy of it. Have the skill to copy is not the same as actually copying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties. These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work. If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing…
Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…
I honestly want to live in a world where this 'worrying about paying for rent' is not a problem that we're concerned with, and a world with AI that can create and make we far more apt to achieve that than with the status quo we've been following so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties. These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work. If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing…
Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…
Copyright what? Someone’s brain? You can copyright a specific work or a character, but you actually want to live in a world where someone can copyright the color red with a dark black line, or the G# chord?
Real artists are going to art, and musicians are going to make music. People who do creative work do it to express themselves, their point of view or to say something.
Corporate art exist to sell you soda - I am not sure your argument lands quite like you want it to.
I am glad this is going to court, because, with my understand of how neural nets work, I fail to see how any copyright is being infringed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve heard this argument on numerous occasions but I have never heard someone justify it or why they believe it. Are there specific similarities that make you believe these are equivalent scenarios? Not just “it feels thematically similar”.
It's the closest thing to a precedent. Hip-hop originally recorded and transformed vocals, instruments, and beats to create something new from pieces of something old. The practice occurred without permission and obviously ended up in court. Now sampling requires a licensing agreement. The additional cost has fundamentally changed the genre (over the last 40 years). Hip-hop and tech both ignored IP rights because nei…
If I'm understanding you correctly, you see the similarity more in how the initial side-stepping of copyright eventually gave way to new licensing rules (or adherence to existing rules).
I've heard similar sentiment trying to make another point entirely - something closer to arguing that the AI is creatively inspired the way humans are, and therefore is by definition not infringing.
I suspect this might be where the flurry of downvotes came from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should be no "AI companies" in the first place. This stuff should be running on our own computers. That way they cannot set any stupid limits on it.
For sake of argument, let's assume that the six-figure (seven, maybe?) price tag on the hardware was no longer a factor and it was possible to train the models locally, I think the sources of the content everyone is trying to train their local model against would quickly shut down the inundation of traffic they're receiving from the hundreds of thousands of individual computers all trying to build their own "unlimite…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties. These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work. If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing…
Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…
This argument is assuming its own conclusion, that such a situation must be bad. But I don't think that's necessarily true.
If somebody can make 1000 different derivatives that the public likes as much as the originals, then it must be that in whatever criteria the public is interested in, these works are just as good. If they were inferior, the public wouldn't accept them as substitutes. The fact that they are (hypothetically) accepted indicates that the public is OK with them.
For my own personal aesthetics, I would like to think that today's popular music, which is written by some combination of algorithm and committee, and produced through tools that correct the performance via autotune, quantization, etc., is inferior to the music that I enjoy. But given that the public seems to like this music (and indeed, they like music generated this way even though it's not even cheaper for them to consume) seems to say that we as a society are getting what they want, and who am I to put a normative judgment on that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties. These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work. If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing…
Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…
Yes, much in the same way that I am glad I live in a future where scribes aren't required to put text on paper: There is a massive amount of efficiency to be gained and enjoyment to reap for everyone who doesn't happen to be employed as an artist.
I don't understand how using an image as input to a model is a copyright infringement. If the image is freely viewable (say you can browse to it), and you just look at it, are you violating any rights? It seems that violation would only come if you would use the model to produce images that are derivative of that original image, the same way a counterfeiter would make a copy of it. Have the skill to copy is not the s…
The fundamental issue with this line of argument is that it equates the process of human vision and the consequences of that with that of a computer program ingesting that image and the consequences of that.
This anthropomorphization seems like a form of deep fallacy when considering the nature and impact of AI software. In the case of "seeing" an image, the two processes could not be any more unlike each other, both in content and context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted. As a photographer, I can’t claim to have or require a fraction of the skills used by creators of hand-made art. And even I am not excited about some AI slurping up my best work and commoditizing it. > So many artists styles could have gone viral and actually bring those artists some work I’ve seen this sentiment, bu…
> This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted. I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions. > As a photographer, I can’t claim to have or require a fraction of the skills used by creators of hand-made art. And even I am not excited about some AI slurping up my best work and co…
Fame has a very short half-life and unless you have all the licensing/contractual machinery in place beforehand, you probably won't be able to cash on that boost. The line of thinking you articulate here is extremely familiar to anyone who does creative work. It's the same argument that producers use to get people to work for free or cheap on films, that broadcast or streaming services use to justify very low payouts to content creators, that commercial commissioners use to try and get art for free etc. The creative field is absolutely full of promoters who offer to match artist to audience, with the promoters getting the first cut of ticket sales and the artist getting the last or none.
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure
Besides, attribution is naturally built into those "plagiarist" prompts for AI.
Only if you are already kinda famous. Suppose you have a distinctive visual style that's a great fit with a genre, like ghost stories. I, an unscrupulous publisher, note that the market for ghost stories is currently booming and decide to buy, or perhaps generate from AI, and bunch of mediocre ghost stories, and then publish them with 'art in the style of scotty79.' I make a little app offering 'best new ghost stories every day!!' for $1, put it in app stores, and make $7 million before the ghost story fad runs its course. You get nothing, and consumers who got familiar with your style by paying $1 or looking at ads to use my app don't care about you because I never gave you credit and in their mind the style is associated with Best Daily Ghost Stories, not you.
Maybe a few of them will do the work of combing back through the history of the fad and to find which artists influenced the 'daily ghost story' aesthetic. Maybe this will lead to a revival of interest in your work even though the fad it was associated with has come and gone. Good luck with that.
The dirty secret of the creative industries is that if you don't get paid up front for your contribution, you will probably never get paid at all.