Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#101

Post by silver_silver »

reactor wrote: post #38

Humans acquire a significant amount of knowledge (or get trained on) by learning from the work of others. If companies can face legal repercussions for training models on materials from elsewhere, a similar argument could be made for individuals.

That human would become another artist whereas the model could potentially replace the entire industry. There’s a comparison to the Industrial Revolution to be made but it’s not one which convinces me. Making artistic dream jobs even more impossible to land is so cynical and shallow. It’s like building a supermarket in Yosemite.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#102

Post by jncfhnb »

polotics wrote: post #100
jncfhnb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like information would finally be free, just like it always wanted

Do you produce information as part of your work? Do you expect to get paid for this work?

People will still pay you to create things. Posting things in public and hoping to stake a claim on that information is… stupid.

We don’t want society to evolve on shitty workarounds like hiring someone to summarize a work so it can be ingested or hiring a cheap artist to copy a style So it can be ingested

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#103

Post by jncfhnb »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #99
jncfhnb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like information would finally be free, just like it always wanted

sounds like you are projecting your desires on an abstract concept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#104

Post by paulddraper »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #89
paulddraper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are derivative. The question is whether they are transformative . Right or wrong, the bar for transformative use is probably lower than you think. Artists are the beneficiaries of this, as they can riff on popular works for inspiration, recognizability, social commentary. Given the existing case law, I don't see a ruling against AI companies as likely.

> Given the existing case law, I don't see a ruling against AI companies as likely. Huh? Every corporate IP lawyer seems to think Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith has foreclosed the fair use defense, and that there isn't much to argue by AI companies to use work without express permission for training.

The use of the artwork was a TIME magazine cover, which has the same commercial purpose as the original photo owned by Goldsmith.

It's far from clear that case would apply here.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#105

Post by paulddraper »

jncfhnb wrote: post #83
davexunit wrote: post #59

It's so obvious to me that machine learning models are derivative works of their training set. If they weren't, then why would these companies fight so hard to say otherwise? They need that training data to make their product, so they should pay the licensing fees for it! 10 years ago, when I worked on a machine learning model for my employer, it was unthinkable to train on data we did not have the rights to use. But…

> If they weren't, then why would these companies fight so hard to say otherwise? What kind of looney logic is this?

IDK but it is wild.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#106

Post by paulddraper »

silver_silver wrote: post #101
reactor wrote: post #38

Humans acquire a significant amount of knowledge (or get trained on) by learning from the work of others. If companies can face legal repercussions for training models on materials from elsewhere, a similar argument could be made for individuals.

That human would become another artist whereas the model could potentially replace the entire industry. There’s a comparison to the Industrial Revolution to be made but it’s not one which convinces me. Making artistic dream jobs even more impossible to land is so cynical and shallow. It’s like building a supermarket in Yosemite.

> There’s a comparison to the Industrial Revolution to be made but it’s not one which convinces me.

Why not?

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#107

Post by fragmede »

wiredfool wrote: post #65
s1artibartfast wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is more nuanced than that. Imagine you write a book and release it with a non-commercial use license, but a company copies it and uses it for employee training. Imagine you wrote software and released it with a non-commercial use license, but the company includes it in their for-profit workflow.

Imagine you wrote a book, released it using a publisher who put it on dead trees, and sold it in e-book format. And imagine that a whole industry does this, and doesn't release the books for free to copy use in any format. Which is not hard to do, because that's basically the current situation for the publishing industry. Now imagine that all of that was used to train an LLM without compensation to the authors and pu…

It's easy enough to imagine, since the Google Book Search project to scan all of the books dates back to 2004.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#108

Post by s1artibartfast »

jncfhnb wrote: post #103
s1artibartfast wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds like you are projecting your desires on an abstract concept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free

Exactly, a projection.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#110

Post by washadjeffmad »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #49

So…which is the best art generator I can download and run locally today? Or are there a few top ones specific to art style(photorealistic, scenery, pixel art, vectors, etc)?

The most effective practical local workflow is SD1.5 or SDXL (fine-tune/LORA + ControlNet) to Flux.dev img2img or inpainting.

Flux.dev is best in class for direction following oneshots, but it's still relatively glacial for volume, even with FP8. I haven't tried Schnell.

I'm using flux in comfy, so I expect performance will improve in another webui.

Post reply on HN