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

Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

kapwing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 176 posts

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#101

Post by logifail »

danlitt wrote: post #96
raincole wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making Photoshop a subscription service was an extremely successful business decision, so I'm not sure what the comparison is supposed to mean here. I say this as someone who switched to Krita and canceled CC subscription.

"extremely successful business decision" and "inherently disliked" can both be true. Increasing fees quite often works out for the business too, but consumers don't generally like it.

> consumers don't generally like it

I'd prefer looking at what (potential) consumers actually do rather than what they say. "Saying" is a really weak signal.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#102

Post by SiempreViernes »

logifail wrote: post #101
danlitt wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"extremely successful business decision" and "inherently disliked" can both be true. Increasing fees quite often works out for the business too, but consumers don't generally like it.

> consumers don't generally like it I'd prefer looking at what (potential) consumers actually do rather than what they say . "Saying" is a really weak signal.

Ok mr sceptic, where are your numbers showing consumers buy more of a thing after it becomes more expensive?

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#103

Post by tovej »

oreally wrote: post #60
abustamam wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use by most standards? Which standards are those? I don't think a standard about training an AI on billions of images exists.

By the same 'transformative' standards that allow satire, reaction and commentary videos to exist. And those take 100% from the source and add context, whereas good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source. In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on *your observation* of someone else's work is absurd. No one pays Newton's descendants for making lifts o…

Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word?

Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's not allowed, and yet I have "transformed" the work in the same way that an LLM does.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#104

Post by fennecfoxy »

spudlyo wrote: post #6

> Surveys consistently showed that consumers believed artists deserved payment when AI generated content in their style. It's interesting that "consumers" are generally for the expansion of IP laws. At at the moment, I'm fairly certain that "style" is not something protected by Copyright. I personally do not want this, and I'm sure there are likely many like me. Poorly thought out IP laws lead to chilling-effects, DR…

Yeah as a furry (exposed to commission scene a lot) the number of commissions available for "Disney" or "Pixar" or whatever style art even before the whole AI era really tells you that they're hypocrites.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#105

Post by fennecfoxy »

I mean there's no point; everyone still gets super mad even in the cases where models where trained only on content that a company owns or has paid for.

I wish artists would stop with the "it stole our work bullshit" and just be more honest about the "it can do what we do and we're terrified and scare for our future" part.

Because that I can 100% understand, and contrary to previous jobs just disappearing, we do live in "the future" and things like UBI or free cross-training should be available for this sort of thing.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#106

Post by fennecfoxy »

jowsie wrote: post #48
ipaddr wrote: post #31

They failed because they gave advances that were never going to be paid back and expected artists to bring in customers. The demand to produce something in an artists style is low. The volume required to make it interesting to artist isn't present. AI adoption and pushed back is greatest with artists you would be better off asking for money to shutdown AI. The tech itself sounds interesting and would love that writeu…

The tech doesn't sound that interesting at all. Every AI Degen thread on 4chan and similar has included model fine tuning instructions for a few years now, for the express purpose of cloning an existing artists style. I also find it interesting that they included a quote from an artist pointing out the hypocrisy of using an existing model, trained on unlicensed material, but never actually discussed that particular i…

I think you mean LORAs more than a fine tune. Yes, plus there are plenty of online resources to train a LORA as well, CivitAI you can just give it a bunch of images + labels and it just does it for you, the bar is pretty low.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#107

Post by logifail »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #102
logifail wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consumers don't generally like it I'd prefer looking at what (potential) consumers actually do rather than what they say . "Saying" is a really weak signal.

Ok mr sceptic, where are your numbers showing consumers buy more of a thing after it becomes more expensive?

Was merely commenting on the observed preference vs stated preference issue (aka "the Say/Do Gap"), not the underlying point about raising prices.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#108

Post by bluefirebrand »

JAlexoid wrote: post #76
bluefirebrand wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most artists I have spoken to don't believe it's possible to do this AI stuff ethically Maybe they're wrong but I tend to agree. Or even if it is possible to do it ethically, it still never will be done that way because there's just too much money in behaving unethically

The only problem that people see in these models is the money flows. If it all was non-profit - then no one would raise the ethical issue.

I don't know

I still think cutting artists livelihood from under them with tooling built on top of their work is unethical no matter how you cut it

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#110

Post by abustamam »

JAlexoid wrote: post #73
abustamam wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this just shows that ergonomics matters. I use Nano Banana and Grok Imagine to generate silly images for my friends and siblings (instead of reaction gifs I do reaction slop). The workflow is quite easy. Just plop in a prompt and usually the first image is good enough to share. Not that my standards are high anyway. Would I pay extra to ensure that the artists that these models were trained on were compensated f…

Most people can't even imagine the complexity it would require to actually build a system that correctly tracks down the sources for image generation. Not to mention that each image is generated from literally every single training image in a very small percentage. It's not hard when someone inputs "create in style of studio ghibli" to say that studio Ghibli should get a cut. It's very different when you don't specif…

Most people can't even imagine the complexity required to build an LLM. But here we are.

We throw plenty of smart people at plenty of hard ideas. If a company really wanted to, they would find a way to make this feasible.

Post reply on HN