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

Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

artnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#121

Post by nhinck3 »

Gigachad wrote: post #63
skydhash wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lockpicking tools are widely available, and designs of locks can be found on the web if someone search hard enough. But entering another's home is illegal. It's why businesses pay for licenses even if cracked softwares exists. I hope that artists win these and make using or creating an illegal model an high-risk activity, not worth it for any commercial activity.

The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, while breaking in to someones house doesn't. There will be a lot of pressure for governments to allow this to go on since it puts them at advantage over other countries.

Stealing another country's natural resources also provides a lot of potential economic value and puts you at an advantage over another country.

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#122

Post by Gigachad »

nhinck3 wrote: post #121
Gigachad wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, while breaking in to someones house doesn't. There will be a lot of pressure for governments to allow this to go on since it puts them at advantage over other countries.

Stealing another country's natural resources also provides a lot of potential economic value and puts you at an advantage over another country.

“Stealing” intellectual property from other countries has been going on for a while now and basically nothing is done about it.

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#123

Post by supermatt »

> The list of 16,000 artists was included as part of a lawsuit amendment to a class-action complaint targeted at Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt

Why is OpenAI not being targeted? I find it hard to believe that they trained DALL-E exclusively off free material. Is it simply because they havent publicised/leaked their datasets?

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#124

Post by addandsubtract »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #64
semiquaver wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI-generated images are not currently eligible for copyright It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Here is the relevant policy statement, which notes that some AI-assisted works are potentially eligible for registration and have indeed been registered, while works that are primarily the product of an AI are not. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

Makes sense. Photoshop has had content-aware-fill for over a decade. That counts as AI as much as any diffuser does. I don't think those images should have their copyright invalidated.

But then, if I generate an image using "AI" and touch it up in Photoshop, is it eligible for copyright again? How much "touch up" do I have to do for it to not be "AI generated"?

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#125

Post by nhinck3 »

Gigachad wrote: post #122
nhinck3 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing another country's natural resources also provides a lot of potential economic value and puts you at an advantage over another country.

“Stealing” intellectual property from other countries has been going on for a while now and basically nothing is done about it.

Indeed...

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?M...

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#126

Post by omnimus »

addandsubtract wrote: post #124
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense. Photoshop has had content-aware-fill for over a decade. That counts as AI as much as any diffuser does. I don't think those images should have their copyright invalidated.

But then, if I generate an image using "AI" and touch it up in Photoshop, is it eligible for copyright again? How much "touch up" do I have to do for it to not be "AI generated"?

This has been problematic forever long even before any LLMs. Techniques like photobashing that use copyrighted images modify them for it to be new work. Or even older cases like work of Andy Warhol.

Where this is more extreme here is that there is no human labor involved there is no invention. On the other hand LLMs make this extra tricky because in one way output they create is objectively unique but subjectively/culturally it's not.

To answer your question if you take AI generated image and change it enough for it to stand as it's own unique thing you could for sure claim it as your work and it would be eligible for copyright.

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#127

Post by 93po »

phantomathkg wrote: post #70
Gigachad wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, while breaking in to someones house doesn't. There will be a lot of pressure for governments to allow this to go on since it puts them at advantage over other countries.

> The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, The end does not justify the means.

This is a really poor argument because virtually everyone can be presented an argument where they would act counter to this way of thinking, at which points it’s only “the end does not justify the means but only when I say so”

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#128

Post by joshspankit »

srackey wrote: post #4

I get why artists are trying to stop them, but this battle has already been lost. These tools have been out too long, open source models proliferate freely, and jurisdictions that don’t care about IP law will continue publishing these models. By the time it works it’s way through the courts the situation will be even worse.

As well: the desire to have art seen and recognized (or even monetized) puts it in the public eye in a way that can be used (legally or not) to train AIs. Going the opposite way means committing to not showing your work to humans either.

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#129

Post by semiquaver »

tavavex wrote: post #106
semiquaver wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for one, this requirement is a complete departure from how copyright systems work now. A complete departure? Here is the current form used to register an artistic visual work for copyright. Its more elaborate than you might think. https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formva.pdf Registration is not a rubber-stamp, it is increasingly refused because of indicia of AI tooling. Why would adding some questions on provenance a…

Nothing in the form seems out of the ordinary to me. It is a lot of fields, but ultimately the main goal is establishing ownership, not discerning the specific methodology in which a person made the work. It's a departure in that the current system is results-based, where you register a final product, while the proposed system also must take into consideration every intricacy of creating the work. > it is increasingl…

Asking for a statistical analysis is an unreasonably high bar. See the link I provided in a sibling comment, in which the copyright office plainly states as much and explains their guidelines.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

Re: Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

#130

Post by nothercastle »

slavik81 wrote: post #102
tavavex wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure how this connects to the argument. No one is trying to grant authorship to an algorithm - it would be a ridiculous effort that was never even in the cards. In these copyright disputes, the authorship on AI outputs would be on the person using the AI. Generative AI takes inputs that are provided by a human and transforms it into certain outputs. Legally speaking, I don't see it as different from me…

I agree it's not quite the right argument. IANAL, but I think it's more illustrative to remove AI from the example entirely. If you wrote a prompt and gave it to a human artist to draw, would you have joint copyright over the resulting work? If you didn't do anything worthy of copyright, and the AI cannot be granted copyright, then it is not copyrightable. That said, it seems like a moot point to me. The practical us…

Maybe but copyright on a remixed song that samples other artists is really difficult to deal with in terms of rights unless one party owns the rights to all the samples it’s difficult to negotiate and you might not get any royalties. AI art is basically just other people’s work remixed so the same problem applies
Post reply on HN