Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by kmeisthax » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 9:17 PM UTC

tavavex wrote: post #27

kmeisthax wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a Butlerian Jihad[0] argument. The Copyright Office's argument holds even for a fully public domain training set. US copyright law is already speciesist[1] - you can't assign authorship to an animal - so computers are also forbidden from authorship. [0] In the Dune universe, the "Butlerian Jihad" refers to a legal ban on thinking machines. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

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…

The Copyright Office wrote their guidance specifically because someone tried to register a comic book they wrote and put AI art in. They specifically credited Midjourney as co-author.

Their guidance would not apply for someone using AI as a tool, but said copyright would be thinner than if you'd drawn everything by hand. Specifically, you don't own any of the things the AI "just came up with". If you just wrote a prompt and grinded out some results, you probably own nothing[0]. If you use shittons of inpainting to control, say, the overall composition, but the AI filled in pixels somewhere, then you probably still own the overall image, but that's only because I'm not sure how you'd separate the two in a way that would let you copy just the AI-generated portion. Or, in the case of the comic book I mentioned earlier, they own the text, characters, and plot of the comic book, but not the artwork.

[0] Yes, you could probably just lie to the Copyright Office. Make sure to never reveal your use of AI to anyone, because there's loads of angry artists who would love to tattle on you.

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

#142

Post by kmeisthax » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 9:30 PM UTC

numpad0 wrote: post #137

luqtas wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fight about AI is using copyrighted stuff for its weights... i wonder which % of artists that wouldn't tweak or use heavily AI that has a transparent/ethical data-base (read it: they didn't added anything proprietary without authorization)

It's been tried. Numerous times. There's a reason why GenAI controversy is stuck at ethics and filled with rage, the generated images just aren't that great and so that part isn't so controversial.

There's a lot of AI "artists"[0] who think their text2image prompt generations are equivalent if not better than actually drawing or photographing an image.

Part of becoming an artist is learning how to evaluate your own work, break it down, and critique the shit out of it. When you jump straight to generating art with an AI, you skip the criticism step, which means you don't have a sense of taste and you haven't really explored what your preferences for style are.

A lot of AI art generators default to an extremely cinematic, "Hollywood" art style - i.e. exactly the sort of thing that is trying to look impressive to people who don't know better, and will make them overlook all the fundamental mistakes in the image.

[0] Normally I wouldn't scarequote "artist" here, given that actual artists do use AI tools where it makes sense.

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

#143

Post by scheeseman486 » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:49 AM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #140

scheeseman486 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can eke out large chunks of works from Google Books with the right queries too.

Yes, but Google Books is a search engine. It doesn't write books, it just tells you where a particular phrase might occur in those books. There's explicit caselaw allowing you to do this, extending back before Google was even a thing. For related reasons, Google Books also does not let you read the whole book - just the page the search match came from. OpenAI and other large language model developers are claiming the…

Generative AI doesn't write books either, it's a machine spitting out results based on queries entered by a person. It has no personhood nor rights to ownership, in spite of what AI more crackpot advocates try to claim, it's more a very complicated pencil.

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

#144

Post by siegel » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 5:03 AM UTC

galdosdi wrote: post #41

makeitdouble wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't they move to trademark protection instead, as it's a lot more flexible with less restrictions ? Basically the same way Disney let copyright go but will fight for trademark to the bitter end ?

That won't work. Trademarks are a lot harder to establish -- it's not just automatic from the moment you publish it as with copyright. You have to first start using it, then always mention it's a trademark when using it (with the TM or R symbols for example), then wait for it to catch on, then file with the government some paperwork. (Iirc, exact process is probably similar but different, but the point is it's a lot…

This is not 100% accurate from a trademark perspective, at least with respect to "famous" marks.

Generally speaking, you are correct - unless there is a likelihood of consumer confusion, you are free to use a trademark already used by a senior user.

But marks like Apple and Mickey Mouse, from a trademark, are sufficiently famous that they get special protection. There is a concept called trademark dilution that only applies to sufficiently famous marks. With respect to such marks, a junior user can be liable for use of the mark even if there is no likelihood of confusion.

(BTW: By "senior" user, I means a user that gained trademark rights first and a "junior" user is one that started using the mark in commerce later.)