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

Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#151

Post by supermatt »

grondo4 wrote: post #135
supermatt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. Did you actually read the link you were given? Clean room design is because you may inadvertently plagiarize copyrighted works from your memory of reading it. i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn"

> i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn" Surely you know this isn't the case right? Maybe you're confused because we're talking about programming and not a different creative artform? Great artists read, watch and consume copyrighted works of art all day, if they didn't they wouldn't be great artists. And yet the content they produce is entirely there own, f…

> Why can an artist be trusted not to reproduce the copyrighted works that they learned from but not the programmer?

They cant. which is why that quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal" exists.

AI has already been shown to be "accidentally" reproducing copyrighted work. You too, can do the same.

Its likely no-one (including yourself) will ever be aware of it - but strictly speaking it would still be copyright infringement. This is the relevance and context of the link you were given.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#152

Post by nickelpro »

waboremo wrote: post #143
grondo4 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn" Surely you know this isn't the case right? Maybe you're confused because we're talking about programming and not a different creative artform? Great artists read, watch and consume copyrighted works of art all day, if they didn't they wouldn't be great artists. And yet the content they produce is entirely there own, f…

Artists get into trouble all the time for producing works very close to something that already exist. That's like the number one reason artists get shunned in the communities they were in.

Every filmmaker watches movies

Every author reads books

Every painter view paintings

Unless you're arguing that every single artist across every field of artistic expression is constantly being jeopardized by claims of copyright infringement, this is a nonsensical point to make.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#153

Post by nickelpro »

supermatt wrote: post #151
grondo4 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn" Surely you know this isn't the case right? Maybe you're confused because we're talking about programming and not a different creative artform? Great artists read, watch and consume copyrighted works of art all day, if they didn't they wouldn't be great artists. And yet the content they produce is entirely there own, f…

> Why can an artist be trusted not to reproduce the copyrighted works that they learned from but not the programmer? They cant. which is why that quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal" exists. AI has already been shown to be "accidentally" reproducing copyrighted work. You too, can do the same. Its likely no-one (including yourself) will ever be aware of it - but strictly speaking it would still be copyright…

If everyone is infringing copyright, no one is infringing copyright. This is a dead-end thought.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#154

Post by motoxpro »

tensor wrote: post #63
motoxpro wrote: post #8

Interesting that the large company AI products (this, Microsoft copilot, etc) are so much more compelling than any of the startups I’ve seen. Makes me think that we haven’t seen what true innovation looks like in this space. Right now, AI is a feature, not a product. Edit: Not talking about the models themselves (stability, mid journey, GPT-x), talking about what is built on those models.

Microsoft is just licensing their technology from OpenAI, which is still a small company, if not still a startup.

ChatGPT is not nearly as good of a product as what was demoed by Microsoft if you want to make that comparison.

Not talking about LLMs/underlying model. I don’t think adobe makes their own either. Talking about the interface to it.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#156

Post by kitsunesoba »

lelandfe wrote: post #50

From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "firs…

It's also worth considering is that there are quite a number of fraudulent images on Adobe Stock, which means that the Firefly dataset without a doubt contains some amount of unlicensed material.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#157

Post by grondo4 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #125
grondo4 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a joke? Yes you are allowed to read closed-source, proprietary code and become a better programmer for it. I've decompiled games to learn how they structure their code to improve the structure of games that I program. I had no right to that code and I used it to become a better programmer just like AI do. That's not copyright infringement. You have a right to stop me from using your code, not learning from it…

Now granted most EULAs and Terms of Service documents aren't legally enforced, most software licenses explicitly prohibit decompiling or otherwise disassembling binaries. So, yes: They have a right to stop you from "learning" from their code. If you want that right, see if they're willing to sell that right to you.

> They have a right to stop you from "learning" from their code.

They absolutely do not, and as pedantic as it may be I think it's very important that you and everyone else in this thread know what their rights are.

If you sign a contract / EULA that says you cannot decompile someone's code than yes you are liable for any damages promised in that contract for violating it.

But who says that I ever signed a EULA for the games I decompiled? Who says I didn't find a copy on a hard drive I bought at a yard sale or someone sent me the decompiled binary themselves?

Those people may have violated the contract but I did not.

There is no law preventing you from learning from code, art, film or any other copyrighted media. Nor is there any law (or should there be any law IMO) that stops an AI from learning from copyrighted media.

Learning from each other regardless of intellectual property law is how the human race advances itself. The fact that we've managed to that automate human progress is incredible, and it's very good that our laws are the way they are that we can allow that to happen.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#158

Post by sebzim4500 »

bitL wrote: post #80

Generative AI with ClipSeg/ControlNet is the main way to make Adobe products obsolete. No wonder they are pushing it into production ASAP but their investments to advanced tools they had edge over competition like e.g. intelligent background filling can be easily replicated/overcome now. We might see a quick commoditization of Adobe image processing tools.

Yeah but Adobe will presumably outspend stability.ai/midjourney/the stable diffusion community 10 to 1, plus they have access to better datasets. I think if they play this right this could end up building them a moat rather than filling it in.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#159

Post by easyThrowaway »

linuxftw wrote: post #23

What I love about this AI generative art is it will finally put the right price on computer generated art: $0. It will be interesting to watch the entire Hollywood and associated creative industries lose control to AI. Entire movies will be created in small basements. Same with AAA video games.

They won't. They own the hardware, the distribution channels and the datacenters.

For comparison, despite making professional music is even easier (a copy of Ableton Live Lite and a few hours of studio recording for the vocals makes for less than 300$) every single music chart is still dominated by music made by corporations (Universal Sony / Time Warner, mainly).

On the other hand, music is less valuable than ever. From 20$/unit (the price of a CD) to 0.0004c for stream. Or you get lucky and somehow someone buys your music during bandcamp friday.

Just a subset of Musicians are still around because they're famous enough to get an audience for their tours and/or dj sets. Visual artists have nothing comparable to sustain themselves.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#160

Post by egypturnash »

judge2020 wrote: post #53
lelandfe wrote: post #50

From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "firs…

Still on the fence for whether or not you should be able to opt out of training (I'm sure many artists would love to "opt out" of humans looking at their art if the human intends to, or might, copy the artists' style at some point).

hi, I'm an artist, I do not give a shit about other humans looking at my work, I am delighted when a younger pro comes to me and thanks me for what they learnt from my work. That tells me they were fascinated enough with it to look at it and analyze it again and again. I made a connection with them via my drawing skills.

I am catastrophically unhappy at the prospect of a corporation ingesting a copy of my work and stuffing it into a for-profit machine without my permission. If my work ends up significantly influencing a generated image you love, nobody will ever know. You will never become a fan of my work through this. You will never contribute to my Patreon. You will never run into me at a convention and tell me how influential my work was to something in your life. Instead, the corporation will get another few pennies, and that is all.

Post reply on HN