Live data from Hacker News

On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

catandgirl.com

161–170 of 957 posts

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#161

There is simple way to fix this. Ban private large models trained on public data, require them to be public weights. If a company wants to train large private model, they can do it with their own data.

Some of the public data may still have license attached, so there are still challenges in provenance, attribution, and copyright.

To draw a parallel in software, we have MIT licenses that allow for-profit, private use of source code in the public. The copyleft license might be more aligned to what you are envisioning?

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#162
post #124
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you decide to put your stuff on Instagram, you don't decide to put your work in midjourney

Is that boundary something that the internet is likely to be able to recognize or enforce though? In 100 years? In 500? What are we building for here?

you mean, is the right of an individual human to property and the rule of law be recognized in 100 or 500 years?

hopefully yes, unless you foresee some inescapable transfer to dictatorship, which you'll have to argue for to maintain your argument

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#163

AI business model is that of a school bully who a) steals a cup of lemonade from your lemonade stand, b) drinks it, c) pees into the cup, d) sells it to others, e) convinces the cheerleaders to go around telling everyone that you are not going to be able to make or sell your own lemonade anymore.

A school yard bully that goes to an art museum, learns how to paint, and then sells those paintings.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#164
post #41
post #5

The sooner anyone making profit from models trained on creators proprietary content start paying for the content they’re using the better for creators, society and even the AI companies. It’s pretty tiring hearing people argue about whether copyright law applies to AI companies or not. It applies. Just get on and sort out a proper licensing model.

> "The bottom line is this," the firm, known as a16z, wrote. "Imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will either kill or significantly hamper their development." > The firm said payment for all of the copyrighted material already used in LLMs would cost the companies that built them "tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year in royalty payments." https://www.bus…

Oh no, the horror of the cost of doing business when you can't get away with a get-rich-quick-scheme fast enough to cash out and disappear.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#165
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

going to take some HN karma hit for this but i just don't get it. the price of anything you sell (or do not wish to give away for free) is not how much it cost to build but how much someone else is willing to pay for it. If you think the work is so great. charge for it. let the market decide. i think twitter/x does this now somewhat. how is this not similar to thinking google owes me money because my tweet appeared i…

You seem to be missing the point. The artist has already compromised their personal ethics by choosing to post their work to social media. Now, with AI, they don't even have a choice in the matter.

nobody is forced to post to social media

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#166
post #121

> But I can't even get cartoons to most people for free now, without doing unpaid work for the profit-making companies who own the most use channels of communication This is the sticking point for me. OpenAI isn't a profit-making company, but it's certainly a valuable company. A valuable company that is built from the work of content others created without transferring any value back to them. Regardless of legalities…

> Regardless of legalities, that's wrong to me. I see it differently. To me, if you post your work online as an artist, it's really there for everyone to view and be inspired by. As long as nobody copies it verbatim, don't think you've been hurt by any other usage. If another artist views it, and is inspired by it... so be it. If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done.

AI doesn't get inspired. It's not human. It adds everything about it to its endless stream of levers to pull, and if you pull the right ones, it will just give you the source verbatim as proven by the NYT lawsuit filing where it was just outputting unaltered copywritten NYT article text.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#167

[flagged]

> I'd love to have been added to something like MidJourney. The thing they are railing against is that they can't do that anymore 1) because someone is generating art in their style 2) because all the channels that drive traffic are controlled by apple, Google, Meta and now microsoft. 3) what little money the did make has now evaporated.

Let's say instead of AI, it was cheap artists in a third-world country reproducing art in their style. How would you feel then?

That's completely legal. Artists don't own a "style". And nobody has the "right" to continue to earn money just because they did in the past.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#168
post #96
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use. Licenses like that are enforced under copyright, if the use is not subject to copyright, the license terms are irrelevant.

Fair use is a defence you can use when you infringe copyright [edit for clarity] or in other words the action you take would otherwise infringe. It's not fair use because you want it to be, and it's not at all legally clear if this defence is valid in the case of AI training. But it's not clear it isn't, either. This is basically what all the noise and PR money is about, currently, in hope that shaping the narrative…

Fair use is not copyright infringement! It’s a limitation placed on copyright to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#169
> and without being exploited

This is naive at best.

Even as a kid, I saw horror stories about how badly artists were exploited.

I watched my parents struggle. I never experienced anything near poverty, but I definitely experienced the fear and anxiety of standing on the precipice of it. I remember taking up the responsibility of helping my profoundly depressed and grieving mother sort through the mail of our family business and seeing how far behind we were. This was a few years before we sold everything to avoid bankruptcy, which was also around the time I left for college.

I'm not complaining about this. I think it was good for me. It bred a cynicism and understanding in me: this world isn't fair. It isn't going to get better. You are going to have to fight for the life you want, and you will probably still lose.

I understand the desire to pass gently over the earth. But this has never been a kind world, and has not become any MORE kind since 1999.

This is, I think, an example of toxic optimism. Many people over-estimate the likelihood of a positive outcome.

Not to make excuses for Midjourney. They should have asked permission from artists to use their work.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#170

> But I can't even get cartoons to most people for free now, without doing unpaid work for the profit-making companies who own the most use channels of communication This is the sticking point for me. OpenAI isn't a profit-making company, but it's certainly a valuable company. A valuable company that is built from the work of content others created without transferring any value back to them. Regardless of legalities…

> Put it this way - you remove all the copyrighted, permission-less content from OpenAIs training, what value does OpenAI's products have? If you think OpenAI is less valuable because it can't use copyrighted content, then it should give some of that value back to the content

Couldn't we say the same thing about search engines?

What value would google have without content to search for?

Is the conclusion we should make search engines pay royalities? That seems unfeasible at google scale. Should google just be straight up illegal? That also seems like a bad outcome; i like search engines i am glad they exist.

I guess i'm left with - i don't like this argument because of what it would imply for other projects if you follow the logic to its natural conclusion.

Post reply on HN