271–280 of 927 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
Copyright protection doesn't prevent an illustrator from drawing the thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. How is copyright stifling innovation? You could not rip something off more blatantly than Gravity, which had the lawsuit dismissed entirely. Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven, the list goes on and on and on. You can often get away with nearly murder ripping off other people's stuff.
Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an IP theft machine. Humans wouldn't be allowed to publish these pictures for profit, but OpenAI is allowed to "generate" them?
Won't somebody think of the billionaire IP holders? The horror.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless it can exclude the copyright outputs and provide something else instead of blocking the inputs. I'm sure there's AI that can check if a picture is close enough to something in their database of copyrighted characters built up from some kind of DMCA-like process of copyright holders submitting examples of their work to be blocked.
Indeed, but where does it stop? Looks like Potter? No go. Hmm, looks like an illustration of Pug? No go. Looks like Simon the sorcerer. No go. Hmm, looks like a wizard from Infocom's Sorcers get all the girls. No go. The problem is that it regurgitates what already exists and if you really want to abide by all the permissions then there is nothing left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a thi…
The only people making chairs by hand today are exceptionally well-paid artisanal craft carpenters and/or designers/studios. It's not at all unusual for popular/iconic furniture designs to be copyrighted. Reality is people who invent truly original, useful, desirable things are the most important human beings on the planet. Nothing that makes civilisation what it is has happened without original inventiveness and cre…
You won't destroy the progress completely but there definitely will be a lot of unfairness like people monetizing someone else's music due to having better SEO skills and more free time than the artist. And the artist cannot hire SEO specialist because he has no money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. No you're not, not in general. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to prepare and distribute derivative works. > You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. Again, no, not in general. > You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. Sort of. You're allowed to sell tools that might be used for those purposes. You're not allowed to…
I guess country of residence has a lot of relevance here...
I'm fascinated by the fact that the images are almost right, but never totally. Harrison Ford's head is way too big for his body. Same with Alicia Vikander's and Daniel Craig's too. Daniel Craig is way too young too. Bruce Willis's just looks fake, and he's holding his lighter in the opposite hand from the famous photo. So it's not reproducing any actual copyrighted images directly. It's more like an artist trying to…
According to some of the replies in this discussion, even "artist trying to paint from memory" is guilty of infringement, as long as the subject matter can be linked in any way to someone's "IP". Im not legally trained to evaluate these claims, but some of them seem outlandish!
Here's a question. What if I want to prompt: "An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip, make sure it is NOT Indiana Jones." One way or another, you (and the model) do need to know who Indiana Jones is. After that, the moral and legal choices of whether to generate the image, and what to do with it, are all yours. And we might not agree on what that is, but you do get the choice
I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…
> That Disney Corp can prevent you from viewing some collection of pixels, because THEY own it A world without copyright is just as problematic as a world with copyright. With copyright, you run into the problem of excessive control. This wasn't too much of a problem in the past. If you bought a book, record, or video recording, you owned that particular copy. You could run into disagreeable situations because you di…
Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input? I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. In the end, other than for co…
Overall the model is tra