31–40 of 166 posts
[flagged]
In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art that is really close to Picasso. He will lose in court because of IP. Now an AI does the same thing and suddenly no copyright ? What should be done maybe is explicitly asking for every art generated to ask to pay for it and this money goes for the copyrights. But…
It doesn't really matter if you can't put the AI back in the bottle so to speak. If (in the USA) it's found that AI generated images (based on copyrighted materials) are not fair use, then effectively it will be poisonous to use in your (USA-based) company. This will definitely prevent it from being mainstream. That being said, nothing is stopping Getty images, for example, from releasing their own image generator, t…
Do they own the right to train-a-model? It's not clear at all. A lot of great photographers don't want their unique style to be multiplied ad infinitum. Copyright is to "copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work", and this is not an adaptation
Fair use would work if we could find an artist for a given generated picture - but we can't. Generate a picture and there is no artist for it closer than the ones who made the pictures in the training set. I really hope these lawyers wont mess that up, it's an easy win.
I believe that a further restriction of fair use to what is produced by a generative AI would also give a lot of tools for large copyright holders (e.g. Disney) for suing and removing fan art for anything that "is in the style of" or "makes use of the same characters" including uses that would previously be considered beneath their notice and thus not worth their time (the amount the lawyers would cost combined with…
No because in that case you're talking about, there is at least an artist.
There is no artist for a generated picture - closer than the training set.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint? Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.
As someone that’s undecided on this whole issue, your particular argument comes across as so tone-deaf that I didn’t think that you genuinely believed it when you wrote it.
Or that style is not copyrighted? Because it’s not.
It doesn't really matter if you can't put the AI back in the bottle so to speak. If (in the USA) it's found that AI generated images (based on copyrighted materials) are not fair use, then effectively it will be poisonous to use in your (USA-based) company. This will definitely prevent it from being mainstream. That being said, nothing is stopping Getty images, for example, from releasing their own image generator, t…
"legal earthquake" Why is everyone talking in apocalyptic terms about AI? A new legal framework will have to be constructed around this, just like with any new technology. Copyright holders will get relief or we don't have a legal system that works. Have we lost faith in our system so much that we think we live in a disaster movie?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint? Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.
Yes that’s covered by law https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm... > Le droit moral de l’artiste est «perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible». Il est lié à la personne de l’auteur qui ne peut y renoncer ni le céder à autrui > The moral right of the artist is "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible". It is linked to the person of the author who can neither renounce it nor transfer it to a…
You don’t want Renoir suing Monet over who owns Impressionism.
That is very different from saying you cannot recreate his specific works.
Or do crappy Pop Art faux copies.
It doesn't really matter if you can't put the AI back in the bottle so to speak. If (in the USA) it's found that AI generated images (based on copyrighted materials) are not fair use, then effectively it will be poisonous to use in your (USA-based) company. This will definitely prevent it from being mainstream. That being said, nothing is stopping Getty images, for example, from releasing their own image generator, t…
> trained from images they own copyright to Do they own the right to train-a-model? It's not clear at all. A lot of great photographers don't want their unique style to be multiplied ad infinitum. Copyright is to "copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work", and this is not an adaptation
In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art that is really close to Picasso. He will lose in court because of IP. Now an AI does the same thing and suddenly no copyright ? What should be done maybe is explicitly asking for every art generated to ask to pay for it and this money goes for the copyrights. But…