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

Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#31

Post by spondylosaurus »

Spivak wrote: post #16

Y'all really want to be mad at this but this is one of those tragic cases where the worst person is correct. * AI companies claim that training should not be covered by copyright. This says nothing at all about the model outputs which can still violate copyright. * Curation makes something a copyrightable work. This applies to photographers and machine generated art. The copyright office's ruling doesn't change that…

Genuinely asking: would/should the ownership rest solely with the person promoting the model, or would part of all of it belong to the model itself (and/or its creator)? My hunch is that this is a somewhat unprecedented scenario, so comparing Midjourney to a tool like Photoshop wouldn't be completely accurate—in the sense that of course Adobe doesn't hold the rights to things you make in Photoshop—but there could very well be established cases I'm unaware of!

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#32

Post by mcintyre1994 »

dvngnt_ wrote: post #23

looks like the crux is that supposedly ai-generated images don't have copyright protections > When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. > As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application. but i think that's only if it's entirely prompt driven. you could argue that m…

Also the other way - if you use an AI tool to edit an original image, is the output copyrightable? Is the answer different if the AI thing is doing a generative fill vs a bigger change? I guess this is the more financially important version of when Facebook was tagging any use of AI-powered tools in eg Photoshop as an AI generated image.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#34

Post by echelon »

croes wrote: post #6
echelon wrote: post #4

Real AI artists are spending hundreds of hours and their human labor is absolutely copyrightable. There are three types of labor-intensive AI art: (1) ComfyUI node graph editing, (2) canvas-based compositions that use AI as a filter or brush, and (3) large multi-day compositions typically built for film and gaming. Sometimes all of these manual and laborious methodologies are employed for one work. We're so past the…

If that's the case then they are sampling previous artists and need to pay them. You can't have your cake and eat it.

> If that's the case then they are sampling previous artists and need to pay them.

Adobe's models are 100% trained on works they own or license the copyright to.

Synthetic datasets are being built in Unreal Engine and with automated photo turn tables.

This argument is going to lose merit soon.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#35

Post by greatgib »

uxhacker wrote: post #7
echelon wrote: post #4

Real AI artists are spending hundreds of hours and their human labor is absolutely copyrightable. There are three types of labor-intensive AI art: (1) ComfyUI node graph editing, (2) canvas-based compositions that use AI as a filter or brush, and (3) large multi-day compositions typically built for film and gaming. Sometimes all of these manual and laborious methodologies are employed for one work. We're so past the…

But the prompt should be copyrightable?

A prompt is like an idea, it is not copyrightable. Imagine giving a copyright to a discussion?

But nothing force you to reveal the prompt you used assuming you are using the right tool for protecting your secrets.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#38

Post by wetpaws »

waffletower wrote: post #20

The U.S. Copyright Office has made a bogus claim -- 'work derived from AI platforms “contained no human authorship”' -- my belief is that this incorrect and probably illegal edict is simply a poor excuse for the office to neglect its mandate. They do not have the resources and technological footing to register the flood of AI art they would likely receive for copyright protection. Regardless of chutzpah I support All…

[dead]

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#39

Post by EnergyAmy »

Spivak wrote: post #16

Y'all really want to be mad at this but this is one of those tragic cases where the worst person is correct. * AI companies claim that training should not be covered by copyright. This says nothing at all about the model outputs which can still violate copyright. * Curation makes something a copyrightable work. This applies to photographers and machine generated art. The copyright office's ruling doesn't change that…

I don't think copyright applies to the image itself. The work of curation can be copyrighted, but here it's trivial, just selecting one image. If he published a book of AI-generated artwork, the curation of images could be copyrighted as a whole, but each individual image would not be copyrighted.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#40

Post by Manuel_D »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #32
dvngnt_ wrote: post #23

looks like the crux is that supposedly ai-generated images don't have copyright protections > When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. > As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application. but i think that's only if it's entirely prompt driven. you could argue that m…

Also the other way - if you use an AI tool to edit an original image, is the output copyrightable? Is the answer different if the AI thing is doing a generative fill vs a bigger change? I guess this is the more financially important version of when Facebook was tagging any use of AI-powered tools in eg Photoshop as an AI generated image.

Photoshop is an AI tool. For several years now, inpainting and other Photoshop tools have been powered by AI.
Post reply on HN