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

Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 710 posts

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#351

Post by deadbeeves »

withinboredom wrote: post #327
deadbeeves wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You might believe they don't have the right to say "no," but they can say whatever they want. You have a right to say anything you want. Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it. >If you studied my (we will assume "unique") techniques and used them without my permission, then let us say I sue you. At that point, you would claim "fair use," On what grounds would you sue me? You think my defense w…

> Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it. Yeah, that's exactly why you'd get sued for copyright theft. > you must think my copying your style constitutes copyright infringement Autocorrect screwed that wording up. I've fixed it.

I'm not sure what you've changed, but I'll reiterate: my copying your style is not fair use. Fair use applies to copyrighted things. A style cannot be copyrighted, so if you tried to sue me for infringing upon the copyright of your artistic style, your case would be dismissed. It would be as invalid as you trying to sue me for distributing illegal copies of someone else's painting. Legally you have as much ownership of your artistic style as of that other person's painting.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#352

Post by MrNeon »

xigoi wrote: post #324
MrNeon wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me where it says training a model is infringing on copyright.

How is creating a derivative of someone’s work and selling it not copyright infringement?

Who said anything about creating a derivative? Surely you don't mean to say that any image created with a model trained on copyrighted data counts as a derivative of it. Edit: Or worse, that the model itself is derivative, something so different from an image must count as transformative work!.

Also who said anything about selling?

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#353

Post by flkiwi »

sircastor wrote: post #318
juunpp wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?

>This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Because this isn’t simple law. It feels like simple infringement, but there’s no actual copying going on. You can’t open up the database and find a given duplicate of a work. Instead you have some abstraction of what it takes to get to a given work. Also it’s important to point out that nothing in the law is sure. A good lawyer, a sympathetic judge,…

If the AI were a human and that human made an image that copied substantial elements of another human's creative work after a careful review of the original creator's work, even if it was not an original copy and no archival copy was stored somewhere in the second creator's creative space, I would be concerned about copyright infringement exposure if I were the second (copying) creator.

I'm open to the idea that copyright law might need to change, but it doesn't seem controversial to note that scraping actual creative works to extract elements for an algorithm to generate new works crosses a number of worrying lines.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#354

Post by fulladder »

23B1 wrote: post #253
Minor49er wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the existence of the AI tool not itself a product of authentic creativity? Does eliminating barriers to image generation not facilitate authentic creativity?

No, it facilitates commoditization. Art – real art – is fundamentally a human-to-human transaction. Once everyone can fire perfectly-rendered perfectly-unique pieces of 'art' at each other, it'll just become like the internet is today: filled with extremely low-value noise. Enjoy the short term novelty while you can.

This is the right prediction. Once machines can generate visual art, people will simply stop valuing it. We may see increased interest in other forms of art, e.g., live performance art like theater. It's hard to predict exactly how it'll play out, but once something becomes cheap to produce and widely available, it loses its luster for connoisseurs and then gradually loses its luster for everybody else too.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#355

Post by xigoi »

MrNeon wrote: post #352
xigoi wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is creating a derivative of someone’s work and selling it not copyright infringement?

Who said anything about creating a derivative? Surely you don't mean to say that any image created with a model trained on copyrighted data counts as a derivative of it. Edit: Or worse, that the model itself is derivative, something so different from an image must count as transformative work!. Also who said anything about selling?

The model itself is a derivative. And it’s not really that transformative, it’s basically the input data compressed with highly lossy compression.

> Also who said anything about selling?

All the corporations that are offering AI as a paid service?

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#356

Post by MisterBastahrd »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #322
kredd wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process. People will just look down on any art that’s AI generated in a couple of years when it becomes ubiquitous.

Nope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to integrate generative AI into their processes.

People who use generative AI in their processes are not artists.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#357

Post by sfifs »

meowkit wrote: post #277
xpe wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the hard cold reality is that you cannot “own” an idea. The above comment is true about the properties of information, as explained via the lens of economics. [1] However, one ignores ownership as defined by various systems (including the rule of law and social conventions) at one's own peril. Such systems can also present a "hard cold reality" that can bankrupt or ostracize you. [1] Don't let the apparent conf…

There are other games in town. But whatever game gives the most predictive power is going to win.

By that metric, various economic schools have been hilariously inept and would get classified not dissimilar to various schools of religious theology with their own dogmas. It's only in the last 15 years or so that some focus on empiricism and explaining reality rather than building theoretical castles in the air is coming about and is still far from mainstream.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#358

Post by thfuran »

ta8645 wrote: post #96
visarga wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is just a tool in someone's hand, there's a human who intends something

If that's true, then it should be fine for that human to paint with the brush of his AI tool. Why should that human artist be restricted in the types of tools he uses to create his artwork?

Should I be restricted in using copy paste as my tool for creating art?

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#359

Post by redwall_hp »

witherk wrote: post #37
NoraCodes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.

"Cameras are a tool of captial to fuck over human portrait artists" It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism, but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity.

> It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism, but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity.

You hit the nail on the head. Copyright is, by its very nature, a "tool of capital." It's a means of creating new artificial property fiefdoms for a select few capital holders to lord over, while taking rights from anyone else who wants to engage in the practice of making art.

Everyone has their right to expression infringed upon, all so the 1% of artists can perpetually make money on things, which are ultimately sold to corporations that only pay them pennies on the dollar anyway.

You, as an indie hip hop or house musician supported by a day job, can't sample and chop some vocals or use a slice of a chord played in a song (as were common in the 80s and 90s) for a completely new work, but apparently the world is such a better place because Taylor Swift is a multimillionaire and Disney can milk the maximum value from space and superhero films.

I'd rather live in a world where anyone is free to make whatever art they want, even if everyone has to have a day job.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#360

Post by [deleted] »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #307
23B1 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be about as wickedly tool as the ability to get on the internet, e.g. commoditized, transactional, and boring.

I know this is an unpopular thing to say these days, but I still think the internet is amazing. I have more access to information now than the most powerful people in the world did 40 years ago. I can learn about quantum field theory, about which pop star is allegedly fucking which other pop star, etc. If I don't care about the law I can read any of 25 million books or 100 million scientific papers all available on A…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN