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

Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#371

Post by egypturnash »

judge2020 wrote: post #293
egypturnash wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not as far as I know. There needs to be one, and internet-scrapers need to be able to be sued for ludicrous amounts of money if they violate it, IMHO. Training AI models feels way outside the scope of what I think "fair use" should cover.

They do not currently operate on the basis of fair use. Operating as a human by looking at images and learning how to draw or paint is not 'fair use', it's a right given to you by either God or Mother Nature, so the legal basis for neural nets learning from other art is that it's learning like a human and creating new art from just knowing what art human think is good and optimizing its creation of art to mimic if no…

Also if you are going to say that the neural net has the same divinely-given right as humans then I feel you are also implying that the neural net has all the other rights of a human, and I think labor laws would have something to say about keeping a six-month-old idiot savant in a box and making them draw whatever random querents on the Internet asked for, 24/7.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#372

Post by egypturnash »

dymk wrote: post #362
egypturnash wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know there are no religions or legal systems that posit that there are any rights inherently given to machines.

The rights are exercised by the humans building and operating the machines. You're saying the hammer doesn't have rights. Well, yeah, duh. It's the person holding it.

"so the legal basis for neural nets learning from other art is that it's learning like a human and creating new art from just knowing what art human think is good and optimizing its creation of art to mimic if not borrow the same qualities while still making something new" sure sounds like it's attributing the rights to the machine, not the person using it, to me.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#373

Post by HeavyFeather »

airstrike wrote: post #268
HeavyFeather wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate limitations as much as the next person, but these tools are viewed as generators by company xyz. You don’t want Disney to sue Adobe because the tool can circumvent IP and abuse it. “Draw a Disney logo but for adults” That image now lives on Adobe.com

What if I draw the logo with a regular 2B pencil? I want to see Disney sue Faber-Castell for making great pencils I used for my deviant art Also IANAL but even then there's probably fair use rights in parodying their logo

Does your art live on Adobe.com? I tried to make this clear. Currently “who made it” isn’t as clear as for paper and pencil. AI isn’t a seen as a plain tool yet, it’s part of the artist.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#374

Post by tialaramex »

dopeboy wrote: post #11

What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a…

> unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave

Adobe had a whole bunch of smart people including Dave Abrahams helping transition to iPhone and iPad, and to build for the cloud, so I'm not sure what you're thinking here.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#375

Post by O__________O »

danShumway wrote: post #343
O__________O wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I am sure you’re aware, already posted response US Copyright’s ruling related to authorship here, so will not be repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247377 Will say that post you linked to also states, “17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of “compilation”). In the case of a compilation including AI-generated material, the computer-generated material will not be protected outside of the compilation.” — t…

> a prompt is somehow a recipe and not a novel expression that merits copyright People keep bringing up photographs, I think the better analogy is commissions. And in fact, the copyright office points towards commissions in its explanation of its policy. Under current copyright law, if I work with an artist to produce a commission by giving that artist repeated prompts, pointing out areas in the image I'd like change…

“Commissions” involve a human.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#376

Post by [deleted] »

airstrike wrote: post #172
open-paren wrote: post #81

Adobe employee, not in Creative Cloud. We got access to this in beta a week ago and it was an instant hit across the whole company. This is just the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot of really cool, in-house products around generative AI. The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader). I'm excited to see the fi…

> The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader) are you saying it won't work? if that's the case, that seems really silly. actually, it goes against everything I believe in (as well as my understanding of even the kindest meaning of the word "hacker"). it drives me up the wall, it makes my blood boil who is going…

[deleted]

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#377

Post by O__________O »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #274
O__________O wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I am sure you’re aware, already posted response US Copyright’s ruling related to authorship here, so will not be repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247377 Will say that post you linked to also states, “17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of “compilation”). In the case of a compilation including AI-generated material, the computer-generated material will not be protected outside of the compilation.” — t…

> a prompt is somehow a recipe and not a novel expression that merits copyright Is it not? Does typing in 'cat' in SD, as millions of people will, count as novel expression?

Millions of people have taken photos of Mona Lisa, none are novel, all are very much protected by copyright.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#378

Post by andrei_says_ »

lelandfe wrote: post #50

From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "firs…

speaking of Adobe and AI I really hope they would somehow make finding useful help in their help system somehow possible. It is an endless labyrinth with an almost useful but usually ruined item in each dead end.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#379

Post by systemvoltage »

airstrike wrote: post #172
open-paren wrote: post #81

Adobe employee, not in Creative Cloud. We got access to this in beta a week ago and it was an instant hit across the whole company. This is just the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot of really cool, in-house products around generative AI. The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader). I'm excited to see the fi…

> The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader) are you saying it won't work? if that's the case, that seems really silly. actually, it goes against everything I believe in (as well as my understanding of even the kindest meaning of the word "hacker"). it drives me up the wall, it makes my blood boil who is going…

I think there is a broader phenomenon in the society for complete disregard for law/order and taking it in their own hands. Enabled by Big Tech and giant ESG corporations, this is a method of sideskirting written laws, constitution, the judicial process and force feeding the public with an authoritarian whip. It is anything but 'democratic' hiding under ostensibly kind causes such as safety, climate, misinformation, etc.

It's not a good look for the tech industry and the ESG corporate culture. It is destroying the very hacker culture that made them.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#380

Post by darreninthenet »

dragonwriter wrote: post #359
unreal37 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if there is a concept in copyright that prevents someone from viewing your work. Like, if you created a lovely piece of art, hung it on the outside of your house, and I was walking on the sidewalk and viewed it. I would not owe you money and you would have no claim of copyright against me. Copyright covers copying. Not viewing. So an AI views your art, classifies it, does whatever magic it does to turn y…

> Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can’t see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy. Memory involves making a copy, and copies anywhere except in the human brain are within the scope of copyright (but may fall into exceptions like Fair Use.)

And this is where it becomes tricky as holding a copy in memory so software can "use" it being against copyright also prevents it being displayed on Adobe's website, or Adobe shrinking it to fit on advertising collage for Adobe Stock images etc, all of which the artist would say is fine as otherwise their work cannot be advertised for them to make money through Adobe's service.

Supposing the AI said "here's the picture you asked for, btw it's influenced most by these four artists and here's links to their works on Adobe Stock"... is that better (or worse)?

Post reply on HN