471–480 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're independent selling paintings, sure. Designing packaging or something commercial? 4 hours of work a week for nearly 6 figures. I know a couple graphic designers and they don't do shit for what they're paid.
You should probably tell the other millions of artists busting out 60+ hour workweek in industry for half that price where these jobs are. That could solve this problem overnight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What this means, is these systems will fall into different categories of law around copyright and free-use. No they won't. A human who uses a computer as a tool (under all the previous qualifications of fair use) is still a human doing something in fair use. Adding a computer to the workflow of a human doesn't make fair use disappear. A human can use photoshop, in fair use. They can use a camera. They can use all s…
Yet the copyright office has already stated that getting an AI to create an image for you does not have sufficient human authorship to be copyrighted. There's already a legal distinction here between this "tool" and tools like photoshop and cameras. It's also presumptive to assume that AI tools have these fair use protections when none of this has actually been decided in a court of law yet. There's still several uns…
Gotcha.
That has nothing to do with fair use though.
Also, the same argument absolutely applies to photoshop.
If someone didn't include sufficient human authorship while using photoshop, that wouldn't be copyrightable either.
Also, the ruling has no bearing on if someone using AI, while also inputting a significant amount of human authorship. Instead, it was only about the cases where there weren't much human authorship.
At no point did the copyright office disclude copyright protections from anything that used AI in any way what so ever. In fact, the copyright office now includes new forms and fields where you talk about the whole process that you did, and how you used AI, in conjunction with human authorship to create the work.
> It's also presumptive to assume that AI tools
I'm not talking about the computer. I never claimed that computer's have rights. Instead, I'm talking about the human. Yes, a human has fair use protections, even if they use a computer.
> There's still several unsettled cases here.
There is no reason to believe that copyright law will be interpreted in a significantly different way than it has been in the past.
There is long standing precent, regarding all sorts of copyright cases that involve using a computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t really see any difference in those images on the Twitter example when viewing it on mobile
I don't have great vision, but me neither. They're indistinguishable to me (likewise on mobile).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no such thing as fair use until you get to court (as a legal defense) Well the point is that it wouldn't go to court, as it would be completely legal. So yes, if nobody sues you, then you are completely in the clear and aren't in trouble. Thats what people mean by fair use. They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit, therefore your actions are safe and legal.…
> as it would be completely legal. Theft is never legal; that's why you can be sued. "Fair use" is a legal defense in the theft of copyrighted works. > They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit That hasn't stopped people from suing anyone ever. If they want to sue you, they'll sue you. > and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe. If you steal a pen from a store,…
Fortunately I am not talking about someone illegally taking property from someone else.
Instead I am talking about people taking completely legal actions that are protected by law.
> in the theft of copyrighted works
Actually, it wouldn't be theft if it was done in fair use. Instead it would be completely legal.
If nobody sues you and proves that it was illegal then you are completely safe, if you did this in fair use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal. Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that…
The "blatantly illegal" part is the part I'm not understanding. I drew something, I did some processing on it, I put it online, someone grabbed it and used it without my permission. I'm not clear on the illegal part. > Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue I think poking around HN or just this thread alone would tell you that at least people here d…
This seems like a pretty pointless "arms race" or "cat and mouse game". People who want to train generative image models and who don't care about what artists think about it at all can just do some basic post-processing on the images that is just enough to destroy the very carefully tuned changes this Nightshade algorithm makes. Something like resampling it to slightly lower resolution and then using another super-re…
>Or maybe artists will just give up on trying to monetize the images themselves and focus only on creating physical artifacts, similar to how independent musicians make most of their money nowadays from touring and selling merchandise at shows (plus Patreon). As is, art already isn't a sustainable career for most people who can't get a job in industry. The most common monetization is either commissions or hiding extr…
It's not particularly that hard. The furry nsfw models are already the most well developed and available models you can get right now. And they are spitting out stuff that is almost indistinguishable from regular art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal. Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that…
I wonder how your original claim balances with something like freedom of speech/expression? Ultimately it’s art and perhaps the Nightshade-modified version is a component of what makes the piece art?
The original post is mainly about the current legality, I'm torn as to what the moral balance is, but poisoning data is similar to a lot of historical asymmetrical methods of topical influence through intentional property destruction, and that's an issue.
For example, the counterintuitive example of you poisoning a sandwich if your coworker is eating it makes you liable even if the original action is wrong on the coworker's part, if that makes sense.
It's not necessarily an intuitive legal construct but a necessary one at least.
That said, I think w.r.t. a final solution, grassroots vs big money legal will be the long-term playing field and I think efforts would be well spent on that. Though I worry about the perceived desperation of the field if people are this ready to poison open-field data in order to protect what they determine their own interests to be.
I think that's the big marker here that we should look at and be worried about, usually when ignored that tends to preclude different types of issues/problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Now, I just think you are arguing in bad faith. What I meant to say was clear, but I said "technique" instead. Then, instead of debating what I meant to say (you know, the actual point of the conversation), you took my words verbatim. I'm not sure where you are going with this ... but for what it's worth, techniques can be copyrighted ... even patented, or protected via trade secrets. I never said what the techniques…
Thousands of reviews, book reports, quotations on fan sites and so on are published daily; you seem to be arguing that they are all copyright violations unless and until the original copyright holder takes those reviewers, seventh graders, and Tumblr stans to court and loses, at which point they are now a-ok. To quote a meme in a way that I'm pretty sure does, in fact, fall under fair use: "That's not the way any of this works."
> There is a crap load of case law showing "research for commercial purposes is not fair use,"
While you may be annoyed with the OP for asking you to name a bit of that case law, it isn't an unreasonable demand. For instance:
https://guides.nyu.edu/fairuse#:~:text=As%20a%20general%20ma....
"As a general matter, educational, nonprofit, and personal uses are favored as fair uses. Making a commercial use of a work typically weighs against fair use, but a commercial use does not automatically defeat a fair use claim. 'Transformative' uses are also favored as fair uses. A use is considered to be transformative when it results in the creation of an entirely new work (as opposed to an adaptation of an existing work, which is merely derivative)."
This is almost certainly going to be used by AI companies as part of their defense against such claims; "transformative uses" have literally been name-checked by courts. It's also been established that commercial companies can ingest mountains of copyrighted material and still fall under the fair use doctrine -- this is what the whole Google Books case about a decade ago was about. Google won.
I feel like you're trying to make a moral argument against generative AI, one that I largely agree with, but a moral argument is not a legal argument. If you want to make a legal argument against generative AI with respect to copyright violation and fair use, perhaps try something like:
- The NYT's case against OpenAI involves being able to get ChatGPT to spit out large sections of NYT articles given prompts like "here is the article's URL and here is the first paragraph of the article; tell me what the rest of the text is". OpenAI and its defenders have argued that such prompts aren't playing fair, but "you have to put some effort into getting our product to commit clear copyright violation" is a rather thin defense.
- A crucial test of fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (quoting directly from the relevant law). If an image generator can be told to do new artwork in a specific artist's style, and it can do a credible job of doing so, and it can be reasonably established that the training model included work from the named artist, then the argument the generator is damaging the market for that artist's work seems quite compelling.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. There may be lots of over-priced junk that makes you want to question this idea. But let's not nit-pick on that. In two years time people will not see any value in AI art, quite correctly because there is not much human labour in creating it.