Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define learn.
Define people.
Define "define".
Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
581–590 of 710 posts
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
"and to never make it online." So then of course, you also cannot sell your work, as those might put it online. And you cannot show your art to big crowds, as some will make pictures and put it online. So ... you can become a literal underground artists, where only some may see your work. I think only some will like that. But I actually disagree, there are plenty of ways to be an artist now - but most should probably…
Can you elaborate on how they supplement their income?
Every other source of income? So other, art-unrelated jobs.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#583Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 completel…
Did you read anything I wrote? If you are going to argue, it would be worth at least researching your opinion before writing. Caps used for emphasis, not yelling. Firstly: Copyrighted work IS THE AUTHOR'S PROPERTY. They can control it however they wish via LICENSING. Secondly: You don't have any "fair use rights" ... there is literally NO SUCH THING. "fair use" is simply a valid legal defense WHEN YOU STEAL SOMEONE'S…
>control it however they wish
I'm jumping in the middle here, but this isn't true. They cannot control how they wish. They can only control under the limits of copyright law.
Copyright law does not extend to limiting how someone may or may not be inspired by the work. Copyright protects expression, and never ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#584Earlier quoted context omitted.
My initial interpretation was that you're saying fair use is irrelevant to the situation because machine learning models aren't themselves legal persons. But, fair use doesn't solely apply to manual creation - use of traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) is still covered by fair use. To my understanding, that's why ronsor pointed out that ML models are tools used…
Well then I could have been much clearer because I meant something like the latter. An ML model can neither have nor be in breach of copyright so any discussion about how it works, and how that relates to how people work or “learn” is besides the point. What actually matters is firstly details about collation of source material, and later the particular legal details surrounding attribution. The last part involves br…
> and how that relates to how people work or “learn” is besides the point
It is important (for the training and generation stages) to distinguish between whether the model copies the original works or merely infers information from them - as copyright does not protect against the latter.
> The first part, collation of source material for training is emphatically not unexplored legal or moral territory.
Similar to as in Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. where Google internally made entire copies of millions of in-copyright books:
> > While Google makes an unauthorized digital copy of the entire book, it does not reveal that digital copy to the public. The copy is made to enable the search functions to reveal limited, important information about the books. With respect to the search function, Google satisfies the third factor test
Or in the ongoing Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence case where the latter used the former's legal headnotes for training a language model:
> > verbatim intermediate copying has consistently been upheld as fair use if the copy is "not reveal[ed] to the public."
That it's an internal transient copy is not inherently a free pass, but it is something the courts take into consideration, as mentioned more explicitly in Sega v. Accolade:
> > Accolade, a commercial competitor of Sega, engaged in wholesale copying of Sega's copyrighted code as a preliminary step in the development of a competing product [yet] where the ultimate (as opposed to direct) use is as limited as it was here, the factor is of very little weight
And, given training a machine learning model is a considerably different purpose than what the images were originally intended for, it's likely to be considered transformative; as in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music:
> > The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#585Earlier 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.
And how are they different than the millions of factory workers on a line?
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making a profit off variations of someone's work isn't covered under fair use.
That's not a fair statement to make. It can influence a judge's decision on whether something is fair use, but it can still be fair use even if you profit from it.
The doctrine of fair use presupposes that the defendant acted in good faith.
- Harper & Row, 105 S. Ct. at 2232
- Marcus, 695 F.2d 1171 at 1175
- Radji v. Khakbaz, 607 F. Supp. 1296, 1300 (D.D. C.1985)
- Roy Export Co. Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, Black, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcastinig System, Inc., 503 F. Supp. 1137 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 672 F.2d 1095 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 103 S. Ct. 60, 74 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1982)
Copying and distributing someone else's work, especially without attributing the original, to make money without their permission is almost guaranteed to fall afoul of fair use.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#587Huge market for snake oil here. There is no way that such tools will ever win, given the requirements the art remain viewable to human perception, so even if you made something that worked (which this sounds like it doesn’t) from first principles it will be worked around immediately. The only real way for artists or anyone really to try to hold back models from training on human outputs is through the law, ie, levera…
> Huge market for snake oil here. This tool is free, and as far as I can tell it runs locally. If you're not selling anything, and there's no profit motive, then I don't think you can reasonably call it "snake oil". At worst, it's a waste of time. But nobody's being deceived into purchasing it.
Religion is also deceptive and snake-oil even if it does not involve profit driven motivations.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#588Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m being told repeatedly that the similarities are surface level, but no one seems to be able to give an example of a deep difference
The mechinism backing human learning isn't well understood. Machine learning is considerably clearer. Imo, it's a mistake to assume they're close because ML seems to work.
So your example of a deep difference is the suggestion that there may be a difference owing to our own ignorance? That hardly seems convincing
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#589Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every waking second humans are training on what they see in their surroundings, including any copyrighted works in sight. Want to compare untrained AI fairly? Compare their artistic abilities with a newborn.
No. That is NOT what humans do unless you somehow learn grammar without going to school. Most of a human's childhood is spent learning from their parents so that they can move about and communicate at least a little effectively. Then, they go to school and learn rules, social, grammar, math, and so forth. There's some learning via copyrighted works (such as textbooks, entertainment, etc.), but literally, none of this…
Clearly going to school did not help you learn the meaning of theft. If you keep repeating the same incorrect point there is no point to a discussion.
First: in your opinion, which specific type of law or right is being broken or violated by generative AI? Copyright? Trademark? Can we at least agree it does not meet the definition of theft?
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#590Earlier 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?
Illegality and wrongdoing are completely distinct categories. I'm not convinced that most copyright infringements are immoral regardless of their legal status. If you post your images for the world to see, and someone uses that image, you are not harmed. The idea that the world owes you something after you deliberately shared it with others seems bizarre.
My statement above is that their activities are illegal and wrong, not that one implies the other. They are illegal because of the copyright violation, and wrong because regardless of what the law says, using the images for training despite the artists' every appeal to the contrary (being vocal about the issue, putting a robots.txt file to avoid scraping, and now using adversarial techniques to protect their work from being stolen) is just moronic. It's like shitting on their front yard when they've asked you a million times not to shit in the front yard, put a sign that says "Please don't shit on my front yard", and sprayed insecticide all over the grass to try to deter you from shitting on the front yard. And yet you still shit on their front yard and even have the balls to argue that there's nothing wrong or illegal about it. This is absolutely insane.