Live data from Hacker News

An artist fights Midjourney

garymarcus.substack.com

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#71

A web browser lets you easily commit copyright infringement by right clicking on a copyrighted image you do not have the rights to and selecting download. It is also shockingly easy to do.

downloading a copyrighted image is not a crime. downloading and then attempting to distribute that image probably is.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#72
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Especially not to sell it after (or sell a service that paints other images).

Does us law prohibit selling machines or services that potentially can perform copyright infringement?

I don't know US, but if similar to Australia then you can sell the machines, but there are specific regulations regarding public access to them, which boils down to posting notices about copyright violations and passing liability onto the user. Because apparently a stern warning stops students from photocopying expensive text books. Which is the sort of thing Midjourney and OpenAI will be relying on for their defense, yes.

It is also interesting that there are technology specific laws. You can't sell photocopiers to the public capable of reproducing bank notes for example. Or taxes added to blank medium such as cassette tapes.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#73
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does us law prohibit selling machines or services that potentially can perform copyright infringement?

The NN has copyright material stored (maybe in compressed form) inside of it. That's quite literally the definition of copying, and if you do that without licence copyright infringement. Note how software licences typically give you the licence to make a copy for running the program? That's because the act of copying the program from the medium (cd, USB stick, HDD...) is considered copying. I really don't understand…

This is a good explanation, thank you. I would argue that their purpose is not to circumvent copyright, however.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#74
post #26

Quite similar to the New York Times lawsuit. If you can reproduce an original work, then use of the source material was obviously not transformative, and not covered under fair use. These systems can currently function like a lossy compression algorithm. This is going to be a mess until higher courts in the US or Europe make some rulings. Personally, I think they are going to favor the copyright holders. A few billio…

The main selling point of Midjourney is that you own the images that it produces for you. If that is not the case, if Midjourney's output can not be copyrighted, that might destroy its business model.

Midjourney cannot grant you the copyright to an image it generates, because it may generate the same or very similar image for another user. The best it can do is grant you a non-exclusive permissive license. And maybe it would get in trouble if it granted a permissive license to a copyrighted or trademark infringing image, or maybe the copyright or trademark claim simply trumps the license.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#75
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it, really? And would you own that new scene? Midjourney is a paid service which uses copyrighted works as source, without any agreement with the copyright holders, while declaring that its users own all the assets that it creates for them.

I am not a lawyer but adding your own items and creating a hypothetical scenes seems more like fair use than the reaction videos on youtube do? Or, is that a different ballgame altogether? Curious to find out. I am not a lawyer.

[deleted]

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#76
To me it seems pretty unambiguous that the infringement is a problem, and I even agree with the idea that Midjourney, not the users, should be held responsible if their model is being used as a service. I can’t come down on what solution I actually think is reasonable though. Restricting training data to non-copyrighted works would pretty much make AI art non-viable for any modern style, which would make plenty of people happy but feels potentially problematic if the nature of AI continues to change which it certainly will. Restricting output feels more right to me but also feels substantially less effective, since you would need AI to do any practical restriction automatically and what margin of error there would be acceptable? I definitely think this should be clamped down on but I can never settle on what I think would be reasonable and not just totally dismissive of at least one major set of concerns.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#77
post #76

To me it seems pretty unambiguous that the infringement is a problem, and I even agree with the idea that Midjourney, not the users, should be held responsible if their model is being used as a service. I can’t come down on what solution I actually think is reasonable though. Restricting training data to non-copyrighted works would pretty much make AI art non-viable for any modern style, which would make plenty of pe…

The answer is simple:

Require consent for any training use.

This may also require compensation.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they’re making money producing images of IP then…

So if someone sketches Batman do you sue Bic?

Are they producing batman on an industrial scale to generate profits/market share that investors value?

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#79
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the cops search your car for meth and they find coke instead, they don't merrily send you on your way.

Eh, it depends. I don't know if this is the case, but if these images were released to press & public as part of a media resource pack with a permissive license used to market the movie (which I believe is commonly done in this industry), I'd have a hard time empathizing with the viewpoint that Midjourney is doing something wicked by including it in their training data.

https://www.gadgets360.com/entertainment/news/dune-2020-firs...

You are right, the regurgitation was indeed produced by the studio for promotional purposes. But notice how the image is rendered at the link: with credit and copyright. And specifically, for promotional purposes. And while I don't presume to know the specifics of the licensing of that image, I wouldn't either assume that this use is licensed. Especially without copyright and credit.

Re: An artist fights Midjourney

#80

If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! In all seriousness, midjourney is like any other tool. You can break the law with it, big surprise. It should still be on the person that broke the law, not the makers of the tool. If you go down the “can’t use my art as training data” how far do you push it? I watched Batman, does that mean if I draw caped super heroes I am stealing training data? Would…

I believe he is calling out the company not the tool. And calling them out because they infringed copyright by showing the copyrighted material to the model during training (as evidence by it being able to reproduce it so faithfully)
Post reply on HN