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

Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#71

Post by orwin »

echelon wrote: post #4

Real AI artists are spending hundreds of hours and their human labor is absolutely copyrightable. There are three types of labor-intensive AI art: (1) ComfyUI node graph editing, (2) canvas-based compositions that use AI as a filter or brush, and (3) large multi-day compositions typically built for film and gaming. Sometimes all of these manual and laborious methodologies are employed for one work. We're so past the…

I don't think I agree. I know a woman who live by copying paintings (huge ones usually, only saw her copy 2-6m wide painting) in different museums, then sell the copy to buyers who want them in his manor. She doesn't copy 1 for 1 (it's impossible to get all the brush strokes right, even though she spend days studying them), and in fact specialize in 3 specific styles to avoid visible divergence, but her work isn't copyrightable. She spend arguably way, waaaaaay more time on her paintings than 'ai artists' (I met her in a art museum in Lille where she was halfway through the painting after 2 months, she became fast friend with my dad though, spent hours speaking about pigment and brush techniques), that doesn't make her work any more copyrighted.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#72

Post by iamleppert »

fny wrote: post #48
iamleppert wrote: post #30

Based on his argument, the human component should and rightfully be copyrightable. In this case, it's the prompt or conversation he had with the AI. That should definitely be able to be copyrightable, but I agree that the image itself should not. This is the fundamental problem with AI -- if the government isn't willing to protect it, there is fundamentally no market for it. What does that say about the value of the…

Recipes are not copyrightable. If the food you produce with them can no longer be protected, what value are the tools used to create them?

That's a bad analogy. Food is consumed exactly once and has to be produced again each time, and thats where the majority of the value is, even for food that is produced many times over from a recipe.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#73

Post by spondylosaurus »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #69
rsynnott wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI-generated images are interesting in that, in general, the more you look at them, and in particular the more you look at the detail, the worse they look. This is, arguably, one simple way to distinguish them from actual art.

>the part from 4 to 6 o'clock is fuzzier and blends into the nearby wall Kind of like a Rembrandt or something. I guess there's a reason it's always been said "there's no accounting for taste" :)

But only part of it blends! If the whole circumference was like that, it wouldn't bug me.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#74

Post by onemoresoop »

This artist won a $300 prize at the Colorado State Fair Fine Arts Competition 2022. I'm a bit confused what millions he's talking about but in my opinion the best bet for him would've been to commission some artists to create a real painting of his work and strike the iron while hot. Did anybody think that gen AI artwork would be a hot market for long?

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#75

Post by fny »

iamleppert wrote: post #72
fny wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recipes are not copyrightable. If the food you produce with them can no longer be protected, what value are the tools used to create them?

That's a bad analogy. Food is consumed exactly once and has to be produced again each time, and thats where the majority of the value is, even for food that is produced many times over from a recipe.

By your logic, Coca-Cola has no reason to keep their recipe a trade secret.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#76

Post by Manuel_D »

falcolas wrote: post #65
Manuel_D wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the images that went into building the models are copyrightable. Adobe has a license to use them for AI training, but the authors still have copyrighht. So as per your logic the answer would actually be "no, these images aren't exempt from copyright."

Nothing from the OP or the original AI Artist was about using Adobe. That said, were the images used by Adobe actually licensed for AI training, or was an existing overly broad license aimed at "showing this in an online gallery" interpreted by lawyers to include AI training? Because that latter option is being done by a lot of corporations (including Google) to make "ethical" AI models.

Adobe trains its models on Adobe Stock and public domain images

> Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content. Firefly generative AI models are trained on a dataset of licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public domain content where copyright has expired.

https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/adobe-terms-use-backlas...

> Nothing from the OP or the original AI Artist was about using Adobe.

The point is that even using basic photoshop tools is "AI art".

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#79

Post by shadowgovt »

remon wrote: post #15

Millions? His work? Come on now.

Nature photographers can spend weeks or months scouting out a proper locale, picking the vantage point, waiting for just the right moment (or collecting and curating hundreds of moments), and then doing (possibly) final touch-ups in a photo editor.

Their work is copyrightable, and it can be argued the only "work" they did was pushing a shutter button and maybe some touch-ups. Nature did the rest.

We extend copyright protection to them; it's difficult for me to see why we wouldn't extend copyright protection to AI-synthesized works on similar grounds.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#80

Post by falcolas »

Manuel_D wrote: post #76
falcolas wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing from the OP or the original AI Artist was about using Adobe. That said, were the images used by Adobe actually licensed for AI training, or was an existing overly broad license aimed at "showing this in an online gallery" interpreted by lawyers to include AI training? Because that latter option is being done by a lot of corporations (including Google) to make "ethical" AI models.

Adobe trains its models on Adobe Stock and public domain images > Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content. Firefly generative AI models are trained on a dataset of licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public domain content where copyright has expired. https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/adobe-terms-use-backlas... > Nothing from the OP or the original AI Artist was about using Adobe. The…

Thank you for the info. It's still going to run afoul of the copyright office's interpretation of who owns copyright for AI generated materials, but I'm really glad to see them doing something ethical with the model creation.
Post reply on HN