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

81–90 of 100 posts

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

#81

Post by falcolas »

falcolas wrote: post #64
echelon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that's the case then they are sampling previous artists and need to pay them. Adobe's models are 100% trained on works they own or license the copyright to. Synthetic datasets are being built in Unreal Engine and with automated photo turn tables. This argument is going to lose merit soon.

> This argument is going to lose merit soon. When midjourney and all other models built upon copyrighted work they had no license to disappears (and any models which were in turn trained on the output of Midjourney et.al.), perhaps. > Adobe's models are 100% trained on works they own or license the copyright to. I have to ask, was the license broadly interpreted to include AI training, or was that part of the origina…

For completeness sake, Adobe does not appear to have taken Google's lead in this.

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

#82

Post by Manuel_D »

falcolas wrote: post #80
Manuel_D wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your understanding of the law is that any use of the inpainting tool in modern versions of Photoshop makes the image impossible to copyright? Heck, even the magic-wand select is using AI to fine tune its behavior.

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

#83

Post by beej71 »

onemoresoop wrote: post #74

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?

I assume he added up the number of times people have used the image and multiply it by some fee.

But he's wrong. If there were a fee to use this image, basically zero people would use it. They'd all go to midjourney and make their own better images for free.

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

#84

Post by ginvok »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #14

This may not be the reason he's "losing" money here, but I was struck by how much less... impressive that piece is to me now compared to when I first saw it. (Visually impressive; I've always known it was from Midjourney.) When the news first broke about it winning an award, I was like "well damn, I can see why—it's visually striking!" But the longer I look at it, and the more LLM-generated images I see in general, t…

Pretty images are worthless, there's no point staring at images that have were made without intention or effort. Making a prompt is hardly any effort and more of a lucky hit.

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

#85

Post by fuzzfactor »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #73
fuzzfactor wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I know what you mean, there's something to bug everyone ;)

Maybe it's not going to be too easy to reach the level of a "masterpiece" with only a non-owner to bring it into the world?

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

#86

Post by Lerc »

bickfordb wrote: post #21

Does this mean that if Hollywood shifts to AI for production that none of it will be copyrightable?

The AI generated content would not be copyrightable. Manipulations of that AI content by people would still be copyrightable.

Copyrightable output of pure AI is the nightmare situation. Imagine Disney trains an AI on purely content from in-house work-for-hire artists. They would then be free to generate an infinite amount of content that they claim ownership of.

Copyright law, like all laws are intended to benefit society, not individuals. They can be changed as circumstances change. Sure, lobbyists can have a strong influence and attempt to tilt the playing field towards some individuals, but the primary strength of lobbyists is that they show up. Change goes to those who show up.

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

#87

Post by waffletower »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #77

AI art is extremely analogous to photography. As a photographer you did not create the universe you are walking around in, you prompt your camera to look at a certain location and you push a button.

This ^^^. So many cannot see the blatant parallel with photography here -- there is a rich art historic debate regarding the value of photography that went through very similar stages of rejection (and ultimate acceptance). This is a fantastic example of George Santayana's famous aphorism.

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

#88

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

ginvok wrote: post #84
spondylosaurus wrote: post #14

This may not be the reason he's "losing" money here, but I was struck by how much less... impressive that piece is to me now compared to when I first saw it. (Visually impressive; I've always known it was from Midjourney.) When the news first broke about it winning an award, I was like "well damn, I can see why—it's visually striking!" But the longer I look at it, and the more LLM-generated images I see in general, t…

Pretty images are worthless, there's no point staring at images that have were made without intention or effort. Making a prompt is hardly any effort and more of a lucky hit.

Making a good generated image is way more than typing a prompt.

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

#89

Post by drivingmenuts »

Lerc wrote: post #55
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…

> 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. If you accept that, does that mean source code is copyrightable but compiled code is not? I'm kind-of ok with the raw output of diffusion models being public domain. It gets more complicated when The process is more than just Text->Image. Artists spendin…

Source code for software is pretty exacting - the compiler or interpreter follows discernible rules to reach an end product. An image prompt has a random element to the end result - no one is really able to nail down the rules to describe exactly how the end result is produced. There's not so much creativity, just very abstruse statistical calculation.

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

#90

Post by kup0 »

Dear journalists/others: for the love of all that is good, please for f's sake stop calling these people "artists". It reinforces the lie they tell themselves.

They are nothing of the sort.

They are, at most, and even this is overly generous, someone commissioning a "fake artist" (AI) to make something for them

Post reply on HN