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

Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#91

Post by jncfhnb »

p1necone wrote: post #42
reactor wrote: post #38

Humans acquire a significant amount of knowledge (or get trained on) by learning from the work of others. If companies can face legal repercussions for training models on materials from elsewhere, a similar argument could be made for individuals.

This argument seems ridiculous to me but it's hard to explain exactly why. People are people, LLMs are... not people - it seems pretty obvious to me that humans learning from seeing things is a basic fact of nature, and that someone feeding petabytes of copyrighted material into an AI model to fully automate generation of art is obviously copyright infringement. I can see the argument making more sense if we actually…

It’s not copyright infringement to copy somebody’s style.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#92

Post by bugglebeetle »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #84
bugglebeetle wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the extent to which you’ve demonstrated whataboutism at its extremes, but I think we can take things even further. Let’s suggest that artists direct their ire at the emergence of life itself from the raw materials of the universe, as that is, indisputably, the origin of all suffering.

> Let’s suggest that artists direct their ire at the emergence of life itself from the raw materials of the universe, as that is, indisputably, the origin of all suffering. Some artists do.

A keen observation. While artists may be made redundant, I doubt AI will ever achieve the depth of insight you’ve demonstrated in this thread.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#93

Post by s1artibartfast »

davexunit wrote: post #59

It's so obvious to me that machine learning models are derivative works of their training set. If they weren't, then why would these companies fight so hard to say otherwise? They need that training data to make their product, so they should pay the licensing fees for it! 10 years ago, when I worked on a machine learning model for my employer, it was unthinkable to train on data we did not have the rights to use. But…

needing the training data has zero bearing on if they are derivative works. "derivative works" it a term of art with a specific meaning.

I think the derivative work argument is a dead end. However, AI companies did violate use licenses when they first used the data for commercial purpose of training the models.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#94

Post by jncfhnb »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #49

So…which is the best art generator I can download and run locally today? Or are there a few top ones specific to art style(photorealistic, scenery, pixel art, vectors, etc)?

Flux is the best base model and you grab small fine tune Loras for specific styles

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#95

Post by jncfhnb »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #47
throwaway4837 wrote: post #41

You can have a kid, that kid can grow up to be a musician inspired by Taylor Swift, likely with some of their musical output having depended on Taylor's input. That's perfectly legal. But in a possible future, you could produce an AGI that isn't allowed to listen to Taylor Swift, never allowed to be inspired by anything from Taylor's songs?

I think it is more nuanced than that. Imagine you write a book and release it with a non-commercial use license, but a company copies it and uses it for employee training. Imagine you wrote software and released it with a non-commercial use license, but the company includes it in their for-profit workflow.

Sounds like information would finally be free, just like it always wanted

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#96

Post by polotics »

ronsor wrote: post #29
moffkalast wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the Enron dataset that's now part of the Pile become public during discovery too? Some great image datasets might drop.

The dataset is already public. That's the only reason they were able to file this time-wasting lawsuit anyway.

Why do you think it is time wasting? Is it because of the wasted time of all the artists having gone to the bother of producing art that can now be approximated at the press of a button?

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#97

Post by ronsor »

polotics wrote: post #96
ronsor wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dataset is already public. That's the only reason they were able to file this time-wasting lawsuit anyway.

Why do you think it is time wasting? Is it because of the wasted time of all the artists having gone to the bother of producing art that can now be approximated at the press of a button?

It's a waste of time because the majority of their claims were poorly constructed, disingenuous, and subsequently thrown out.

All this has done is incentivize AI research companies to be even more closed and opaque.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#98

Post by polotics »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #71
p1necone wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument seems ridiculous to me but it's hard to explain exactly why. People are people, LLMs are... not people - it seems pretty obvious to me that humans learning from seeing things is a basic fact of nature, and that someone feeding petabytes of copyrighted material into an AI model to fully automate generation of art is obviously copyright infringement. I can see the argument making more sense if we actually…

>and that someone feeding petabytes of copyrighted material into an AI model to fully automate generation of art is obviously copyright infringement. It becomes a little less obvious when you learn that the models which had petabytes of images "go into it" are You have 5 million artists on one hand saying "My art is in there being used" and you have a 10GB file full of matrix vectors saying "There are no image files…

No the <10GB size of the model does not imply any less copyright infrigement is occuring IMHO. The fact that there is a very efficient compression involved does not change the fact that a copy of the copyrighted material, that copy being not compressed in any way, was input into the process that generated the model, in breach of the copyrighted material's copyright.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#99

Post by s1artibartfast »

jncfhnb wrote: post #95
s1artibartfast wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is more nuanced than that. Imagine you write a book and release it with a non-commercial use license, but a company copies it and uses it for employee training. Imagine you wrote software and released it with a non-commercial use license, but the company includes it in their for-profit workflow.

Sounds like information would finally be free, just like it always wanted

sounds like you are projecting your desires on an abstract concept.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#100

Post by polotics »

jncfhnb wrote: post #95
s1artibartfast wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is more nuanced than that. Imagine you write a book and release it with a non-commercial use license, but a company copies it and uses it for employee training. Imagine you wrote software and released it with a non-commercial use license, but the company includes it in their for-profit workflow.

Sounds like information would finally be free, just like it always wanted

Do you produce information as part of your work? Do you expect to get paid for this work?
Post reply on HN