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

Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

kapwing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#91

Post by JoshTriplett »

csallen wrote: post #51
abustamam wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe artists deserve to be compensated when their art is used to generate stuff in their style? I'm staunchly against expansion of IP laws. But I personally think that when a corporate machine gobbles up an artist's works so that people like me who can't draw can generate silly memes for a few bucks a month, the artist should be compensated. The company is profiting off of other peopl…

> The company is profiting off of other people's work! That's not right. What's wrong with it? We live in an interconnected world. Every company or individual who profits off anything does so, in very large part, thanks to work left behind by others that they don't directly compensate each other for. Stated differently, if we look at the other side of the coin, it's one thing to create value, and another thing to cap…

I'd love to see copyright abolished. As long as it continues to exist, however, AI should not get an exemption; that would directly advantage a few large companies over everyone else, giving them a special privilege to violate licenses that nobody else gets.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#92

Post by codemog »

petterroea wrote: post #83
codemog wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not arrogant to be firm in your beliefs. You’re not arrogant for believing the timing is never right. You may even be 100% right, but you don’t have to belittle or put down the other side. In this case, they already lost, what more do you want?

How is it not arrogant to be firm in your belief, even if signals say otherwise? If I believe it is OK not to shower, and everyone around me complains about it, is it not arrogant of me to ignore the signals because "they just don't understand yet"? I think a much more useful question is whether some arrogance is necessary to succeed. I personally think it is. But we are discussing a post mortem here, and the author…

Personally, I don’t know how you can say the timing was never right and will never be right at any point in the future. That frankly seems impossible, unless it was something like a B2B SaaS that gouges out your eyeballs, but I guess we’ll agree to disagree.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#93

Post by raincole »

petterroea wrote: post #57

> The timing wasn’t right. We depended on artists helping us to promote the platform, and they didn’t. There's a certain arrogance to believing the timing "simply wasn't right". It looks really bad if you try it with any recent controversy: * "The timing wasn't right to charge people for heated car seats" * "The timing wasn't right to make Photoshop a subscription service" * "The timing wasn't right to increase fees"…

Making Photoshop a subscription service was an extremely successful business decision, so I'm not sure what the comparison is supposed to mean here.

I say this as someone who switched to Krita and canceled CC subscription.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#94

Post by noosphr »

raincole wrote: post #93
petterroea wrote: post #57

> The timing wasn’t right. We depended on artists helping us to promote the platform, and they didn’t. There's a certain arrogance to believing the timing "simply wasn't right". It looks really bad if you try it with any recent controversy: * "The timing wasn't right to charge people for heated car seats" * "The timing wasn't right to make Photoshop a subscription service" * "The timing wasn't right to increase fees"…

Making Photoshop a subscription service was an extremely successful business decision, so I'm not sure what the comparison is supposed to mean here. I say this as someone who switched to Krita and canceled CC subscription.

Enshificstion kills companies slowly, then all at once.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#95

Post by oreally »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #90
protocolture wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IP laws can stay the same, but they should have purchased a license to use my art before including it in their training data. But including your art in the training data is fair use (or otherwise exempt) by most standards, as no reproduction occurs. You are advocating for a change to IP law to make it more restrictive.

> But including your art in the training data is fair use The four factors of fair use in the US: > the purpose and character of your use Commercial, for-profit. Not scholarship, not research, not commentary, not parody, etc. > the nature of the copyrighted work Absolutely everything. Artistic, creative, not purely factual. > the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and All of it, from everyone. > the effe…

> the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

> All of it, from everyone.

Yea I'd like to see how drawing two circles violates the copyright of drawing one circle!

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#96

Post by danlitt »

raincole wrote: post #93
petterroea wrote: post #57

> The timing wasn’t right. We depended on artists helping us to promote the platform, and they didn’t. There's a certain arrogance to believing the timing "simply wasn't right". It looks really bad if you try it with any recent controversy: * "The timing wasn't right to charge people for heated car seats" * "The timing wasn't right to make Photoshop a subscription service" * "The timing wasn't right to increase fees"…

Making Photoshop a subscription service was an extremely successful business decision, so I'm not sure what the comparison is supposed to mean here. I say this as someone who switched to Krita and canceled CC subscription.

"extremely successful business decision" and "inherently disliked" can both be true. Increasing fees quite often works out for the business too, but consumers don't generally like it.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#97

Post by Terr_ »

petterroea wrote: post #57

> The timing wasn’t right. We depended on artists helping us to promote the platform, and they didn’t. There's a certain arrogance to believing the timing "simply wasn't right". It looks really bad if you try it with any recent controversy: * "The timing wasn't right to charge people for heated car seats" * "The timing wasn't right to make Photoshop a subscription service" * "The timing wasn't right to increase fees"…

Speaking in generalities, we underestimate how many things fail due to circumstances like "the market wasn't read for it." (In contrast to the more dramatic and common "all great success stories are due to leaders singularly imbued with unique and ineffable Greatness and Genius.")

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#98

Post by antonvs »

codemog wrote: post #77
petterroea wrote: post #57

> The timing wasn’t right. We depended on artists helping us to promote the platform, and they didn’t. There's a certain arrogance to believing the timing "simply wasn't right". It looks really bad if you try it with any recent controversy: * "The timing wasn't right to charge people for heated car seats" * "The timing wasn't right to make Photoshop a subscription service" * "The timing wasn't right to increase fees"…

It’s not arrogant to be firm in your beliefs. You’re not arrogant for believing the timing is never right. You may even be 100% right, but you don’t have to belittle or put down the other side. In this case, they already lost, what more do you want?

If your beliefs are in conflict with reality, then holding them firmly may indeed be arrogant.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#99

Post by wolvesechoes »

codemog wrote: post #77
petterroea wrote: post #57

> The timing wasn’t right. We depended on artists helping us to promote the platform, and they didn’t. There's a certain arrogance to believing the timing "simply wasn't right". It looks really bad if you try it with any recent controversy: * "The timing wasn't right to charge people for heated car seats" * "The timing wasn't right to make Photoshop a subscription service" * "The timing wasn't right to increase fees"…

It’s not arrogant to be firm in your beliefs. You’re not arrogant for believing the timing is never right. You may even be 100% right, but you don’t have to belittle or put down the other side. In this case, they already lost, what more do you want?

> It’s not arrogant to be firm in your beliefs

I mean, if you keep ignoring stuff that undermines your beliefs that's the definition of arrogance.

Re: Learnings from paying artists royalties for AI-generated art

#100

Post by rcxdude »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #90
protocolture wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IP laws can stay the same, but they should have purchased a license to use my art before including it in their training data. But including your art in the training data is fair use (or otherwise exempt) by most standards, as no reproduction occurs. You are advocating for a change to IP law to make it more restrictive.

> But including your art in the training data is fair use The four factors of fair use in the US: > the purpose and character of your use Commercial, for-profit. Not scholarship, not research, not commentary, not parody, etc. > the nature of the copyrighted work Absolutely everything. Artistic, creative, not purely factual. > the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and All of it, from everyone. > the effe…

3 and 4 are what that argument is based on, I believe. 3) on the basis that the output is not _reproduced_, and 4) on similar grounds that output that's just not at all the same as the input data isn't affecting the market for the original image (I think this is the more debatable one, but in general the existing cases have struggled at the early stages because the plaintiffs have not been able to actually point to output that is a copy of their part of the input, and this does actually matter).
Post reply on HN