AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.
AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.
All of these AI tools are based on models trained on illegaly obtained samples from non-consenting artists. This is the key issue behind copyright. Its both the issue of failing to protect artists original copyright while granting copyright to art created through these tools.
In a sane and honest economic system you'd hire a lot of these artists to create art specificaly for this, seek their consent and pay them according to the number of samples they have on the model, or respect their choice if they don't want their art sampled period. These are just naive suggestions I'm sure there are better proposals too.
If you took all the steps above people would be a lot more open and positive about it. At the end of the day these tools are impossible to stop but it is the openly brazen lack of morality and justice of capitalism here that makes it obvious for people.
Corporations cried about piracy since the rise of fucking VHS tape recorders 30 or 40 years ago. They lied and manipulated the narrative of digital piracy in the early 2000s, but now it is 2023, the internet is old now so it is suddenly not piracy when you scrape millions of pieces of art from the web.
I think a complete no copyright stance would be the most realistic. If we assume you'll never be able to completely make sure someone didn't plagiarize or "reference" some prior art then at least don't make it worse by endorsing a tool built on entirely the premise of referencing and plagiarizing previous art.
And this is also seperate as to whether these tools are good or bad.
If you post things on the internet they aren't private. Is my eyeball illegally obtaining samples when I scroll instagram? It surely has an influence on my creations as much as it would on an AI.
AI image generation is a tool. Yes it makes image generation super easy and accessible to people without technical skills but so did Photoshop so did the camera so did fucking crayons. AI assisted art is art just as any other digital art is art. A person making an image with the help of AI is an artist and deserves the rights to their product the same as anyone else.
How are you supposed to sell your artwork if you don't post a picture of it online? This is a terrible argument. Looking at something is not the same as literally scraping it's image data. They are two fundamentally different material processes.
Even if you think that they should not have copyright or.privatized protections that doesn't mean that LIM-assisted drawings should. The only consistent legal position is neither or both, and if it is both then LIM-assisted art is fundamentally based in piracy.
so? having a hexadecimal pallet isn't the same as mixing different colors of paint? Its the person and how the tool is used that makes the art. Is a painting not art because the paint was made with exploited labor? Having the AI smash a bunch of images though a sieve is just an upgrade on the polygon tool. (they used to not have triangles and now they have stars and arrows)
yeah that's fine.
You are asking a fundamentally different question than I am. I am not asking 'Is it art?', I am asking 'Is it copyrightable?'.
It could be art, but that doesn't mean it's copyrightable. You are all over the map with you analysis, drawing comparisons and JAQing off out of smoke and spite. It's not about the exploitation, it is about the process of creation. The process for making hexadecimal colors and mixing paint colors are likely both patented processes within their fields, if sold as a product (and to be sure, this is not only likely it is certain). That said, the end product of said creation (painted wall) could or could not be copy written. That said, if you happen to create Feldspar BlueTM through a completely different process then it is not the same product or patent. This is exact same process as the polygon tool.
This is where the differences appear. An LIM assisted image cannot exist without previously existing artistic material, copywritten or not. And despite this, the only part of the 'patented' process that is allowed is the LIM process itself, not the creation of the original artwork, even though it is 'essential' to the process, in a way that just painting it from memory is not (because of possibilities of convergent design).
This is a fundamental disconnect in the logic here. It is more like being able to directly plagiarize someone's data without attribution, even if you come to a different conclusion than them. I would even be more fine with this process if the scrapings that the LIM uses have to attributed to the original creators in the data. As it is now, the process as it exists constitutes copyright piracy.
fair enough.
The thing that makes an idea copyrightable is whether it is a original idea put to use. How the idea came to be "in use" is not a question that copyright asks. Originality is only ever a combination of old ideas in a new way. All ideas are derivative. No idea is created in a vacuum.
When does using one person's data to create your own data become plagiarism? If one were to open a essay with the same first 3 words as another writer on the same subject but come to a completely contrary conclusion did they plagiarize them? Most AI images sample millions of images most of which are not copywrite. Nobody is "directly plagiarize someone's data," it is being referenced.
Even then this legal case was about an image generated by AI being republished (emphasis on re) by someone who didn't generate it. There is only one image involved in the case. The ruling is simply saying you cant steal images even if they are made by an AI. Either all original images that are put to use are copyrightable or none of them are.
If the copyright infringer was the AI generator this would be a different debate.
Using someone else's collected data in academia without attribution is 100% plagiarism. Using 1000 peoples combined data is still 100% plagiarism, if it is left uncited in academia. That is why it is bullshit. Only in art are you allowed to not cite your sources and this is an extremely abusive method of doing that.
I agree that no art IS made in a vacuum but all art except LIM art COULD be made in a vacuum. That is the fundamental processual difference.
The copyright infringer is the LIM generator (it is not AI stop falling for marketing bullshit), but the courts continue to refuse to acknowledge that, even if they do not give copyright to the LIM piece.
Correct, it is either all or none, and if it is all, then the LIM generator is in copyright infringement.
moronic take
Explain why, elitist gatekeeping snob.
others have already done a good job doing just that, read their replies.
You really should be arguing on behalf of AI considering your strategy here. Not "doing" any "real" work. Using other peoples comments without consent.
cute
I'm living up to your username better than you are.
@Alaskaball@hexbear.net please sort this guy out I'm tired of this
All your 4 comments of calling people names and adding nothing of any value made you tired?
Legally, you can't take a photo of someone else's painting and just declare it your own, claiming they were an artist who made the image with one set of tools and you are another artist who made the image with "just another set of tools". Making a collage of different paintings that fails to be a transformative use of any of them also isn't protected. This is a derivative of that.
You cant use AI to remake another artwork and claim it is your own either. Plagiarism isn't copyrightable no matter what tools you use.
AI art is less derivative than most art. Usually it is based on thousands to millions of other images if that isn't transformative than what is?
First, you cut out the more relevant example, second, you don't know what transformative means in this context.
Effectively, a transformative use is one where the media (or whatever) is used for a purpose that is very different from whatever the original purpose is, e.g. featuring a painting in the background of a comic or movie to add some kind of thematic coding to a scene.
What an AI uses training data for is literally the opposite. It uses paintings of cars to mathematically establish how to produce an image that looks like a painting of a car. It is very specifically using the data in order to accomplish exactly what it thinks the samples are accomplishing. If it does not view information as being pertinent to car paintings, it does not use it for making a car painting.
the only correct take here is that copyright and "intellectual property" shouldn't exist
I'll agree with that.
And yet you support being able to patent the output of some stable diffusion prompt made from the work of a hundred other artists
I support anyone who makes something original retaining the profit from its use regardless of the tools they use in its creation.
If there were no copyright or intellectual property all the scraped image data and generated images would be equally worthless.
Just like in the other comment with "plagiarism," here you are doing a lot of work with "original".