China Did A Cringe.
China Did A Cringe.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
What is the difference between AI and MSPaint? Its all just digital tools to make images. Copyrights are dumb across the board but this is no more or less dumb.
Your take license has been revoked. You are no longer allowed to have takes.
I have almost complete aphantasia and dysgraphia. I can describe a picture but I could never draw it even on a computer. Despite the technology to overcome my Neuro divergency being at my fingertips I shouldn't own my creations because you don't like the tools I used?
Ableist Classist Luddite. "Art is only for the few who can dedicate years of study to perfect their technique and fuck any technology that makes art more accessible. oh and digitally made music isn't music."
Ableist Classist Luddite
Wait just one sec comrade. Noone said you can't use it, but you really think you should be entitled to make money as an artist? You can literally get a job as an AI prompt writer/engineer. But what you want is to be recognized as an artist.
Fine, then create a bunch of AI art, frame it, and take it to a gallery or to a market. Put it in a portfolio and display it on a website. Go network with other artists in your area and promote your work as art, see where it gets you. I'm genuinely curious.
AI has the ability to write code, but very few software engineers have lost their jobs because of it. Why? Is it because AI code, like AI art, sucks ass?
A lot of people here struggle with MH and some have overcome and found success. Maybe don't be so quick to label others as chauvinistic for pointing out that your idea is a priori nonsense that has little to no basis in reality. The fact remains that your struggles don't prevent you from picking up a paintbrush or a pencil or a mouse or whatever. Quadrapalegics still paint landscapes, Chuck Close is a world famous portrait artist who is face blind.
AI art is trained on the art of others, full stop. Noone says you can't use it to create images for your own enjoyment. Maybe there is some value for creators in using AI? But the value is created for capitalists to suppress wages of creatives and force people into unemployment. Hollywood writers went on strike over this shit. People don't fucking like it and regardless of how you feel about that, art is subjective. So best of luck, get over yourself
but you really think you should be entitled to make money as an artist?
I mean, why else are we complaining about artists losing jobs? This seems blatantly true to me, people should be able to be artists if they enjoy making things.
If you can honestly go out into the world and market yourself as an artist, do the work of an artist, as in design, manufacture, sell art, while using images produced with stable diffusion that you had no hand in developing, and you're transparent about it to your clients, go for it. More power to you. You're making art from stolen art in a society where the only way for artists to make money is selling their original designs. Artists work their butts off for not a lot of money, but I'm no moral warrior, people steal all the time, make money from stolen shit, etc. Make the money you can while you can. But that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to judge you. If you're making stuff for your own consumption, even better since it doesn't complicate things. Go ahead and call yourself an artist too, I don't care. But if you do all that and people get mad about it it doesn't make them "Classist Ableists" that was a cheap bullshit thing to say. If you're really gonna be an artist you're gonna have to take some harsh critique, especially if you're using a medium that everybody hates.
You're probably right, I shouldn't have gone off like that, why do I care about someone else's opinions? You're right, there's enough gray area, and the history of art is the history of people who were told that what they were making wasn't art calling themselves artists. It just seemed really out of line to insist its okay and accuse others of chauvinism for disagreeing. Maybe OP was just making stuff for their own consumption and enjoyment and we lost the plot. But instead of explaining that they defended the worst parts of ai art as virtuous.
There is no value in suffering or "hard work." All production under capitalism is tainted by exploitation and theft.
All your issues are problems with capitalism not with AI.
My "Ableist Classist Luddite" was directed at a user who was providing no arguments and being a :smuglord
So I decided they were acting in bad faith and responded in turn.means tested art production
I wish I could just have not responded to any of this. Kissinger died and it made me want to social media. Big waste of time and energy, as usual
dont worry i tagged alaskaball to clean this mess up, annoying ass debate perverts have no place here
Noone said you can't use it, but you really think you should be entitled to make money as an artist? You can literally get a job as an AI prompt writer/engineer. But what you want is to be recognized as an artist.
Fine, then create a bunch of AI art, frame it, and take it to a gallery or to a market. Put it in a portfolio and display it on a website. Go network with other artists in your area and promote your work as art, see where it gets you. I'm genuinely curious.
Upholding the petty bourgeois artist's gatekeeping, requiring "real" artists to go the right school, know the right people, drink the right wine, attend the right parties and hate the right things. Classist ✔
A lot of people here struggle with MH and some have overcome and found success. Maybe don't be so quick to label others as chauvinistic for pointing out that your idea is a priori nonsense that has little to no basis in reality. The fact remains that your struggles don't prevent you from picking up a paintbrush or a pencil or a mouse or whatever. Quadrapalegics still paint landscapes, Chuck Close is a world famous portrait artist who is face blind.
Calling neurodivergence a mental health issue, "pick yourself up by the boot straps, Everyone can overcome their limitations because a few people did." Ableist ✔
But the value is created for capitalists to suppress wages of creatives and force people into unemployment.
Blaming tools for the crimes of capitalism. Ludditry ✔
Come on, all three of these are a massive stretch. This is exactly what im talking about, youre just belligerent. Believe what you want, die on whatever hills you want. Enjoy life, shoot your shot playa. Life is all about playing around with stuff, if playing with AI makes you happy or a little money, or not, that's the road you're on. I hope its a cool ride
Edit: its irritating AF that you quoted me and then right below that said things I didn't even say in order to check your boxes. Self crit
aphantasia doesn't mean you can't draw, it means you can't visualize in your head
you can have great visualization skills but still suck at drawing
You have a logical error there.
"there are people who's legs work that can't run for shit. that means that being paralysed from the waist down doesn't make you a bad runner"
Uh, aphantasia has precisely nothing to do with artistic ability. I only know a couple off the top of my head, but Ed Catmull founded Pixar and contributed greatly to computer graphics, and Glen Keane was an animator at Disney for decades, worked on all the big films. Both are aphantasic.
Ed Catmull founded Pixar and contributed greatly to computer graphics
He Co founded Pixar and made programs to make videos. If he were born in the 80s he'd have founded an AI company.
Both are aphantasic.
Way to ignore a significant part of my neurodiversity and make some "pull yourself up by the boot straps" ablist bull shit about a few "great men" who overcame the barriers to entry and achieved things. "I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs, some [redacted] in Korea took them from me but I went out and achieved anyway. I can't solve your problems, sir, only you can"
uhhh you're making the error
good visualization is (probably) necessary for good drawing
good legs are necessary for runningbut your legs can be perfectly fine and you can still suck at running. In fact people who are much older and even disabled (with the use of prosthetics) can outrun you despite you having good legs
similarly, having great visualization skills doesn't make you good at drawing. Arguably they are necessary to draw well, but they are not sufficient
This is what you said:
I have almost complete aphantasia and dysgraphia. I can describe a picture but I could never draw it even on a computer.
Aphantasia is not sucking at drawing, it's sucking at visualizing. Which arguably will probably also make you suck at drawing, but the converse (being bad at drawing means you're bad at visualizing) is not true at all
Also, like, visualization is helpful for drawing but it's not necessary because, among g other things, an intellectual understanding of how to draw figures (etc.) goes a long way, and so does just sketching things out so you can have a visual reference in place of the one your mind might produce if you could visualize
yea, also drawing from visualization feels like it has a coordination aspect that some people are bad at
I'm good at visualizing, but to draw while visualizing is like doing two things at once for me, it's similar to playing the piano (which I'm kinda bad at)
drawing just doesn't feel like it relies THAT much on visualization ability, which is why I tempered the (probably) in my original comment
If you cant visualize them "understanding how to draw figures" is called making stick people. Knowing that people have libs and joints doesn't go very far.
"just sketching things out " doesn't work when you don't have muscle memory in your hands. Dysgraphia means that every finger movement must be coordinated from scratch. I literally cannot write my name the same way twice if I have 50 tries.
If you cant visualize them "understanding how to draw figures" is called making stick people. Knowing that people have libs and joints doesn't go very far.
This is blatant misinformation. Inability to visualize does not mean inability to understand geometry. A huge amount of figure drawing is just understanding the geometric relations between different parts, or at least using geometry to draw the scaffolding for making a coherent anatomy. Being able to visualize things does not at all correspond to putting it on a page, as literally anyone who can visualize things will readily tell you.
Which is thicker, a torso or an arm? Which is longer? When you stand straight, are your hamstrings and quadriceps oriented on the left and right of your legs, or the back and front? Is you calf thicker at the top or bottom? If you put your palms down on the ground in front of you, do your thumbs point towards or away from each other? In degrees, about how far can you turn your head?
Someone who can visualize but has not internalized the answers to these questions already would need to look at themselves, maybe even try out the pose, to answer (and look up the muscle groups). That's just the same as you, and once they have the answer, it is still just words, something that you can contain in your head just as clearly as them. They can use those words to produce images in their heads when they want to, but that circles around to sketching. If you know the answer to questions like this -- and internalizing those answers, those mere "words," is a significant element of study for beginning art students -- you can draw figures that are significantly more accurate than stick figures. It'll look like garbage at first -- in part because you won't know which questions to ask -- but that's what it means to be a beginner in any field, drawing included.
"just sketching things out " doesn't work when you don't have muscle memory in your hands. Dysgraphia means that every finger movement must be coordinated from scratch. I literally cannot write my name the same way twice if I have 50 tries.
The sketch I mentioned is a reference sketch so you have an image in front of you that conveys the spatial relationships (i.e. the composition) you are going for. It's not a matter of making an identical drawing twice, because if all you wanted to draw was something identical to the sketch, you could just use the sketch.
There is certainly the matter of certain elements of technique being much harder with that condition, but it really has no bearing on the validity of sketching unless you are in desperate need to make the finished product as quickly as possible (because it does make everything slower, certainly). Even then, you should probably still sketch because you won't get to the end faster by fucking it up.
I'm sure you would tell me that your handwriting is terrible and irregular and I'm genuinely sorry you need to deal with that, but it's not just as bad as when you were six years old, right? And why is that when you lack muscle memory? I'm sure you can tell me quite a lot, but I am confident in saying that a major factor must have been getting a better understanding of the characters you are trying to write and what it is like to write them. There are things automatic fine motor skills would elide that the typical person relies on and you can't, but there is still surely a great deal you have learned (and a great deal you hypothetically could still learn) to improve your handwriting, even if it would remain irregular and you would write more slowly and with greater strain and so on.
as literally anyone who can visualize things will readily tell you.
something about... trusting marginalized peoples experiences? I am neurodivergent. It has been a significant barrier for me especially in areas of self expression and most notably visual art. You are telling me my life experience is dog shit and I should just ask NT people.
You have no concept of my situation and refuse to take me at my word. I hate brining up my neurodiversity because it is so poorly understood. You are proving to me that while this site is great for being inclusive for trans people there are significant black holes where ND people are concerned. I don't like to view myself as a marginalized person because I am a white cis male who speaks English but you are really making me feel marginalized. Thanks for that.
https://juliekitzes.com/painting-with-a-blind-minds-eye
I do trust their testimony, and when the testimony conflicts, matters like what more of them say and what actually makes sense become a factor again. I've read several testimonies from artists on this subject and I welcome you to produce a more concrete contradiction, but not being able to visualize does not actually mean that it's impossible to draw more than a stick figure.
fwiw I agree with you but just not on the idea that aphantasia itself necessitates being bad at drawing
I think it could hurt with drawing (for some people), for others it might actually help them gain the motivation to draw (if you can picture any scenario in your head you can easily end up having much less motivation to put that on a page, trust me).
There are probably other mental traits that are way more important to drawing than aphantasia though
the dysgraphia i don't know much about, but drawing figures is definitely a totally different hand movement from writing your name. I have great handwriting but I suck at drawing. Though dysgraphia probably does affect drawing too, and there are definitely multiple types of it which whose essences can't really be captured or described properly
you also could have a ton of other traits that simply aren't categorized properly under these limited names, so I believe you
Aphantasia is a barrier to creating visual art. Your assertion is that because people without that same barrier aren't naturally successful that it isn't a barrier.
Okay, it probably is a barrier, circumstantially, depending on the individual
but your claim was "I can describe a picture but I could never draw it"
I took this to mean that you can actually also visualize that picture, which is the reason you could "describe" it. I don't know if that's what you meant, I guess not, and I interpreted it wrong, but the definition of aphantasia is about visualization
You shouldnt be able to make money and steal from artists who made the AI art possible in the first place though, youre taking for granted that the art is free in the first place and more of these people online should be paid
Permanently Deleted
the art of actual artist which is being stolen and used to make pastiches by tech companies with billions of VC bucks behind them. Like are you intentionally failing to see the point here?
Permanently Deleted
It is absolutely being stolen when the art of people is being taken by VC funded tech companies and repurposed for commercial use without any compensation nor permission. Are you doing a bit right now?
Permanently Deleted
I think it's bizarre to see "Socialists" siding with techbros and VC companies against artists and workers. The economic relationship is why it's theft. The creation of art is for many artists how they sell their labor, how they make money, how they get food on the table, generative AI does not currently exist in any capacity except large tech companies who are commercializing this art without the permission of these artists often explicitly against their wishes and reaping the full rewards of that. It is an exploitation of their work.
My art is work, i should be paid for it. Its weird socialists are laying cover for corporations and the robbing humanity out of another human experience. Youre not entitled to a perfect drawing of Hank Hill smoking weed, you do the best of your ability and thats fine.
The article in question is about an individual stealing art made by another individual using AI.
There were no corporations involved. This isn't AI company vs Artist. This is AI artist vs website that posted AI art they didn't make.
Piracy is not the same as IP fraud, which is what the OP amounts to
not an artist, but from what I've heard they're also scared of missing out on cheap revenue because of of increased competition for commissions of repetitive/generic art. Lots of artists use them to support themselves doing other types of art they care more about.
Plus when you're starting out, all your work is low quality and now there's a much bigger supply of low quality art it's more difficult for beginner artists to make money for their work.
The root issue is that money and copyrights should both not exist
but yes in the meantime whatever helps the artists the most should be done, but of course it won't because why would it
nobody stole anything. they got a copy of the data of an image. That data is publicly available and anyone looking at that image on their computer has a copy of that data.
I'm not against artists being paid. I'm saying that AI is nothing without an operator and that means AI art is made by artist who should be afforded all rights of any other artist.
Youre again taking for granted that a lot of the art is free, when it shouldnt be. The people who make that art should be making a living doing something that takes so much work and study to be able to do.
That is a capitalism problem not an AI problem.
Okay but until we lose capitalism it doesnt matter does it
That data is publicly available and anyone looking at that image on their computer has a copy of that data.
I might be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you aren't drawing a line between being able to view, save, and edit data on your computer for whatever personal reasons vs. turning that data around to make a profit.
the data that a LIM is pushing out is not substantiative based on any one image. If an individual cuts up 1000 magazines to make a colage and resells it did they infringe on the copyrights of a photographer who took one of the pictures? They took that person's data and turned it around to make a profit.
The problem is the stealing of labor. Not by you, mind, but by the people who put together these AI codebases. Artists did not put up images expecting them to be able to automatically used to obsolete their job, they expected people to directly copy or save them, which would maintain their IE signatures and stuff. This is why artists really dislike tracing, because taking someone else's creative expression and passing it off as your own is a (subjectively) kind of scummy thing to do that's much worse than piracy or IP theft (not because it's particularly bad, but because those things are like literally not bad at all).
The issue is fundamentally that AI models are exploiting someone's labor to be created. It's just the same kind of labor exploitation we always do but scaled up a bit.
Ableist Classist Luddite. "Art is only for the few who can dedicate years of study to perfect their technique and fuck any technology that makes art more accessible. oh and digitally made music isn't music."
Even in the most generous terms, Marxism isn't a promise that you will have every desire fulfilled. So I don't really know why you said that.
AI isn't a promise to make anything more accessible. Its a cash grab by giant corporations...accumulating the data of all art, text, sound, pictures into massively expensive computation frameworks for their own purpose. The Corporations are creating frameworks whose inputs they control and output is essentially copy and paste. Like saying classism on your inability to have SKILLZ when there are actual problems with AI being incredibly racist and controlled by misogynists like Larry Summers is like ughhh....just so self centered and myopic.
Even in the most generous terms, Marxism isn't a promise that you will have every desire fulfilled. So I don't really know why you said that.
In the system we have where art is commodified there are barriers to entry. Class determines access to training and tools used to make orriginal images of value as does physical and mental ability. Using technology to overcome those barriers is a good thing. Being against tech that provides the marginalized with access to things because it will "take artist's jobs" is Ludditist and classist because it is upholding the petty bourgeois artists and keeping out the unwashed masses of the neurodivergent, untrained and physically disabled.
In the legal case referenced the person who gained the copyright and won the case was an individual. It was not the AI developer. If any thing it is a case to use that a person using AI is the copyright owner and not a corporation who develops the tool.
The issues you raise are valid but they are issues with capitalism and not with the tech. AI is a tool and capitalists have always tried to use tools to further exploit people. that doesn't mean we should abandon all tools.
I'm not responding to unlicensed bad takes.
good because I'm not responding to people who don't back up their disagreement with discussion. Go back to reddit you can offer the same level of discourse with a single click over there.
That's cute and all, but accusing people of redditism after fellating techbro talking points is ridiculous. Genuinely log off and never get back on this site again.
homophobia and "no you" isn't the great argument you think it is.
You don't merit anything substantive you fucking moron.
Says the person who isn't explaining their position and is hurling abuse like a monkey flings shit. I'll say it again. Go back to reddit where this sort of behaviour is acceptable.
My position doesn't need defending from a moron without any right to speak.
You mean own as in have? sure. own as in being able to sell them? maybe. Own as in courts will fine everybody else using same picture? Nah
you shouldn't be entitled to copyright on it
why? Because I made it on a computer? or because the code that the computer used was very complex? or because during some of the code uses data that is freely available on the internet?
because you didn't write the code for the algorithm, you didn't make any of the training data pictures, and you didn't do anything that could be considered 'creative' or 'talented' to make it. Real fucking artists that put hours of time, effort, and creativity into their work deserve to have it protective. By plugging in "looking at a sunset from a mountain" or some shit into stable diffusion doesn't make you entitled to the shit it puts out. terrible take.
Rubbish. You're just assuming the user put in little effort. It's perfectly possible to put in little effort using pen and paper too. The end result looks less like a final piece, but it's probably equally close to what the artist tried to express. No one who uses downloaded brushes in Photoshop write the code for importing and drawing with those brushes. Nobody who uses photo textures wrote the code for their cameras. Nobody who uses Blender wrote the code for the light transport that happens when you hit render.
Drawing a style guide, drawing the composition with a sketch, and paint overs are all completely normal parts of the process when using Stable Diffusion, and none of that is where the creativity comes in.
you're right, that was a bad argument
the problem is that the AI trains off of the data of unwilling artists without credit.
because you didn't write the code for the algorithm, you didn't make any of the training data pictures, and you didn't do anything that could be considered 'creative' or 'talented' to make it
Did you invent the paint brush?
Real fucking artists that put hours of time, effort, and creativity into their work deserve to have it protective.
Working hard does not have any intrinsic moral value. That is puritanist
. There is no value in suffering.you are right. i'm sorry. but the issue still stands that the programs that create the art use other artist's work for their own profit with no credit. these people are having their work just, stolen from them.
They are having their art used in a way they didn't expect. That is a problem in capitalism not a problem of tech.
agreed, but that doesn't make it any more ethical to partake in it.
Is it any less ethical than producing art when your art supplies are tainted by exploitation? When you are living on land stolen through genocide? when your way of life is built on the subjugation of the global south?
The fact is there is effort and creative input involved in making AI art no matter how miniscule that effort is. This ruling protects that effort and creative input from being used for profit by anyone who pleases. It isn't protecting AI tech. its protecting producers form exploitation and that is all.
i should also clarify that i am not defending IP, the opposite in fact. i am saying that someone who makes an AI image isn't entitled to IP on that image.
Because it is a composite of the art other people made
So is colage. Using other art in art is very common. Every song that samples another song isn't art?
A majority of the data that LIM train off is not even "art" they are images. They lack the context and emotive qualities that differentiate art from information.
If the collage is literally just using the constituent elements the same way they were originally used, yes, that is textbook plagiarism and I already explicitly made this comparison
Sampling would by convention be considered plagiarism, which is why "sampling culture" is a thing, because it exists within a different but also defined set of norms around what is or is not acceptable and this has its own ongoing controversies that I would suggest not flattening into "the hip-hop people say plagiarism isn't real", which is what your non-argument amounts to
But the AI isn't using the constituent elements in the same way they were originally used. they are being compared and merged with thousands of other versions of that element to make a new one.
The original use is "painting of a car", the new use is "painting of a car". It's using thousands of references in a composite, but the material is by definition not being used transformatively because that is the opposite of what the program is trying to accomplish with its data (i.e. matching visual patterns with descriptions)
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.
illegaly obtained samples
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.
Looking at something is not the same as literally scraping it's image data.
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)
neither or both.
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.
I am not asking 'Is it art?', I am asking 'Is it copyrightable?'.
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.
It is more like being able to directly plagiarize someone's data without attribution, even if you come to a different conclusion than them.
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.
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
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".
But it's not the same as MS Paint. MS Paint requires you to do something to create something in it. AI is trained on other art and recreates it. It'd be like copying a picture of Goku from s01e01 of Dragon Ball into MS Paint, using the paint bucket to change his hair color, and claiming it as copyrightable.
so AI art will make all my dreams come true and I don't even have to do anything? AI uses data from other images to make new images. An artist's input is required to make it art even if they simply curate. There is a whole branch of art called "found object" which can and often is simply finding an item and displaying it with no modifications.
it'd be like copying a picture of Goku from s01e01 of Dragon Ball into MS Paint, using the paint bucket to change his hair color, and claiming it as copyrightable
Yes you can use AI for copyright infringement but you can do that with anything. You could draw goku with different hair with pencils and try to copyright it and have the same results.
none of this addresses why a person using AI making a new and orriginal image shouldnt be entitled to the same legal rights as anyone else making an image any other way.
The issue here isn't individuals using AI to make art, you can make AI art to your hearts content, print it out, frame it. I don't care.
Problem is a bunch of companies are trying to replace artists with AI. AI doesn't create original art, or collages art from other artists together. This means if, for example, Raytheon used AI to make an add, and a big chunk of that ad is from a painting I made, I can't object to a piece of my art being used to sell bombs.
Even collage art made by actual humans doesn't get used in corporate advertising much for the same reason, if an artist sees their work being used in the college they may object to it. This is less a problem with independent artists. I actually make college art myself.
And while I love showing it to people I'm very hesitant to use it in any context where I may directly profit from it cuz I wouldn't want to offend any of the people who made the original images. I doubt it would happen cuz generally I take material from advertising and change the context enough that the original creator probably wouldn't recognize it. Thing is I'm a human, I can understand that context and make a judgment call about it, and other humans can object if they disagree with my judgment about it and try and hold me accountable. An AI wouldn't be able to do that.
I'd have less objections to AI art if it was always clearly watermarked (which China is apparently trying to do) and it was always clear who the person who generated it was, but right now AI is just pumping out tons of images with no way for artists to know if their images were used in it and who's profiting from it.
The issue here isn't individuals using AI to make art,
That is exactly the case here. There are no AI companies involved in the legal case in question. It is a case where one person used AI to make an image and another person took the image and reposted it for their own profit without permission.
Jones, you've made just shy of 30% of the comments in this thread. Don't you think it's about time to take a break on the topic?
I think I am just about done.
to be honest, i am too. you've made some reason good points and i still disagree with you but i think its time i just got over it. edit: i actually honestly kind of agree with you now, reading over the thread
The difference is that AI conglomerates societally accepted perspectives on concepts and presents those based on the words you input. MSPaint requires you to directly portray your own conception of those concepts instead.
Wankery over the nature of art side, the issue is fundamentally one of automation and use. These companies do not want to use AI art the way you use AI art, they want to fully automate the artistic experience of portraying one's own concept out of reality entirely, because it is cost-ineffective. You really think these people are thinking about their prompts or whatever? Nah, execs are just going to use it for marvel slop.
Yes, our current conception of art is problematic and ableist. We put far too much stock into what some random old white dude thinks is objectively good art or not. But I think that's the root issue with a lot of these AI models- They substitute actual artistic decisions with pure, automated, technical skill.
You drawing a single squiggly line will be far more artistic than anything an AI model shits out based on socially accepted definitions. No one is coming after you. Instead of defending the usage of a technology that will directly harm millions of artists, and the automation of the creative process, the manual execution of which, which regardless of how you're doing it is generally considered important to human health, we should go after the insane and outdated concepts of artistic "quality" that ended up making people not only think that AI art is "good", but also that people with IE aphantasia or shaky hand's can't produce "good" art. Of course they can produce good art... Art isn't about correct lighting or perspective or whatever the fuck, it's about one's own desires and creative expression. This is why I get a sinking pit in my stomach whenever people make fun of AI art's depiction of hands or whatever. The problem isn't the AI's technical mistakes, it's that it doesn't care about what it's doing!
AI Art CAN be a tool for this. It could be used fundamentally similar to synthesizers or song samples or collage art or any number of automated processes that are merely used to create actual art. If you have aphantasia and you want a solid reference, that's an amazing usage for AI art. If you have shaky fingers and need to use ai art directly to generate linework for painting, that's also (IMO) a fine use for AI art. Even just posting flat out pictures generated by AI could be art, if framed correctly, sort of how people can remix or use 1 single sample in ways that are interesting.
The problem is that it's trying to replace the creative process of interpretation, and threatens the complete death of the creative sector. This is blatantly horrifying and is something we should not support.
All of these AI tools are based on models trained on illegaly obtained samples from non-consenting artists.
I have an issue with that argument. Human artists train on "illegally obtained samples from non-consenting artists" all the time. Did your favorite artist ask Toriyama for consent before copying his style? When an artist inspire their style on old Disney movies, are they doing something wrong? Machine learning is not different from human learning, it's just faster.
Machine learning is not different from human learning, it's just faster.
HARDER BETTER FASTER STRONGER
Disagree 100% wow
Machine learning is not different from human learning, it's just faster.
citation needed
A human brings experiences into the equation and changes things.
What does an AI bring that isn't just other stolen art?
What does an AI bring
Literally nothing. Without a person prompting the AI and curating the response the AI does nothing. Same as a pencil.
A human bring the same experiences into making AI art as any other form of art. AI generation is a tool for making images or words just like a pencil. Those images and words can be art or they can be trash regardless of their medium.
Except they're using the pencil to trace other drawings lol
Vibes based analysis. Show me a single case where an AI reproduction of a image was given copyright over the original.
Literally everything so-called AI make are reproductions of original work. It's all just copying with extra math.