Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back - Decrypt
Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back - Decrypt
His style has been requested over 400,000 times, even surpassing legends like Picasso and Da Vinci—all without his consent.
Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.
You're viewing a single thread.
While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5.
What kind of argument is that supposed to be? We've stolen his art before so it's fine? Dickheads. This whole AI thing is already sketchy enough, at least respect the artists that explicitly want their art to be excluded.
His art was not "stolen." That's not an accurate word to describe this process with.
It's not so much that "it was done before so it's fine now" as "it's a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows" that can be used to justify it. As well as the view that there was nothing wrong with doing it the first time, so what's wrong with doing it a second time?
Yes, it was.
One human artist can, over a life time, learn from a few artists to inform their style.
These AI setups are telling ALL the art from ALL the artists and using them as part of a for profit business.
There is no ethical stance for letting billion dollar tech firms hoover up all the art ever created to the try and remix it for profit.
No, it wasn't. Theft is a well-defined word. When you steal something you take it away from them so that they don't have it any more.
It wasn't even a case of copyright violation, because no copies of any of Rutkowski's art were made. The model does not contain a copy of any of the training data (with an asterisk for the case of overfitting, which is very rare and which trainers do their best to avoid). The art it produces in Rutkowski's style is also not a copyright violation because you can't copyright a style.
There is no ethical stance for letting billion dollar tech firms hoover up all the art ever created to the try and remix it for profit.
So how about the open-source models? Or in this specific instance, the guy who made a LoRA for mimicking Rutkowski's style, since he did it free of charge and released it for anyone to use?
Yes copies were made. The files were downloaded, one way or another (even as a hash, or whatever digital asset they claim to translate them into) then fed to their machines.
If I go into a Ford plant, take pictures of their equipment, then use those to make my own machines, it's still IP theft, even if I didn't walk out with the machine.
Make all the excuses you want, you're supporting the theft of other people's life's work then trying to claim it's ethical.
Yes copies were made. The files were downloaded, one way or another (even as a hash, or whatever digital asset they claim to translate them into) then fed to their machines.
They were put on the Internet for that very purpose. When you visit a website and view an image there a copy of it is made in your computer's memory. If that's a copyright violation then everyone's equally boned. When you click this link you're doing exactly the same thing.
By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?
Downloading to view != downloading to fuel my business.
No, and that's such a ridiculous leap of logic that I can't come up with anything else to say except no. Just no. What gave you that idea?
Because this thread was about the companies taking art feeding it into their machine a D claiming not to have stolen it.
Then you compared that to clicking a link.
Yes, because it's comparable to clicking a link.
You said:
By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?
And that's the logic I can't follow. Who's downloading and selling Rutkowski's work? Who's claiming credit for it? None of that is being done in the first place, let alone being claimed to be "ok."
Because that is what they're doing, just with extra steps.
The company pulled down his work, fed it to their AI, then sold the AI as their product.
Their AI wouldn't work, at all, without the art they "clicked on".
So there is a difference between me viewing an image in my browser and me turning their work into something for resell under my name. Adding extra steps doesn't change that.
No, but you can download Rutkovski's art, learn from it how to paint in his exact style and create art in that style.
Which is exactly what the image generation AIs do. They're perhaps just a bit too good at it, certainly way better than an average human.
Which makes it complicated and morally questionable depending on how exactly you arrive at the model and what you do with it, but you can't definitively say it's copyright infringement.
You keep comparing what one person, given MONTHS or YEARS of their life could do with one artists work to a machine doing NOT THE SAME THING can do with thousands of artists work.
The machine is not learning their style, it's taking pieces of the work and dropping it in with other people's work then trying to blend it into a cohesive whole.
The analogy fails all over the place.
And I don't care about copyright, I'm not an artist or an IP lawyer, or whatever. I can just look at a company stealing the labor of an entire industry and see it as bad.
The speed doesn't factor into it. Modern machines can stamp out metal parts vastly faster than blacksmiths with a hammer and anvil can, are those machines doing something wrong?
The machine didn't take the blacksmiths work product and flood the market with copies.
The machine wasn't fed 10,000 blacksmith made hammers then told to, sorta, copy those.
Justify this all you want, throw all the bad analogies at it you want, it's still bad.
Again, if this wasn't bad, the companies would have asked for permission. They didn't.
Speed aside, machines don't have the same rights as humans do, so the idea that they are "learning like a person so it's fine" is like saying a photocopier machine's output ought to be treated as an independent work because it replicated some other work, and it's just so good and fast at it. AI's may not output identical work, but they still rely on taking an artist's work as input, something the creator ought to have a say over.
What makes it even trickier is that taking AI generated art and using it however you want definitively isn’t copyright infringement because only works by humans can be protected by copyright.
But that's not what they did, converting it into a set of instructions a computer can use to recreate it is just adding steps.
And, yes, that's what they've done else we wouldn't find pieces of others works mixed in.
Also, even if that was how it worked, it's still theft of someone's else's labor to feed your business.
If it wasn't, they would have asked for permission first.
I think my initial reply to you was meant to go somewhere else but Connect keeps dropping me to the bottom of the thread instead of where the reply I'm trying to get to is.
I'm going to leave it (for consistency sake) but I don't think it makes much sense as a reply to your post.
Sorry about that!
Here is where a rhethorical sleight of hand is used by AI proponents.
It's displayed for people's appreciation. AI is not people, it is a tool. It's not entitled to the same rights as people, and the model it creates based on artists works is itself a derivative work.
Even among AI proponents, few believe that the AI itself is an autonomous being who ought to have rights over their own artworks, least of all the AI creators.
I use tools such as web browsers to view art. AI is a tool too. There's no sleight of hand, AI doesn't have to be an "autonomous being." Training is just a mechanism for analyzing art. If I wrote a program that analyzed pictures to determine what the predominant colour in them was that'd be much the same, there'd be no problem with me running it on every image I came across on a public gallery.
You wouldn't even be able to point a camera to works in public galleries without permission. Free for viewing doesn't mean free to do whatever you want with them, and many artists have made clear they never gave permission that their works would be used to train AIs.
Once you display an idea in public, it belongs to anyone who sees it.
For disclosure I am a former member of the American Photographic Artists/Advertising Photographers of America, and I have works registered at the United States Copyright Office.
When we put works in our online portfolio, send mailers or physical copies of our portfolios we're doing it as promotional works. There is no usage license attached to it. If loaded into memory for personal viewing, that's fine since its not a commercial application nor violating the intent of that specific release: viewing for promotion.
Let's break down your example to help you understand what is actually going on. When we upload our works to third party galleries there is often a clause in the terms of service which states the artist uploading to the site grants a usage license for distribution and displaying of the image. Let's look at Section 17 of ArtStation's Terms of Service:
- License regarding Your Content
Your Content may be shared with third parties, for example, on social media sites to promote Your Content on the Site, and may be available for purchase through the Marketplace. You hereby grant royalty-free, perpetual, world-wide, licenses (the “Licenses”) to Epic and our service providers to use, copy, modify, reformat and distribute Your Content, and to use the name that you provide in association with Your Content, in connection with providing the Services; and to Epic and our service providers, members, users and licensees to use, communicate, share, and display Your Content (in whole or in part) subject to our policies, as those policies are amended from time-to-time
This is in conjunction with Section 16's opening line:
- Ownership
As between you and Epic, you will retain ownership of all original text, images, videos, messages, comments, ratings, reviews and other original content you provide on or through the Site, including Digital Products and descriptions of your Digital Products and Hard Products (collectively, “Your Content”), and all intellectual property rights in Your Content.
So when I click your link, I'm not engaging in a copyright violation. I'm making use of ArtStation's/Epic's license to distribute the original artist's works. When I save images from ArtStation that license does not transfer to me. Meaning if I were to repurpose that work it could be a copyright violation depending on the usage the artist agrees to. Established law states that I hold onto the rights of my work and any usage depends on what I explicitly state and agree to; emphasis on explicitly because the law will respect my terms and compensation first, and your intentions second. For example, if a magazine uses my images for several months without a license, I can document the usage time frame, send them an invoice, and begin negotiating because their legal team will realize that without a license they have no footing.
- Yes, this also applies to journalism as well. If you've agreed to let a news outlet use your works on a breaking story for credit/exposure, then you provided a license for fair compensation in the form of credit/exposure.
I know this seems strange given how the internet freely transformed works for decades without repercussions. But as you know from sites like YouTube copyright holders are not a fan of people repurposing their works without a mutually agreed upon terms in the form of a license. If you remember the old show Mystery Science Theater 3000, they operated in the proper form: get license, transform work, commercialize. In the case of ArtStation, the site agrees to provide free hosting in compensation for the artist providing a license to distribute the work without terms for monetization unless agreed upon through ArtStation's marketplace. At every step, the artist's rights to their work is respected and compensated when the law is applied.
If all this makes sense and we look back at AI art, well...
Meaning if I were to repurpose that work it could be a copyright violation depending on the usage the artist agrees to.
Training an AI doesn't "repurpose" that work, though. The AI learns concepts from it and then the work is discarded. No copyrighted part of the work remains in the AI's model. All that verbiage doesn't really apply to what's being done with the images when an AI trains on them, they are no longer being "used" for anything at all after training is done. Just like when a human artist looks at some reference images and then creates his own original work based on what he's learned from them.
Copies that were freely shared for the purpose of letting anyone look at them.
Do you think it's copyright infringement to go to a website?
Typically, ephemeral copies that aren't kept for a substantial period of time aren't considered copyright violations, otherwise viewing a website would be a copyright violation for every image appearing on that site.
Downloading a freely published image to run an algorithm on it and then deleting it without distribution is basically the canonical example of ephemeral.
Its what you do with the copies thats the problem, not the physical act of copying.
One human artist can, over a life time, learn from a few artists to inform their style.
These AI setups [...] ALL the art from ALL the artists
So humans are slow and inefficient, what's new?
First the machines replaced hand weavers, then ice sellers went bust, all the calculators got sacked, now it's time for the artists.
There is no ethical stance for letting billion dollar tech firms hoover up all the art ever created to the try and remix it for profit.
We stand on the shoulders of generations of unethical stances.
"other people were bad so I should be bad to."
Cool.
Yes, which is why we should try to do better.
I don't like when people say "AI just traces/photobashes art." Because that simply isn't what happens.
But I do very much wish there was some sort of opt-out process, but ultimately any attempt at that just wouldn't work
People that say that have never used AI art generation apps and are only regurgitating what they hear from other people who are doing the same. The amount of arm chair AI denialists is astronomical.
There's nothing stopping someone from licensing their art in a fashion that prohibits their use in that fashion.
No one has created that license that I know of, but there are software licenses that do similar things, so it's hardly an unprecedented notion.The fact of the matter is that before people didn't think it was necessary to have specific usage licenses attached to art because no one got funny feelings from people creating derivative works from them.
pirating photoshop is a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows. that doesn't make it legal or condoned by adobe
I don't know what this has to do with anything. Nothing was "pirated", either.
Not at the point of generation, but at the point of training it was. One of the sticking points of AI for artists is that their developers didn't even bother to seek permission. They simply said it was too much work and crawled artists' galleries.
Even publicly displayed art can only be used for certain previously-established purposes. By default you can't use them for derivative works.
At the point of training it was viewing images that the artists had published in a public gallery. Nothing pirated at that point either. They don't need "permission" to do that, the images are on display.
Learning from art is one of the previously-established purposes you speak of. No "derivative work" is made when an AI trains a model, the model does not contain any copyrightable part of the imagery it is trained on.
Of course they need permission to process images. No computer system can merely "view" an image without at least creating a copy for temporary use, and the purposes for which that can be done are strictly defined. Doing whatever you want just because you have access to the image is often copyright infringement.
People have the right to learn from images available publicly for personal viewing. AI is not yet people. Your whole argument relies on anthropomorphizing a tool, but it wouldn't even be able to select images to train its model without human intervention, which is done with the intent to replicate the artist's work.
I'm not one to usually bat for copyright but the disregard AI proponents have for artists' rights and their livelihood has gone long past what's acceptable, like the article shows.
If I run an image from the web through a program that generates a histogram of how bright its pixels are, am I suddenly a dirty pirate?
If you run someone's artwork through a filter is it completely fine and new just because the output is not exactly like the input and it deletes the input after it's done processing?
There is a discussion to be made, in good faith, of where the line lies, what ought to be the rights of the audience and what ought to be the rights of the artists, and what ought to be the rights of platforms, and what ought to be the limits of AI. To be fair, that's a difficult situation to determine, because in many aspects copyright is already too overbearing. Legally, many pieces of fan art and even memes are copyright infringement. But on the flipside automating art away is too far to the other side. The reason why Copyright even exists, at least ideally, is so that the rights and livelihood of artists is protected and they are incentivized to continue creating.
Lets not pretend that is just analysis for the sake of academic understanding, there is a large amount of people who are feeding artists' works into AI with the express purpose of getting artworks in their style without compensating them, something many artists made clear they are not okay with. While they can't tell people not to practice styles like theirs, they can definitely tell people not to use their works in ways they do not allow.
If you run someone's artwork through a filter is it completely fine and new just because the output is not exactly like the input and it deletes the input after it's done processing?
No, that's a derivative work. An analysis of the brightness of the pixels is not a derivative work.
There is a discussion to be made, in good faith, of where the line lies, what ought to be the rights of the audience and what ought to be the rights of the artists, and what ought to be the rights of platforms, and what ought to be the limits of AI.
Sure, but the people crying "You're stealing art!" are not making a good faith argument. They're using an inaccurate, prejudicial word for the purpose of riling up an emotional response. Or perhaps they just don't understand what copyright is and why it is, which also puts their argument in a bad state.
The reason why Copyright even exists, at least ideally, is so that the rights and livelihood of artists is protected and they are incentivized to continue creating.
Case in point. That's not why copyright exists. The reason for the American version of copyright is established right in the constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". If you want to go more fundamental than just what the US is up to, the original Statute of Anne was titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning".
The purpose of copyright is not to protect the rights or livelihood of artists. The protection of the rights and livelihood of artist is a means to the actual purpose of copyright, which is to enrich the public domain by prompting artists to be productive and to publish their works.
An artist that opposes AIs like these is now actively hindering the enrichment of the public domain.
Wow.. so in your mind there is basically no copyright and nobody owns anything. That is incredibly reductive and completely ignores centuries of legal precedence since the constitution was written.
You are basically claiming that anything that is ever put on display anywhere, ever is public domain and that piracy doesn't exist.
A histogram cannot output similar images, it's pointless to argue the fine details of an analogy that doesn't apply to begin with
To call it "stealing" might be inaccurate, but are the artists wrong to say that their intellectual property rights are being violated, when people using their works without consent to train AIs with the express purpose of replicating those artists' works? I have seen several artists pointing out AI users who brag to them that they are explicitly training AIs using those artists' galleries and show that it's outputting similar works.
The reason why Copyright even exists, at least ideally, is so that the rights and livelihood of artists is protected and they are incentivized to continue creating.
Case in point. That's not why copyright exists. The reason for the American version of copyright is established right in the constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts".
How is it "promoting the progress of useful arts" not the same as "incentivizing artists to continue creating"? Are you going to argue what's "useful"? If there is interest in replicating artists' styles with AI, then that is an admission the people doing it see use in those works. Otherwise, it's the same, and protecting their livelihoods through the privilege of a temporary intellectual monopoly is how that promotion of arts is done.
I definitely see the value of the Public Domain, but if expanding it at any cost was the primary goal of copyright we wouldn't have roughly century-long copyright. Which I don't think is good per see but that's another discussion. Still, the existence of copyright at all is a concession that grants that for artists and creators to develop their works and ultimately enrich humanity's culture, they need to be able to control their works and have a guarantee to a stable career, to the extent that they can sell their own work. It's a protection so that not everyone can show up imitating that artist and undercut them, undermining their capability to make new creative works. Which is what many people have been doing with AI.
If anything that could enrich the Public Domain was enough reason to drop Copyright, we wouldn't have any Copyright. The compromise is that Public Domain as a whole will be enriched when the artist's Copyright expires.
Bring publicly viewable doesn't make them public domain. Bring able to see something doesn't give you the right to use it for literally any other reason.
Full stop.
My gods, you're such an insufferable bootlicking fanboy of bullshit code jockies. Make a good faith effort to actually understand why people dislike these exploitative assholes who are looking to make a buck off of other people's work for once, instead of just reflexively calling them all phillistines who "just don't understand".
Some of us work on machine learning systems for a living. We know what they are and how they work, and they're fucking regurgitation machines. And people deserve to have control over whether we use their works in our regurgitation machines.
They were not used for derivative works. The AI's model produced by the training does not contain any copyrighted material.
If you click this link and view the images there then you are just as much a "pirate" as the AI trainers.
The models themselves are the derivative works. Those artists' works were copied and processed to create that model. There is a difference between a person viewing a piece of work and putting that work to be processed through a system. The way copyright works as defined, being allowed to view a work is not the same as being allowed to use it in any way you see fit. It's also innacurate to speak of AIs as if they have the same abilities and rights as people.
i'm not making a moral comment on anything, including piracy. i'm saying "but it's part of my established workflow" is not an excuse for something morally wrong.
only click here if you understand analogy and hyperbole
if i say "i can't write without kicking a few babies first", it's not an excuse to keep kicking babies. i just have to stop writing, or maybe find another workflow
The difference is that kicking babies is illegal whereas training and running an AI is not. Kind of a big difference.
did you click the thing saying that you understand analogies?
You're using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That's not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain. Kicking a baby is not the same as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don't map to each other.
You can't dodge flaws in your argument by adding a "don't respond unless you agree with me" clause on your comment.
You're using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That's not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain
actually that's exactly what i was using it for.
Kicking a baby is not the same[^1] as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don't map to each other.
if you read carefully, you'll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you're continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you'll see that i implied i wasn't making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies
You can't dodge flaws in your argument by adding a "don't respond unless you agree with me" clause on your comment.
i didn't intend to. i did it so i wouldn't have to waste my time arguing with those who don't understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you'll excuse me, i'm going to stop
edit: okay, i've been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don't understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment
[^1]: yes. analogous doesn't mean "the same". it means "able to draw demonstrative parallels between
Was he paid for his art to be included?
His work was used in a publicly available product without license or compensation. Including his work in the training dataset was, to the online vernacular use of the word, piracy.
They violated his copyright when they used his work to make their shit.
The product does not contain his work. So no copying was done, therefore no "piracy."
no one's art is being "stolen". you're mistaken.
That's true, but only in the sense that theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different things.
Generating stuff from ML training datasets that included works without permissive licenses is copyright infringement though, just as much as simply copying and pasting parts of those works in would be. The legal definition of a derivative work doesn't care about the techological details.
(For me, the most important consequence of this sort of argument is that everything produced by Github Copilot must be GPL.)
That's incorrect in my opinion. AI learns patterns from its training data. So do humans, by the way. It's not copy-pasting parts of image or code.
Permanently Deleted
You're correct in your description of what a derivative work is, but this part is mistaken:
The intent is so that artists can make a living for their innovation.
The intent is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" so that, in the long run, the Public Domain is enriched with more works than would otherwise exist if no incentive were given. Allowing artists to make a living is nothing more than a means to that end.
Permanently Deleted
I like what you're saying so I'm not trying to be argumentative, but to be clear copyright protections don't simply protect those who make a living from their productions. You are protected by them regardless of whether you intend to make any money off your work and that protection is automatic. Just to expand upon what @grue was saying.
By the same token, a human can easily be deemed to have infringed copyright even without cutting and pasting, if the result is excessively inspired by some other existing work.
AI doesn't "learn" anything, it's not even intelligent. If you show a human artwork of a person they'll be able to recognize that they're looking at a human, how their limbs and expression works, what they're wearing, the materials, how gravity should affect it all, etc. AI doesn't and can't know any of that, it just predicts how things should look based on images that have been put in it's database. It's a fancy Xerox.
Why do people who have no idea how some thing works feel the urge to comment on its working? It's not just AI, it's pretty much everything.
AI does learn, that's the whole shtick and that's why it's so good at stuff computers used to suck at. AI is pretty much just a buzzword, the correct abbreviation is ML which stands for Machine Learning - it's even in the name.
AI also recognizes it looks at a human! It can also recognize what they're wearing, the material. AI is also better in many, many things than humans are. It also sucks compared to humans in many other things.
No images are in its database, you fancy Xerox.
And I wish that people who didn't understand the need for the human element in creative endeavours would focus their energy on automating things that should be automated, like busywork, and dangerous jobs.
If the prediction model actually "learned" anything, they wouldn't have needed to add the artist's work back after removing it. They had to, because it doesn't learn anything, it copies the data it's been fed.
Just because you repeat the same thing over and over it doesn't become truth. You should be the one to learn, before you talk. This conversation is over for me, I'm not paid to convince people who behave like children of how things they're scared of work.
It's actually not copyright infringement at all.
Edit: and even if it was, copyright infringement is a moral right, it's a good thing. copyright is theft.
Permanently Deleted
Additionally, "copyright infringement is a moral right" seems fairly wrong. Copyright laws currently are too steep and I can agree with that but if I make a piece of art like a book, video game, or movie, do I not deserve to protect it in order to get money? I'd argue that because we live in a capitalistic society so, yes, I deserve to get paid for the work I did.
No. And it's not just me saying that; the folks who wrote the Copyright Clause (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson) would disagree with you, too.
The natural state of a creative work is for it to be part of a Public Domain. Ideas are fundamentally different from property in the sense that property's value comes from its exclusive use by its owner, wheras an idea's value comes from spreading it, i.e., giving it away to others.
Here's how Jefferson described it:
stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property. society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility. but this may, or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Thus we see the basis for the rationale given in the Copyright Clause itself: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," which is very different from creating some kind of entitlement to creators because they "deserve" it.
The true basis for copyright law in the United States is as a utilitarian incentive to encourage the creation of more works - a bounty for creating. Ownership of property is a natural right which the Constitution pledges to protect (see also the 4th and 5th Amendments), but the temporary monopoly called copyright is merely a privilege granted at the pleasure of Congress. Essentially, it's a lease from the Public Domain, for the benefit of the Public. It is not an entitlement; what the creator of the work "deserves" doesn't enter into it.
And if the copyright holder abuses his privilege such that the Public no longer benefits enough to be worth it, it's perfectly just and reasonable for the privilege to be revoked.
At the end of the day, the artists just want to be able to afford to eat, play games, and have shelter. Why in the world is that a bad thing in our current society? You can't remove copyright law without first removing capitalism.
This is a bizarre, backwards argument. First of all, a government-granted monopoly is the antethesis of the "free market" upon which capitalism is supposedly based. Second, granting of monopolies is hardly the only way to accomplish either goal of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts" or of helping creators make a living!
Permanently Deleted
Edit: ...copyright infringement is a moral right, it's a good thing. copyright is theft.
Except when it's being used to enforce copyleft.
Aside from all the artists whose work was fed into the AI learning models without their permission. That art has been stolen, and is still being stolen. In this case very explicitly, because they outright removed his work, and then put it back when nobody was looking.
Let me give you a hypothetical that's close to reality. Say an artist gets very popular, but doesn't want their art used to teach AI. Let's even say there's even legislation that prevents all this artist's work from being used in AI.
Now what if someone else hires a bunch of cheap human artists to produce works in a style similar to the original artist, and then uses those works to feed the AI model? Would that still be stolen art? And if so, why? And if not, what is this extra degree of separation changing? The original artist is still not getting paid and the AI is still producing works based on their style.
Comic book artists get in shit for tracing other peoples' work all the time. Look up Greg Land. It's shitty regardless of whether it's a person doing it directly, or if someone built software to do it for them.
Strictly speaking it wouldn't exactly be stealing, but I would still consider it as about equal to it, especially with regards to economic benefits. It may not be producing exact copies (which strictly speaking isn't stealing, but is violating copyright) or actually stealing, but it's exploiting the style that most people would assume mean that that specific artist made it and thus depriving that artist from benefiting from people wanting art from that artist/in that style.
Now, I'm not conflicted about people who have made millions off their art having people make imitations or copies, those people live more than comfortably enough. But in your example there are still other human artists benefiting, which is not the case for computationally generated works. It's great for me to be able to have computers create art for a DnD campaign or something, but I still recognize that it's making it harder for artists to earn a living from their skills. And to a certain degree it makes it so people who never would have had any such art now can. It's in many ways like piracy with the same ethical framing. And as with piracy it may be that people that use AI to make them art become greater "consumers" of art made by humans as well, paying it forward. But it may also not work exactly that way.
People aren't allowed to produce similar styles to other humans? So do you support disney preventing anyone from making cartoons?
Now you're making a strawman. Other humans that are actually making art generally don't fully copy a specific style, they draw inspiration from different sources and that amalgamation is their style.
Your comment reads as bad-faith to me. If it wasn't meant as such you're free to explain your stance properly instead of making strawman arguments.
Fine, you win the semantic argument about the use of the term "stealing". Despite arguments about word choice, this is still a massively disrespectful and malicious action against the artist.
So you hire people to trace the original art, that's still copying it, and nobody is learning anything. It's copying.
They didn't say trace. A good artist can use the style of another artist when creating a new work.
Yeah but a computer can't, no matter how much people want to believe it can. Not with current tech.