Fair point. Genuine question: does it matter if the artwork is lost in the sea of billions? Who’s to say which style it took from? What’s the difference between a human inspiration from an existing artist and an “ai” mashing techniques? It’s like a dj mashing up music or an Ai mixing music, no? Either way it’s the same ingredients?
In all fairness, one is less human in every definition. That result would then be fed again into the system and thus creates a positive oscillation of bad content or regurgitation of nonsense.
If the work of “billions” (more like millions, there are not that many artists) is used by for-profits, it absolutely matters. That’s identical to using the labor of billions to generate shareholder value and dividends.
Does it matter? Probably to the artist? Less to me, I’ve never made anything pretty.
You might be surprised if you run one of those models locally, you can definitely ask it to reproduce an individual art style.
Let’s say I wanted to remake the Starry Night with an anime girl spread eagle in the foreground, the best I could is clip art. Should I commission an artist or use an AI?
Outside of the moral and ethical concerns, the difference being that the human has to use there memory, skill, and the reference material I provide, while the AI has an exact copy of Starry Night, and every single piece of art, both official and fan, saved and tagged. The AI has no “talent” so to speak, and I doubt the result would be all that much better than what I could with GIMP, while the artist does. The same ingredients, maybe even better on some levels, but one is a much better cook. So yeah I’d agree on the last point.
On the ethical or more so legal side of things, the artist took their entire life up to that point abosrbing art to reach their are style. Unless they just use clip art of someone else’s work, they had to create those images for themselves. It would be impossible to track and pay every single inspiration and every single instance where they learned their technique. There is a presumption of innocence for an individual artist that they came about those inspirations fairly, as in the might have not bought a ticket to the movie because they watched it as a friends house.
But an AI model? They should know exactly where they took every it’s data from. So they know exactly who’s art is it, where they got it, how they got it, and when they are using. So why shouldn’t those artists be compensated or at least recognized or at worst informed that their work is being used as part of an AI model?
It’s actually wild how every major rights holder in the West is actively pumping out AI to the tune of hundreds of billions to avoid paying tens of millions to artists, literally the least economically valued individuals. Every one of them decided it was worth having all of there works fed into each other’s dumpster fires instead of protecting there own rights first. Gonna make for some interesting copyright cases in a few years i’d wager.
To be clear: stealing “IP” acquired with public money or on the shoulders of others is okay, and arguably doesn’t qualify as “stealing”.
Taking IP from the very people who created it, and profitting of it / using it for whatever gains without crediting the author and/or compensating them for it? Absolutely stealing.
People who use LLMs or generative AI trained on other people’s data without consent? Thieves!
Stealing intellectual property is stealing.
How is it stealing if he’s generating an AI image for a storey. Seems copying someone is quite different.
It’s not AI. Never has been. It’s a system that plagiarizes from a mix of training data, i.e. other people’s work. It’s theft.
Weird because piracy seems OK with most folk.
Stealing from individuals to make money as opposed to stealing* from a multinational corporation to not spend money
Fair point. Genuine question: does it matter if the artwork is lost in the sea of billions? Who’s to say which style it took from? What’s the difference between a human inspiration from an existing artist and an “ai” mashing techniques? It’s like a dj mashing up music or an Ai mixing music, no? Either way it’s the same ingredients?
In all fairness, one is less human in every definition. That result would then be fed again into the system and thus creates a positive oscillation of bad content or regurgitation of nonsense.
If the work of “billions” (more like millions, there are not that many artists) is used by for-profits, it absolutely matters. That’s identical to using the labor of billions to generate shareholder value and dividends.
Does it matter? Probably to the artist? Less to me, I’ve never made anything pretty.
You might be surprised if you run one of those models locally, you can definitely ask it to reproduce an individual art style.
Let’s say I wanted to remake the Starry Night with an anime girl spread eagle in the foreground, the best I could is clip art. Should I commission an artist or use an AI?
Outside of the moral and ethical concerns, the difference being that the human has to use there memory, skill, and the reference material I provide, while the AI has an exact copy of Starry Night, and every single piece of art, both official and fan, saved and tagged. The AI has no “talent” so to speak, and I doubt the result would be all that much better than what I could with GIMP, while the artist does. The same ingredients, maybe even better on some levels, but one is a much better cook. So yeah I’d agree on the last point.
On the ethical or more so legal side of things, the artist took their entire life up to that point abosrbing art to reach their are style. Unless they just use clip art of someone else’s work, they had to create those images for themselves. It would be impossible to track and pay every single inspiration and every single instance where they learned their technique. There is a presumption of innocence for an individual artist that they came about those inspirations fairly, as in the might have not bought a ticket to the movie because they watched it as a friends house.
But an AI model? They should know exactly where they took every it’s data from. So they know exactly who’s art is it, where they got it, how they got it, and when they are using. So why shouldn’t those artists be compensated or at least recognized or at worst informed that their work is being used as part of an AI model?
It’s actually wild how every major rights holder in the West is actively pumping out AI to the tune of hundreds of billions to avoid paying tens of millions to artists, literally the least economically valued individuals. Every one of them decided it was worth having all of there works fed into each other’s dumpster fires instead of protecting there own rights first. Gonna make for some interesting copyright cases in a few years i’d wager.
No it fucking isn’t.
To be clear: stealing “IP” acquired with public money or on the shoulders of others is okay, and arguably doesn’t qualify as “stealing”. Taking IP from the very people who created it, and profitting of it / using it for whatever gains without crediting the author and/or compensating them for it? Absolutely stealing. People who use LLMs or generative AI trained on other people’s data without consent? Thieves!
Yes it is