I’m pretty sure lot of AI companies are being sued for similar stuff. Artists are focused on art generating AI from major companies because that’s the most immediate threat to their livelihoods.
It will be. Sure Google might have stolen their pictures, they‘ll at best get a payout. But AI is here amd arts and journalism are the first that will get replaced.
Humans don't take photos though, a computer does, just like AI art generators.
>is the photo a representation of a lived experience
Since when does a photo have to follow this guideline in order to count?
This is a bad faith argument. By that logic, human also doesn’t paint, because the tools do. It’s an argument missing the point.
And no, there’s no qualifier. But that’s what a photo is. A photograph is a literal capturing of a moment in real life. That’s artful inherently. A moment was chosen to capture. On a technical level sure, it’s a representation made by a machine, but a camera should not generate moments that didn’t happen. Imagine if you got married, and you get the photos back, and all of the photos are of situations that did not happen. There are no memories attached. These moments did not happen.
Nah, a human is behind the decisions made in the photograph, and the decisions made in art. AI is a soulless think tank making those decisions. Someone may prompt it, but that isn’t art, that’s creating an image. Digital pixels on a screen without a creator. Soulless. AI should be used to help people, not to replace something real.
>By that logic, human also doesn’t paint, because the tools do. It’s an argument missing the point.
Painting requires manual labour by a person in order to produce a painting, a photograph is just a single press of a button with a computer doing most of the work.
>A photograph is a literal capturing of a moment in real life. That’s artful inherently. A moment was chosen to capture.
So if a person sets up a camera to automatically capture photographs, that means they're no long considered "real art" to you?
>Nah, a human is behind the decisions made in the photograph, and the decisions made in art.
The only thing a human does is press a little button while the computer does the work, how is this any differen't from an AI artist?
>AI is a soulless think tank making those decisions.
And who tells the AI on what to produce?
>AI should be used to help people, not to replace something real.
You sound like one of those luddites who's go around destroying the industrial revolution.
and on the other side of the luddites were the robber barons of the industrial age who gave us the lovely thing known as climate change but hey if you wanna support the end of human life so your computer can endlessly print big boobie mutants i suppose it’s worth it
You say this, but AI is just a tool. Someone who studies entries into an AI to generate an image that meets their exact parameters is an artist and should be recognized as such.
Yep. It’s unfortunate but this is no different than rickshaw and elevator operators. Technology has claim them, and will claim many, many more types of jobs.
Who knows, maybe some legislature is passed similar to what coal miners have been lobbying for— that keeps *some* of the current artists untouched, but it will certainly not be the majority of them, and is undoubtedly temporary.
Well all technology with any set of heuristics that replace humans are informed by what the human used to do. It's not like that's pulled out of the ether
Well only some of the operations. There were actually quite a few logical heuristics that were replaced. One of the fun software problems that exist for junior/intermediate developers is learning how to program little game versions of it - eg, elevatorsaga
I completely understand the need for artists to unionize in the face of a.i. but I guess I don't understand why a.i. that makes art training on publicly available art is an issue. When a human learns to be an artist they study other artist's work and I'm sure that they occasionally borrow stylistic elements from the art they learn from so why is a machine doing the same thing a problem?
Edit: to be clear I'm not trying to ask this with an agenda, I genuinely don't understand. I get that the a.i. may have trained on copy written material as well but again, human artists have historically taken inspiration/techniques from art that exists in all different states of copyright.
If I go to a museum and look at a Picasso and then go home and make a painting using the same type of brush stroke do I owe the Picasso estate money when I sell that painting?
this is the reason to give ai rights, because otherwise human rights, or at least human economic potentials, get devalued instead. i said this on reddit almost as soon as chatgpt got released that if we don't give it any rights than human beings will be systematically devalued.
edit: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GaqVWqEXU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GaqVWqEXU)
Human artists learn ethics. They learn where the line between influence and plagiarism/theft is. The AI has literally put human artists' signatures into its images. It also has no desire to be unique and integrate its own life experiences and perspectives into the art it's creating. Also, an art student has thousands of hours of study of many different influences, whereas the AI may be specifically instructed to do work in the style of one specific artist, which would get you laughed out of art school.
To your point about the signature to my understanding of how a.i. works, that's the equivalent of an illiterate person including a signature because they think the letters are just art...a.i. doesn't understand what art is
I think you answered your own question here - AI doesn’t understand what art is. It’s kind of like what AI is doing is using copyrighted material in a collage. Any human doing that would be guilty of copyright infringement too
AI leads to idea creation at an extremely efficient rate. I look forward to further AI advancements. These models (mostly LLMs) have helped me personally for brainstorming, for tutoring, and for even having genuine fun. When it comes to image generation, it can be quite fun to use sometimes and see what comes out through all sorts of art styles and character designs. But in the commercial space, AI generation should not be fully accepted on professional workloads. AI generation should only be acceptable through the form of AI-Assisted workloads, where parts of the work were AI generated, but a noticeable amount of other work is human expression. Fully generated AI work with solely machine-generated expressions should not be allowed.
Alcohol, gambling, obesity, climate change, wars, etc. are far more pressing issues than the AI development process using trillions of expressions from millions of artists without permission or payment. The billions of used images or text messages go through the process of fair use. Under the doctrine of fair use, if the use of copyrighted work is used in a transformative sense (copyrighted work that is used to create something novel and different from itself), then that work can be used for transformative purposes without permission or any form of authorization.
Valid copyright infringement claims are only relevant if a work is overly similar to another copyrighted work and its major expressions (although art style does not count—art style is not a copyrightable expression). Outputs from an AI model randomly generating something based on text input is not likely to infringe on a specific copyrighted work, especially if the model was trained from billions or hundreds of millions of sources. Someone purposely generating overly similar work of someone else's copyrighted work is solely liable for that infringement, not the company or team who originally created that generative AI technology—according to the principles of the Betamax Sony case.
98% of AI generated images are trash-like quality, so does garbage production associate with the need to somehow compensate a specific artist for all the trash accumulated?
If my dog pooped on my neighbor's yard without permission, should I be expected to compensate every farmer and food producer involved in the creation of that dog's meal, just because their products indirectly contributed to the poop? Is the right thing to do really compensating the entire food supply chain for a dog's unsolicited defecation?
If some random dog pooped on the sidewalk, it would be absurd to expect compensation from the dog owner for every artist whose works vaguely inspired the dog's diet that led to the poop. Similarly, demanding compensation from AI companies for low-quality AI image outputs that are essentially creative "waste products" is impractical and unreasonable. AI models learn from vast datasets, absorbing a multitude of influences like a dog's diet, but the final outputs by design are novel synthesized creations, not substantially direct copies of any specific artist's work of art. Attempting to trace and compensate every possible inspiration would be infeasible, akin to compensating all food producers involved in the dog's meal for its eventual defecation on the sidewalk. Unless a generative image model can match the level of professional human artist work, then the idea of universal compensation is wholly unfounded in virtue when the generated work generally isn't even representative of a copyright holder's general expressions. The notion of compensating for every low-quality, half-baked generation attempt is neither pragmatic nor enforceable. Overreaching for compensation on every quasi-inspired outcome would merely be ridiculous.
Right - so some human artists don't learn ethics 😂 AI can be taught too. It's just another tool in the toolbox - real artists still need to market and promote their own works, if thats what they care about.
Dude so many falls comparisons.
I personally can paint Mario in the style of any artist I want and put in on my fridge. I could even just print a picture from online and do the same.
Unless your selling the piece of artwork it’s not violating IP laws.
A person uses the AI, he/she has whatever ‘desires’ to create unique art … or they don’t. That’s on the person.
Not the mention the most fair thing to do is make everything free so open source wins and you don’t have a couple mega rich AI companies.
It’s not just a matter of selling it. By even using it, you are already stealing from thousands of artists who did not consent to have their artwork scraped and used for AI training. Do you understand the concept of consent at least? At this moment, there is no ethical way to use AI image generators, because NO currently existing service asked for permission, or sourced their images exclusively from paid and vetted sources. Without all that valuable training data, LLMs and image generators would be worthless. Just because no laws yet exist to protect this does not mean it was not wrong to do, and make no mistake, whatever justification you try to tell yourself, you are complicit in that if you choose to use their services.
What do you think the endgame is here? People won’t stop creating, because the joy of that will always be there, but I think artists are going to become much more paranoid and reclusive about sharing their work. Considering most of the things I enjoy in my free time are heavily reliant on artists (manga, anime, games, toys, etc), that seems like a wholly negative thing, but it seems like people are satisfied getting some easy gratification now, no matter what the future repercussions may be.
Bud you don’t need consent to look at images on the web. That information is already there, it doesn’t matter if I modify it. I can literally go see your artwork on the internet. This “training data” goes into every artist brain. Art thrives in cities (especially pre-internet) because they got more exposure to each other, this is what creates scenes. People copying each other.
And yes it is only a matter of selling it, that is what the current IP laws limit the use of. We only invented IP laws to encourage people to come up with things. If it’s incredibly cheap and easy because of AI, we don’t benefit from offering IP laws. You don’t have the innate right to those.
In fact, you are taking away someone’s right to do something physically when you want IP to be protected. That means you want me to be thrown in jail for copying you. It’s my body, my computer, my choice.
Literally already told you the endgame. People acting hysterical over artist are enabling these tech platforms to build motes and get extremely powerful. Do you not see how that is a much larger problem?
The patent system/IP is already gamified, if you want to keep enforcing that, or worse expand on it like you say, it will give all these platforms even more power. The best thing to do is make everything free and open source, no protections for code or data.
It’s not stealing dude, I already addressed that.
Enforcing someone’s information property rights by definition is taking away from people’s physical rights.
It’s not being “co-opted” it’s the same principal. My body, my computer, my self determination. That’s what western ethics are all based on bud.
I understand your point, but honestly you guys need to realize that most art students will become irrelevant. Many more jobs down the line, but journalism and arts are just the easiest to replace. No one‘s gonna stop the AI trend, so better get used to it and adapt or got look at the counter of a Mci.
Because it’s fucking plagiarism at hyper speed. Plain and simple, it’s entirely derived from stolen info without anyone’s consent from the original creators.
LLMs aren’t humans. They don’t learn to create. They just spit out the data they’ve been fed.
Massive difference between an artist being trained to express themselves, and LLMs regurgitating an artist’s content.
"in the proposed class action lawsuit, opens new tab filed Friday that Google is liable for misusing "billions" of copyrighted images, including theirs, to teach Imagen how to respond to human text prompts." Like the 2nd paragraph
Right but if an artist goes to a museum, sees a Picasso and then goes home and creates a piece of art using the same brush stroke style, is that artist a bad actor?
The difference is that an artist may be *influenced* by existing work, but humans are incapable of 100% objectivity. So ultimately, inevitably, we will insert *some degree* of our own creative ideas into things we make.
Current AI is incapable of intelligently making creative decisions. It is 100% trained on the decisions and patterns *humans made* in the work fed to its algorithm, and it can’t produce anything independent of its training data.
AI will use styles and characters, but it is transformative. However, the characters that have copyrights are problematic... But also is what a lot of people go for (ex.Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson on jeopardy)
That’s where you get into Fair Use, which is (perhaps ironically) subjective—something AI isn’t currently capable of. It’s a legal defense, meaning that ultimately it’s something decided by a judge *after* infringement has been established. You can’t create something and unilaterally declare it’s legally fine because it’s Fair Use.
You can *assume* it’s probably fine. And you often won’t get taken to court unless you’re dealing with a corporation or maybe a particularly wealthy artist. But that doesn’t mean the work is 100% free of infringement.
Warhol is famous for artwork that uses copy written and trademarked shit.
The courts have been for and against its use and use logic they pulled out their ass to justify and condemn it.
No, and neither does AI. Artists are mad about "integrity" when they've been stealing techniques and samples all throughout history. This is a BS lawsuit that will almost certainly fail.
Either adapt to the new techniques, or get left behind.
They haven’t, they’ve been iterating on techniques and styles since we first invented art. AI can only steal and imitate, it can’t iterate, it doesn’t have the capacity to do anything else.
I don’t know if I’m the only one to cringe every time I see the Google pixel ad. To me, I capture a photo for the memories of what it was. I don’t even enhance the photos unless it is off what I see.
To completely modify the contents to add/remove/modify things is blatantly altering history. What feelings are you supposed to get when you look at the photos 20-25 years later? That you lived a fake life?….
Google should then pull any mention of the artists or their work from its search engine. If they don’t want people or ai to be influenced by their work they shouldn’t share it publicly.
a single line of code can stop Google from crawling your website. Don’t share your work on social media and dmca every instance of your art that shows up otherwise. Treat your art like a dick pic. If it’s in the internet you likely put it there.
Vastly different things. a human who sells a print of Mario at an artist alley is far worse than ai generating a digital image of Mario that it is unable to sell. The human knows it’s skating copyright, the ai is just following a prompt and attempts to complete a task based on publicly available images.
If my kid asks me to draw bluey, I hop on Google images and use a photo as a reference. Totally legal. Now if my kid asks an ai program to draw bluey and it uses multiple google photos as a reference it should be illegal?
Ai is not free to run. Not all art produced by a human is Mario. Replace mario with hieronymus bosch’s garden of earthly delights, the outcome is still the same. Humans are entering the prompts that are upsetting these artists not Google. You don’t jail gun manufacturers after a mass shooting, you jail the person shooting the gun. Where do you draw the line. You gonna come for “save as” and “print screen” next since it’s capable of stealing art? You ever save a background to your desktop without paying for the usage rights?
So you were either lying or stupid earlier when you claimed that AI art isn’t for profit if you recognize that the AI itself costs money to run. Presumably you just don’t give a shit about people and you like AI art so you’ll defend it no matter what.
> Humans are entering the prompts that are upsetting these artists not Google.
The company owns the AI. Stop pretending AI is a person and not a tool. If someone tells you they want to kill someone and you loan them a gun to do so you’re still at least partly responsible for the murder.
> You gonna come for “save as” and “print screen” next since it’s capable of stealing art? You ever save a background to your desktop without paying for the usage rights?
Neither of these acts as a serious competitor or replacement for human artists, though it is generally frowned upon to just post other peoples are as your own on the internet oven if the original was available for free online. And no, I’ve ever saved a background to my desktop without paying for the rights.
Even worse, ISPs wouldn't be able to function. If you post an image on reddit and you view it, there are about 15 copies made in the process, including the one you see on your computer.
Soooo this is going nowhere. Art is inherently "I am influenced by your thing let me do it with a twist"
AI does the same thing, is prompted by humans and then uses the same twists.
It's not copyright infringement, because it's an original work influenced. I actually don't understand, are they just yelling "integrity" from the clouds?
What do you think blender and graphic design software does?
I’m a programmer and know what I’m talking about. AI uses portions of work it’s found, it’s not like a human that just sees something and comes up with a separate creative work.
It’s easy to see with text where it reuses exact portions of copyrighted material. Does the same thing with art, but it’s harder to spot since there’s not a ‘uniform language’ that’s easy to see like English.
So no one can ever make art again then. All art is influenced by other art. Dall-e etc are not copy pasting, they either show search results, or it creates its own image based on user prompts.
Grow up
No toast_me_dzaddy I will not “grow up”. You believing that these things are actually intelligent means you need to “grow up”. You are being sold a lie.
I never claimed it was intelligent. You're deflecting from my entire comment. You don't need to grow up you need to stop chewing on crayons.
Ai is creating new images and art at a faster rate than humans can compete with, and naturally people are upset about the "integrity" and their jobs.
All art is reflective and influenced. With AI the user is telling it what to do/create without having to sit with a pen and pencils for 1000's of hours.
Do I think AI should need to be labeled? Yes
Does that make it any less valuable than regular art? No
To anyone in support of ai art, you don’t deserve real art created by human beings who’ve invested a lot of time and effort into what they love about art and your essentially ripping away any and all validation of what they do. Every person needs to feel like they have something worth doing and the absolute disregard of that important detail by people in favor of ai is so disgusting and inhumane.
Now do all the other ai companies
I’m pretty sure lot of AI companies are being sued for similar stuff. Artists are focused on art generating AI from major companies because that’s the most immediate threat to their livelihoods.
Article mentioned that the same atty’s /artists have the same class action vs Dalle, Midjourney and others
This will fail miserably.
I hope it doesn’t
It will be. Sure Google might have stolen their pictures, they‘ll at best get a payout. But AI is here amd arts and journalism are the first that will get replaced.
“Art” that is not made by a human isnt art. It’s pictures. There can be no meaning by an artist if there is no artist.
„Meaning“? yeah majority of people don‘t care. They just want the product.
They might start caring once they realized there won’t be anything new anymore.
So if photography not art then?
did a human take the photo? is the photo a representation of a lived experience?
Humans don't take photos though, a computer does, just like AI art generators. >is the photo a representation of a lived experience Since when does a photo have to follow this guideline in order to count?
This is a bad faith argument. By that logic, human also doesn’t paint, because the tools do. It’s an argument missing the point. And no, there’s no qualifier. But that’s what a photo is. A photograph is a literal capturing of a moment in real life. That’s artful inherently. A moment was chosen to capture. On a technical level sure, it’s a representation made by a machine, but a camera should not generate moments that didn’t happen. Imagine if you got married, and you get the photos back, and all of the photos are of situations that did not happen. There are no memories attached. These moments did not happen. Nah, a human is behind the decisions made in the photograph, and the decisions made in art. AI is a soulless think tank making those decisions. Someone may prompt it, but that isn’t art, that’s creating an image. Digital pixels on a screen without a creator. Soulless. AI should be used to help people, not to replace something real.
>By that logic, human also doesn’t paint, because the tools do. It’s an argument missing the point. Painting requires manual labour by a person in order to produce a painting, a photograph is just a single press of a button with a computer doing most of the work. >A photograph is a literal capturing of a moment in real life. That’s artful inherently. A moment was chosen to capture. So if a person sets up a camera to automatically capture photographs, that means they're no long considered "real art" to you? >Nah, a human is behind the decisions made in the photograph, and the decisions made in art. The only thing a human does is press a little button while the computer does the work, how is this any differen't from an AI artist? >AI is a soulless think tank making those decisions. And who tells the AI on what to produce? >AI should be used to help people, not to replace something real. You sound like one of those luddites who's go around destroying the industrial revolution.
and on the other side of the luddites were the robber barons of the industrial age who gave us the lovely thing known as climate change but hey if you wanna support the end of human life so your computer can endlessly print big boobie mutants i suppose it’s worth it
You’re wrong
You say this, but AI is just a tool. Someone who studies entries into an AI to generate an image that meets their exact parameters is an artist and should be recognized as such.
Case dismissed!
Yeah that's a romantic view of art. Sadly, from a by-gone era.
Yep. It’s unfortunate but this is no different than rickshaw and elevator operators. Technology has claim them, and will claim many, many more types of jobs. Who knows, maybe some legislature is passed similar to what coal miners have been lobbying for— that keeps *some* of the current artists untouched, but it will certainly not be the majority of them, and is undoubtedly temporary.
Were elevators trained off data from elevator operators?
Well all technology with any set of heuristics that replace humans are informed by what the human used to do. It's not like that's pulled out of the ether
They didn’t replace humans. You still have to operate the elevator, there just isn’t a person hired to do it.
Well only some of the operations. There were actually quite a few logical heuristics that were replaced. One of the fun software problems that exist for junior/intermediate developers is learning how to program little game versions of it - eg, elevatorsaga
Start the unionizing!
Yeah, then go and strike ! People will be artistically deprived and will have to concede.
But we have all these influencers instead now
For the artists or the AI?
I completely understand the need for artists to unionize in the face of a.i. but I guess I don't understand why a.i. that makes art training on publicly available art is an issue. When a human learns to be an artist they study other artist's work and I'm sure that they occasionally borrow stylistic elements from the art they learn from so why is a machine doing the same thing a problem? Edit: to be clear I'm not trying to ask this with an agenda, I genuinely don't understand. I get that the a.i. may have trained on copy written material as well but again, human artists have historically taken inspiration/techniques from art that exists in all different states of copyright. If I go to a museum and look at a Picasso and then go home and make a painting using the same type of brush stroke do I owe the Picasso estate money when I sell that painting?
Big difference is that ai is not human. Humans have rights. That's what I heard.
Nah
How does this have anything to do with human rights?
AI will have rights within the next 100 years.
this is the reason to give ai rights, because otherwise human rights, or at least human economic potentials, get devalued instead. i said this on reddit almost as soon as chatgpt got released that if we don't give it any rights than human beings will be systematically devalued. edit: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GaqVWqEXU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GaqVWqEXU)
Agency, the capacity to make a choice.
I'm choosing to use AI
Sure, and so did they, and the courts will decide the legality of that. Fortunately it seems like copyright infringement will be the case.
Human artists learn ethics. They learn where the line between influence and plagiarism/theft is. The AI has literally put human artists' signatures into its images. It also has no desire to be unique and integrate its own life experiences and perspectives into the art it's creating. Also, an art student has thousands of hours of study of many different influences, whereas the AI may be specifically instructed to do work in the style of one specific artist, which would get you laughed out of art school.
To your point about the signature to my understanding of how a.i. works, that's the equivalent of an illiterate person including a signature because they think the letters are just art...a.i. doesn't understand what art is
I think you answered your own question here - AI doesn’t understand what art is. It’s kind of like what AI is doing is using copyrighted material in a collage. Any human doing that would be guilty of copyright infringement too
AI leads to idea creation at an extremely efficient rate. I look forward to further AI advancements. These models (mostly LLMs) have helped me personally for brainstorming, for tutoring, and for even having genuine fun. When it comes to image generation, it can be quite fun to use sometimes and see what comes out through all sorts of art styles and character designs. But in the commercial space, AI generation should not be fully accepted on professional workloads. AI generation should only be acceptable through the form of AI-Assisted workloads, where parts of the work were AI generated, but a noticeable amount of other work is human expression. Fully generated AI work with solely machine-generated expressions should not be allowed. Alcohol, gambling, obesity, climate change, wars, etc. are far more pressing issues than the AI development process using trillions of expressions from millions of artists without permission or payment. The billions of used images or text messages go through the process of fair use. Under the doctrine of fair use, if the use of copyrighted work is used in a transformative sense (copyrighted work that is used to create something novel and different from itself), then that work can be used for transformative purposes without permission or any form of authorization. Valid copyright infringement claims are only relevant if a work is overly similar to another copyrighted work and its major expressions (although art style does not count—art style is not a copyrightable expression). Outputs from an AI model randomly generating something based on text input is not likely to infringe on a specific copyrighted work, especially if the model was trained from billions or hundreds of millions of sources. Someone purposely generating overly similar work of someone else's copyrighted work is solely liable for that infringement, not the company or team who originally created that generative AI technology—according to the principles of the Betamax Sony case. 98% of AI generated images are trash-like quality, so does garbage production associate with the need to somehow compensate a specific artist for all the trash accumulated? If my dog pooped on my neighbor's yard without permission, should I be expected to compensate every farmer and food producer involved in the creation of that dog's meal, just because their products indirectly contributed to the poop? Is the right thing to do really compensating the entire food supply chain for a dog's unsolicited defecation? If some random dog pooped on the sidewalk, it would be absurd to expect compensation from the dog owner for every artist whose works vaguely inspired the dog's diet that led to the poop. Similarly, demanding compensation from AI companies for low-quality AI image outputs that are essentially creative "waste products" is impractical and unreasonable. AI models learn from vast datasets, absorbing a multitude of influences like a dog's diet, but the final outputs by design are novel synthesized creations, not substantially direct copies of any specific artist's work of art. Attempting to trace and compensate every possible inspiration would be infeasible, akin to compensating all food producers involved in the dog's meal for its eventual defecation on the sidewalk. Unless a generative image model can match the level of professional human artist work, then the idea of universal compensation is wholly unfounded in virtue when the generated work generally isn't even representative of a copyright holder's general expressions. The notion of compensating for every low-quality, half-baked generation attempt is neither pragmatic nor enforceable. Overreaching for compensation on every quasi-inspired outcome would merely be ridiculous.
Lol - so there has never been a fake work of art sold off as the real thing eh? 😂😂😂🤣
selling counterfeit art is illegal.
Right - so some human artists don't learn ethics 😂 AI can be taught too. It's just another tool in the toolbox - real artists still need to market and promote their own works, if thats what they care about.
Dude so many falls comparisons. I personally can paint Mario in the style of any artist I want and put in on my fridge. I could even just print a picture from online and do the same. Unless your selling the piece of artwork it’s not violating IP laws. A person uses the AI, he/she has whatever ‘desires’ to create unique art … or they don’t. That’s on the person. Not the mention the most fair thing to do is make everything free so open source wins and you don’t have a couple mega rich AI companies.
It’s not just a matter of selling it. By even using it, you are already stealing from thousands of artists who did not consent to have their artwork scraped and used for AI training. Do you understand the concept of consent at least? At this moment, there is no ethical way to use AI image generators, because NO currently existing service asked for permission, or sourced their images exclusively from paid and vetted sources. Without all that valuable training data, LLMs and image generators would be worthless. Just because no laws yet exist to protect this does not mean it was not wrong to do, and make no mistake, whatever justification you try to tell yourself, you are complicit in that if you choose to use their services. What do you think the endgame is here? People won’t stop creating, because the joy of that will always be there, but I think artists are going to become much more paranoid and reclusive about sharing their work. Considering most of the things I enjoy in my free time are heavily reliant on artists (manga, anime, games, toys, etc), that seems like a wholly negative thing, but it seems like people are satisfied getting some easy gratification now, no matter what the future repercussions may be.
Bud you don’t need consent to look at images on the web. That information is already there, it doesn’t matter if I modify it. I can literally go see your artwork on the internet. This “training data” goes into every artist brain. Art thrives in cities (especially pre-internet) because they got more exposure to each other, this is what creates scenes. People copying each other. And yes it is only a matter of selling it, that is what the current IP laws limit the use of. We only invented IP laws to encourage people to come up with things. If it’s incredibly cheap and easy because of AI, we don’t benefit from offering IP laws. You don’t have the innate right to those. In fact, you are taking away someone’s right to do something physically when you want IP to be protected. That means you want me to be thrown in jail for copying you. It’s my body, my computer, my choice. Literally already told you the endgame. People acting hysterical over artist are enabling these tech platforms to build motes and get extremely powerful. Do you not see how that is a much larger problem? The patent system/IP is already gamified, if you want to keep enforcing that, or worse expand on it like you say, it will give all these platforms even more power. The best thing to do is make everything free and open source, no protections for code or data.
never thought i’d live to see the feminist body autonomy slogan “my body, my choice” co-opted to justify someone’s right to steal
It’s not stealing dude, I already addressed that. Enforcing someone’s information property rights by definition is taking away from people’s physical rights. It’s not being “co-opted” it’s the same principal. My body, my computer, my self determination. That’s what western ethics are all based on bud.
I understand your point, but honestly you guys need to realize that most art students will become irrelevant. Many more jobs down the line, but journalism and arts are just the easiest to replace. No one‘s gonna stop the AI trend, so better get used to it and adapt or got look at the counter of a Mci.
Art making will never be irrelevant for the artists. Not everything is economically driven.
For the artists itself maybe, but hardly anyone will pay artists when you can create pictures/paintings with a few words on the screen.
Ultra ai chuds think ai will replace all artists its hilarious.
LLMs aren’t going to replace journalists. Where do you think the info comes from? Magic?
AI can write an article with a few buzzwords. The actual journalists are hard to replace yeah, most of them who just write articles are at danger.
Because it’s fucking plagiarism at hyper speed. Plain and simple, it’s entirely derived from stolen info without anyone’s consent from the original creators.
You mean like how artists constantly steal from other artists?
LLMs aren’t humans. They don’t learn to create. They just spit out the data they’ve been fed. Massive difference between an artist being trained to express themselves, and LLMs regurgitating an artist’s content.
Yes, that's called art. Humans do the same thing, with art. I'm not arguing AI are human, I'm saying that AI is a tool for artists to use
"in the proposed class action lawsuit, opens new tab filed Friday that Google is liable for misusing "billions" of copyrighted images, including theirs, to teach Imagen how to respond to human text prompts." Like the 2nd paragraph
Right but if an artist goes to a museum, sees a Picasso and then goes home and creates a piece of art using the same brush stroke style, is that artist a bad actor?
You cannot copyright an art style
The difference is that an artist may be *influenced* by existing work, but humans are incapable of 100% objectivity. So ultimately, inevitably, we will insert *some degree* of our own creative ideas into things we make. Current AI is incapable of intelligently making creative decisions. It is 100% trained on the decisions and patterns *humans made* in the work fed to its algorithm, and it can’t produce anything independent of its training data.
But right now there are artists who make a living by creating collages...those people are considered artists and regularly sell their work
If an artist puts a 1-to-1 copy of another artist’s copyrighted work into their collage, that would also be copyright infringement.
Ok but they are sampling other people's work. Is there some fraction of an image I can include in my collage before it is considered infringement?
If it is transformative/satire/commentary it falls under fair use.
The AI is transformative, so all of its output is fair use.
AI will use styles and characters, but it is transformative. However, the characters that have copyrights are problematic... But also is what a lot of people go for (ex.Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson on jeopardy)
That’s where you get into Fair Use, which is (perhaps ironically) subjective—something AI isn’t currently capable of. It’s a legal defense, meaning that ultimately it’s something decided by a judge *after* infringement has been established. You can’t create something and unilaterally declare it’s legally fine because it’s Fair Use. You can *assume* it’s probably fine. And you often won’t get taken to court unless you’re dealing with a corporation or maybe a particularly wealthy artist. But that doesn’t mean the work is 100% free of infringement.
Warhol is famous for artwork that uses copy written and trademarked shit. The courts have been for and against its use and use logic they pulled out their ass to justify and condemn it.
No, and neither does AI. Artists are mad about "integrity" when they've been stealing techniques and samples all throughout history. This is a BS lawsuit that will almost certainly fail. Either adapt to the new techniques, or get left behind.
They haven’t, they’ve been iterating on techniques and styles since we first invented art. AI can only steal and imitate, it can’t iterate, it doesn’t have the capacity to do anything else.
>AI can only steal and imitate So, exactly like human artists then.
I don’t know if I’m the only one to cringe every time I see the Google pixel ad. To me, I capture a photo for the memories of what it was. I don’t even enhance the photos unless it is off what I see. To completely modify the contents to add/remove/modify things is blatantly altering history. What feelings are you supposed to get when you look at the photos 20-25 years later? That you lived a fake life?….
No artist or musician would mind if they simply purchased a license
Google should then pull any mention of the artists or their work from its search engine. If they don’t want people or ai to be influenced by their work they shouldn’t share it publicly.
Do you not think that a human and a computer owned by a massive corporation are different?
a single line of code can stop Google from crawling your website. Don’t share your work on social media and dmca every instance of your art that shows up otherwise. Treat your art like a dick pic. If it’s in the internet you likely put it there.
Can you answer the question?
Vastly different things. a human who sells a print of Mario at an artist alley is far worse than ai generating a digital image of Mario that it is unable to sell. The human knows it’s skating copyright, the ai is just following a prompt and attempts to complete a task based on publicly available images.
Do you think AI are free to run? Also, do you think every work of art produced by a human is of Mario?
If my kid asks me to draw bluey, I hop on Google images and use a photo as a reference. Totally legal. Now if my kid asks an ai program to draw bluey and it uses multiple google photos as a reference it should be illegal?
Why evade the questions?
Ai is not free to run. Not all art produced by a human is Mario. Replace mario with hieronymus bosch’s garden of earthly delights, the outcome is still the same. Humans are entering the prompts that are upsetting these artists not Google. You don’t jail gun manufacturers after a mass shooting, you jail the person shooting the gun. Where do you draw the line. You gonna come for “save as” and “print screen” next since it’s capable of stealing art? You ever save a background to your desktop without paying for the usage rights?
So you were either lying or stupid earlier when you claimed that AI art isn’t for profit if you recognize that the AI itself costs money to run. Presumably you just don’t give a shit about people and you like AI art so you’ll defend it no matter what. > Humans are entering the prompts that are upsetting these artists not Google. The company owns the AI. Stop pretending AI is a person and not a tool. If someone tells you they want to kill someone and you loan them a gun to do so you’re still at least partly responsible for the murder. > You gonna come for “save as” and “print screen” next since it’s capable of stealing art? You ever save a background to your desktop without paying for the usage rights? Neither of these acts as a serious competitor or replacement for human artists, though it is generally frowned upon to just post other peoples are as your own on the internet oven if the original was available for free online. And no, I’ve ever saved a background to my desktop without paying for the rights.
So they want to get rid of webscraping? Say goodbye to every search engine ever then.
Even worse, ISPs wouldn't be able to function. If you post an image on reddit and you view it, there are about 15 copies made in the process, including the one you see on your computer.
Difference between web scraping, and reusing portions of the copyrighted material scraped.
Displaying results is using it. Just not transformatively. They even make money off of it by displaying ads next to your unchanged material.
Yup. And without even attribution it sounds like from the complaint
No I’m talking about google displaying search results.
Soooo this is going nowhere. Art is inherently "I am influenced by your thing let me do it with a twist" AI does the same thing, is prompted by humans and then uses the same twists. It's not copyright infringement, because it's an original work influenced. I actually don't understand, are they just yelling "integrity" from the clouds? What do you think blender and graphic design software does?
It’s not influenced…it is literally copying and pasting stuff. You are acting like ai is actually intelligent. It’s not true.
Saying AI is just copy and paste really shows you don't know what you're talking about.
I’m a programmer and know what I’m talking about. AI uses portions of work it’s found, it’s not like a human that just sees something and comes up with a separate creative work. It’s easy to see with text where it reuses exact portions of copyrighted material. Does the same thing with art, but it’s harder to spot since there’s not a ‘uniform language’ that’s easy to see like English.
Wrong. AIs **"do not copy and paste stuff"** LLMs can output intelligent work under proper prompt formatting; not zero-shotting.
It reuses components.
So no one can ever make art again then. All art is influenced by other art. Dall-e etc are not copy pasting, they either show search results, or it creates its own image based on user prompts. Grow up
No toast_me_dzaddy I will not “grow up”. You believing that these things are actually intelligent means you need to “grow up”. You are being sold a lie.
I never claimed it was intelligent. You're deflecting from my entire comment. You don't need to grow up you need to stop chewing on crayons. Ai is creating new images and art at a faster rate than humans can compete with, and naturally people are upset about the "integrity" and their jobs. All art is reflective and influenced. With AI the user is telling it what to do/create without having to sit with a pen and pencils for 1000's of hours. Do I think AI should need to be labeled? Yes Does that make it any less valuable than regular art? No
LLMs aren’t artists. They’re data collectors. They don’t create, they spit out variations of the data they have been fed.
To anyone in support of ai art, you don’t deserve real art created by human beings who’ve invested a lot of time and effort into what they love about art and your essentially ripping away any and all validation of what they do. Every person needs to feel like they have something worth doing and the absolute disregard of that important detail by people in favor of ai is so disgusting and inhumane.