In A World Where AI Art Is Cheap And Easy To Generate, Do We Still Need Copyright?
from the thought-provoking dept
To say that AI-generated art is controversial would be something of an understatement. The appearance last year of free tools like Stable Diffusion has not just thrown the world of art into turmoil, it has raised profound questions about the nature of human creativity. AI art also involves thorny issues of copyright that have piqued the interest of lawyers, who sense an opportunity to sue tech companies for large sums.
Most AI art programs draw on billions of existing images to formulate internal rules about shapes, colours and styles. Many, perhaps most, of those images will be under copyright. There are already several court cases that will help to decide the legality of this approach, including an important new one in the US brought by Getty Images against Stability AI, the company behind Stable Diffusion. But whatever the outcomes of these, it seems likely that AI-generated art will continue to exist in some form, given its huge potential, and the interest it has generated among the business world and general public.
Similarly, the copyright status of the end-result of using AI to produce new images is ill-defined. In February 2022, the US copyright Office ruled that an AI can’t copyright its art because it didn’t include an element of “human authorship”. However, more recently, an artist has received US copyright registration on a graphic novel that features AI-generated artwork.
In this context, it is sometimes forgotten that copyright for the fine arts is relatively new. Modern copyright dates from the 1710 Statute of Anne, which applied to “books and other writings”. Although the special class of engravings received protection in 1735, it was not until 1862 that the fine arts were eligible for copyright in the UK; for the US, it was only in 1870.
Significantly, one category of copyrightable subject matter explicitly mentioned in the US law was “chromo” — color lithographs. Copyright became an issue for art once it was possible to make large numbers of high-quality color facsimiles of original works. Before such technology was cheaply available, it was only through artists’ copies of their own works, plus often highly popular engravings, that a painting or drawing could be shared more widely.
Since the nineteenth century, copyright has been strengthened in numerous ways. For example the term of copyright is now typically for the life of the creator plus 70 years. At the same time, technologies for making copies have progressed greatly. When analogue material is converted into digital form, it is possible to make perfect copies of these files for vanishingly small cost. The rise of the Internet allows any number of copies to be sent around the world, again for effectively no cost.
This has led to a fundamental clash between copyright and the Internet. Where for 300 years the former has revolved around preventing unauthorized copies being made, the latter technology is based on the constant generation and free flow of copies of digital files, and cannot function without them.
Although nobody ever talks about that deep mismatch, in legal terms the situation is clear: everybody online is breaking copyright law hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times a day. Back in 2007, John Tehranian, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, calculated that typical Internet users would be liable for $4.544 billion in potential damages each year as a result of the unavoidable copyright infringements that they committed online. A law that is routinely ignored by billions of people online every day is clearly a bad law.
Unfortunately, the response of the copyright world to this problem has been to call for more stringent laws in the forlorn hope that this will somehow stop people making digital copies. The most recent example of this wishful thinking is the EU’s Copyright Directive. Of particular relevance to the world of visual arts is a requirement that major online sites must operate a filter to prevent unauthorized copies of copyright material being uploaded by users.
The volume of uploads today is so great — in 2020, 500 hours of video were uploaded to YouTube every minute — that such filters will need to be automated. However, it is impossible to encapsulate the complexity of copyright law in an algorithm. Even experts struggle to distinguish between copyright infringement and the transformative re-interpretation of an existing work, as the current case involving Andy Warhol’s use of a photograph for a series of images of the musician Prince demonstrates. Inevitably, the EU’s new automated filters will err on the side of caution, and over-block material. As a result, perfectly legal images that build on the work of others are likely to be blocked, with knock-on harm for artistic creativity and freedom of expression.
If more stringent copyright laws are not only doomed to fail — policing the entire Internet is not possible — but produce serious collateral damage to basic human rights, perhaps the resolution of the incompatibility between copyright and the Internet is to row back or even abolish the former. That may be bold, but it wouldn’t be a huge problem for the fine arts world, where the core artistic output is often a physical object of some kind. Copyright is largely irrelevant for such analogue items, since they cannot be copied in any meaningful way. Although digital versions can often be made, they are not substitutes for the original.
There are, of course, many born-digital works of art, but it is precisely this class of creativity that is now under threat from AI-generated art. In the future, it is likely that many types of digital images produced today by humans will be replaced by the output of AI systems, particularly in a commercial setting, where economics, not aesthetics, are paramount.
Artists may argue that such algorithmic work is inferior to the human kind. That may be true at present, but such AI systems have already made huge advances in just a few years, as recent developments have shown. In the not-too-distant future, their work is likely to be indistinguishable from that of human practitioners for most everyday uses, not just in terms of quality and creativity, but even to the point of being able to mimic any artist’s style without copying any element directly.
However, there is a different approach to art that AI generated works will be unable to match until AI itself possesses deeply human attributes such as empathy, and is able to nurture social relationships. It’s exemplified by the artist Anne Rea. Her approach is based on establishing a rapport with people who commission and pay her in advance. She is quoted in Art Business News as saying:
I’d much rather cultivate a relationship with a patron. Get paid up front. Not allow any discounting. Keep all of the money. And through that relationship, get repeat purchases and referrals to their friends and family. That’s a smarter way to go.
Rea’s success harks back to an older model for supporting artists through patronage. Significantly, a large proportion of the world’s greatest artistic masterpieces come from this time, before copyright was invented. As AI art begins to encroach on digital creativity, and copyright threatens to shut down free expression online, perhaps it’s time to explore this older approach that is immune to both. More on this idea can be found in Walled Culture the book, available as a free ebook or in analogue form from leading online bookshops.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon or Twitter. Originally posted to WalledCulture.
Filed Under: ai, copyright, creativity, generative art, incentives
Comments on “In A World Where AI Art Is Cheap And Easy To Generate, Do We Still Need Copyright?”
I just recently tried some “free” AI art websites. I put free in quotes because all of them were quite limited unless you paid.
The best results I got looked like it just took an existing photo and ran it through an image filter. Tools to do that have existed for years.
When I asked them for something completely original, they all fell on their faces. Most of the results still looked like photos run through a filter, but often were not what I had asked for. “Cyborg Batman” yielded some kind of cute animal wearing a vaguely Batman-like costume.
The one site that appeared to generate original results, produced nightmare fuel images which looked like they had been cut apart and pasted back together by a serial killer.
Out of all the ones I tried, I didn’t see any results good enough that they would warrant actually paying for such a service, even if doing so would give you more options.
Re: AI art sites
Which are sites did you use? Artbreeder or craiyon? Those sites are known for being bad.
Re:
A sub-controversey is the extent to which human “prompt craft” plays a part in generting AI art. This depends on how you create the image (eg from a seed image, or using plugins or different training sets) and can get pretty involved. Not much more involved than learning how to use, say, ffmpeg or awk perhaps, but complex enough to warrant numerous tips and tricks sites and discussions. A simple prompt like “Cyborg Batman” will certainly not come up with much as far as I know.
To get a feel for the current (and rapidly improving) state of things, I can recommend lurking in the Stable Foundation and Midjourney Discord servers. These communities discuss images generated by various people of different skill levels and technology deployments.
Re: Re:
I expected a tweaked image of either Batman or a cyborg. How it decided that a cute, furry animal fit either word is a mystery.
Honestly, I got the best results on one site when I just put in the names of female celebrities. A couple images came out decent, looking like an art-filtered image of the real person, a couple came out looking like caricatures, and a couple came out looking nothing like the person I had asked for.
And the fact that one of them has what looks like an artist’s signature down in the corner, leads me to believe that it just used an existing image. Although in all fairness, a reverse Google image search didn’t find any matches for it.
Re: Re: Re:
And that is because the AI has seen lots of images with a different signatures there, and so produces a mash-up of them in that position.
Note that the AI software does not contain any actual images in its database, those are in a separate database used for training, but not referenced by the AI engine when it generates an image.
Re:
I’ve seen varying results posted by others, but the general rule of thumb seem to be that the paid ones give much better results, and the more creative/unusual your prompt is, the more creative your result will seem. If all you’re doing is providing a simple prompt that matches up with lots of pre-existing images online, chances are you’ll get something that looks like a messed up mashup of those images.
But, that’s the same in the human world too. If you ask someone to create a free image or pay them a pittance through Fiverr or something based on a couple of words that returns thousands of royalty free images in a Google image search, you’ll probably get a barely edited version of a stock image. If you pay them properly and provide a unique idea that requires creativity, you’ll get something better.
My god, Glyn, think of the poor CEOs! Whatever will they do without 70 years past the age of their
contracted artistscopyright miners?!? How will they milk remix reboots of rehashed plot tropes and 90 year old media franchise properties to the very last drop?!?Re:
By charging for access to the plot rehashing and property milking machines.
We must continue to make art which may or may not borrow liberally from the works of other recent artists, adopting the mindset of Russian dissident writers in the Soviet Union. Our arrests and the fines for theft don’t really matter so long as someone, somewhere appreciates what we made. And if they can respect and appreciate the sacrifices we made to give them the art they would enjoy, they’d find the strength to create art that might cost them individually yet inspire others worldwide.
The artists involved in the suits do not have the most enviable positions. Particularly, so I’ve heard, the artist for Sarah’s Scribbles is very concerned that her art style has been appropriate to automatically generate 4chan-level, incel-manifesto drivel. She certainly feels that there should be a moral right to control her work, but there’s the rub: she doesn’t own a copyright on that work, because she’d never make something so inherently objectionable to herself. And art styles aren’t copyrightable. And even if the AI solutions never existed, there would have been nothing preventing an enterprising Matthew Bennett from doing a highly competent Photoshop of her work to say stupid shit either. Copyright law would not have helped her there.
On a related tangent, I do experience a non-zero amount of schadenfreude over the entire affair, because one of the pro-copyright lobby’s favorite arguments has finally come back to bite them in the ass. For as long as anyone can remember, they’ve always gotten away with IP address generators accusing the wrong people and automated DMCA filers ordering takedowns of legal content with “But the robot did it, it’s not our fault!” Now that an AI has actually committed what they think is copyright infringement, they now find themselves in a position where nobody holds the copyright to something they hate, and the issue of a blameless AI will very likely be used against them. We have truly come full circle.
Re:
The work used to train the AI to mimic the art style is.
Re: Re:
So is any work used by a fan to create fan art, or realistically, anyone trying to mimic another person’s art style.
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but someone looking at a work and then creating another, different work is not the same as a company copying a work into a database and using it as an essential component of their product.
Re: Re: Re:2
That is not how AI works. Take a course on neural networks to understand what a weighted neural network actually is, and what effect training set have on its weights.
Re: Re: Re:3
Make a weighted neural network that can create art without having any art in its training set.
Re: Re: Re:4
Find me an artist that has created works without studying works made by other people. Note, you could not write comprehensible English if you had not looked works by other people. Evey T.V. program and book that you have experienced has trained you in using the English language. Learning to create pictures requires looking at a lot of pictures to see how it is done.
Re: Re: Re:5
Find me an artist designed, owned, and operated by a corporation.
Re: Re: Re:6
Hatsune Miku.
Re: Re: Re:7
Hatsune Miku is not an artist, it is a tool.
Re: Re: Re:8
There are songs credited to Miku, and “she” has given actual concerts.
Hatsune Miku is absolutely an artist.
Re: Re: Re:9
There are songs credited to Nils Sjöberg. Nils Sjöberg does not exist.
Gorillaz has given actual concerts. 2D, Murdoc, Russel, and Noodle do not exist.
Re: Re: Re:9
Although she doesn’t hold copyrights to anything, Hatsune Miku wrote Harry Potter and created Minecraft.
Re: Re:
So what, all artists learn a style by looking at copyrighted works and copying the parts that define a style.
Re: Re: Re:
Remember kids, counterfeiting is only a crime if the victim is a corporation!
Re: Re:
New visual arts copyright clause: No one may look upon the art, for it may influence them.
Re: Re: Re:
Remember that old hypothetical apocalypse scenario Tom Scott gave a talk on years back about a copyright enforcement AI that decided people’s memories were unauthorised copies and all had to be erased?
Re: Re: Re:2
I assure you that copyright holders have been working to this as an end goal. One might argue that they’re already there, with them claiming that overblocking is the fault of the AI and therefore they can’t be held accountable.
The fact that they’re now trying to hold AI accountable for creating art that they had no hand in beyond providing the original source of influence does inspire a non-zero amount of schadenfreude.
In a world where theft is cheap and easy, should burglary still be a crime?
Re:
Cue standard retort to “theft” framing in digital media: if somebody makes a copy of your picture, you still own the picture.
In practice, in a world where copying is cheap and easy, and now that AI art is making production easier still, it’s obscurity – not piracy – that’s the biggest threat to artists. Copyright enforcement in such a situation is powerfully counter-productive.
Re: Re: Nicely dodged
That’s an awkward question, if a bit of a straw man. When it is trivial to duplicate work the value of that work is reduced.
Are we saying we don’t want artist to be a viable profession?
Re: Re: Re:
“if a bit of a straw man.”
That’s not what straw man means. What’s an actual straw man is comparing theft (the original owner no longer has access to it) to unauthorised duplication (the original owner has it, but may have lost the ability to sell that specific copy iteration himself)
“When it is trivial to duplicate work the value of that work is reduced”
It’s trivial to copy lots of valuable things. But, the fact I can copy and print out the Mona Lisa does not make the Louvre lose money, it doesn’t even lose money for someone selling on official print. What is it that is valuable about your work? Is it only that people think it’s hard to copy?
“Are we saying we don’t want artist to be a viable profession?”
We’re saying that being an artist doesn’t guarantee you a living, and never has. What do you as an artist offer that others wish to buy?
Re: Re: Re:2
Until quite recently, art in a specific style.
Re: Re: Re:
An artist can use their back catalogue as advertising to get funded to create new works. That is the basic model that everybody who has made it on YouTube uses, give the work away and ask for and get support to create new works. The ability to create worthwhile new works is a sellable skill.
Also, from what I have seen, current AI is a tool that an artist can use to help create a work, but an artist is needed to make the artistic choices that distinguish a worthwhile work from something that lacks much aesthetic appeal.
Re: Re: Re:2
Show up to work, be awesome, and they’ll probably pay you!
Except copyright doesn’t require this.
The government loses money when someone copies a picture, as that transaction is supposed to be taxed.
Much of the work was produced based on copyright enforcement. If it’s worthless, fine, don’t steal it.
Re: Re: Re:3
John Smith! I thought I smelled the stench of failure.
If it’s worthless, what is there for the government to tax? But this is not nearly the first time you’ve claimed that most, if not all work, was produced under the promise of copyright enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:
“Are we saying we don’t want artist to be a viable profession?”
Of courst not. I think a large part of the problem has been the publishing industry and their copyright term extentions. These have sought to make art a little too viable in fact. Viable, that is, for those involved in the publishing industries – not the artists themselves.
If I install your plumbing, you don’t pay some corporation every time you turn your taps on for the next 100 years. But that’s where we are with copyright and the publishing industry that lives off it.
If you’re worried about struggling artists, worry about fixing the pubishing industry and its toxic effects. AI art is just sideshow to that.
Re: Re:
Sure. But if someone makes a copy of each of your pictures without your permission, puts those copies in a database, uses that database to “”train”” a machine and then sells time on that machine for people to trivially produce pictures, the profits from which accrue to the company that owns the machine that copied your work without your permission… At the very least they have violated your right to control who makes copies of your work. Your copyright, so to speak.
Re: Re: Re:
The initial act of copying could be a violation of copyright, but if you think that training based on existing pictures in order to create a new work based on requests for new pictures is a copyright violation… well, you just claimed that all artists violate copyright. The sheer number of pictures in the database might be beyond what what an individual human can work on, but most artists start by training themselves by copying the work of others, be that visually imitating existing paintings, doing cover versions of songs, trying to copy the style of a favourite author, making a shot-by-shot remake of a favourite movie – and that’s usually not an issue unless they’re doing it to actually counterfeit something.
That’s the real question here – great artists often started their careers by copying the work of others directly. At what point did they go from being thieves to artists in this scenario, and where does the line get drawn when it’s not a human doing the initial copying?
Re: Re: Re:2
No, I didn’t. Somebody practicing to learn a skill is not the same as a company designing a machine that creates knockoffs. Not least because the products of that practice are not a) produced en masse or b) sold.
Re: Re: Re:3
Agreed. I’m tired of seeing people saying artists do the same thing as AI. Humans aren’t machines. Someone who’s practicing based off of art from folks who came before them, that person practicing is going to have the countless thoughts and ideas and experiences and trials & tribulations that being a human entails that informs their work. This is one of the things that causes art and creative expression to differentiate from the works that they were inspired by or have studied from.
Human artists also have the five senses. Someone who listens to EDM while they practice art and study an artist’s paintings or sketchwork may be inspired in a different way than someone who was listening to Hip-Hop. Someone who has a fresh brewed cup of coffee as they practice, or look at someone’s art may be inspired in a different way than someone who has a scented candle going, or the taste of a soda on their tongue.
Humans aren’t machines, and the processes that AI models have in them is nowhere near the processes that humans have going on nonstop as they study and practice and get inspired by the art of others.
Re: Re: Re:4
But wouldn’t this make human art more valuable because there was some thought and emotional processes involved in its creation rather than something algorithmical? Humans are trying to express something and machines are following instructions. Therein lies the difference, and that’s the human selling point. The moment machines gain human emotion, self-awareness, and whimsy are the point where they become human life forms and they should be granted citizenship.
Re: Re: Re:5
It makes human art more valuable, but there is only so much money that people can individually pay toward supporting artists. And like what Bloof said elsewhere, people don’t care how the hotdog is made and are happiest when it’s cheap. And execs at animation studios are champing at the bit to get to use AI to supplant artists without realizing that the artists that do the core work are the ones that go on to create some of the coolest stuff thanks to the experience and connections they gain from doing that core work.
Artists and their work are by and large not valued. We saw this with the NFT garbage, and we see it today with people talking about how all artists did was “copy” other artists and say that “If you didn’t want your art shoved into an AI training model, you shouldn’t have put it online in the first place”.
Re: Re: Re:6
If you think human-made art isn’t valued, how do you explain
-Bandcamp
-Patreon
-Kickstarter
etc.?
Granted, they may be becoming more and more niche, but if you have a dedicated fanbase, you can indeed make a living.
Re: Re: Re:7
Patreon, Bandcamp, Kickstarter, SubscribeStar are where enthusiasts put money toward projects and people they want to support. They are not the norm.
This is why I said that human art is “by and large not valued”, rather than “isn’t valued”. This is why I pointed out Bloof discussing how people want cheap and don’t care how it’s made with regards to things like Spotify, as well as pointing out the way that NFTs get made with stolen art and how animation studios are clamoring for AI to get more advanced so that they can cut the input of more artists out of the equation so they can get more money.
Re: Re: Re:8
I’d also like to reply to my own comment to add: Pseudonymous Coward also pointed out that outside of specialized communities, it’s really rare to see a wellspring of direct support for artists.
Re: Re: Re:9
Artists aren’t owed anything.
Re: Re: Re:10
Artists don’t owe Stable Diffusion or Midjourney free training materials.
Re: Re: Re:11
True, and that is the sole point you could make when it comes to the upcoming lawsuits against StableDiffusion, which I wholeheartedly agree that the artists are entitled to.
But realistically, if you’re going to argue that the issue is “artists shouldn’t give AI the tools needed to produce art that looks like their free offerings”, then there is very little difference from the argument of “artists shouldn’t give fans the tools needed to produce art that looks like their free offerings”. That’s a fight that the artists will have to grapple with in spite of their strong feelings about AI art and mixed feelings about fan work.
Re: Re: Re:12 Art Asistant
I create art and love AI tool help me have more idea. AI quality become goopd but often I still need change or fix something. Ỏne problem with AI in year 2023 is human language and culture knowledge and can’t make art use local culture.
Re: Re: Re:4
Depends on your definition of “machine”. Humans could be considered biological machines. At any rate, a human brain and a learning AI operate differently. But what is the legal difference between what they do? Or if you prefer, the moral difference?
Re: Re: Re:5
Sci-fi rots your brain.
Re: Re: Re:3
That isn’t what AI art does.
Re: Re: Re:4
Just because a sewing machine can be used to make original items doesn’t mean using it to make counterfeit Levis is legal or ethical.
Just because “AI” can be used to make derivative pap doesn’t mean using it to make pictures in the style of specific artists (to the extent of using those artists’ names as part of the prompt” is ethical. The legality of it remains to be established.
Re: Re: Re:5
Why is it ethical for a human to do so and not an AI?
Re: Re: Re:3
There was a shift in the conversation around here in the comment thread, and I want to bring attention to it. Despite the name, copyright isn’t just about copying. It gives the artist control (on paper) over who exactly can use a work and how exactly licensees can use the work. That’s what I thought, but whether using art in a training set without a license is infringement remains unclear. Example: Microsoft’s GitHub Copilot. Meanwhile, there are two distinct ethical issues at play here:
1. the ethics of copying artistic expression (includes copying by a human and copying by a program)
2. the ethics of putting art in a machine learning training set. more generally, the ethics of using a work in a potentially objectionable way
Suppose that human artist X makes a lot of works. Human artist Y looks at X’s works (and maybe other works too). Machine learning program M is trained on X’s works (and maybe other works too). Consider these questions:
1. Is it unethical for Y to make a work in the style of X’s works? How does that compare with the case of M making a work in the style of X’s? This case corresponds to copying artistic exoression.
2. Is it unethical for Y to make a work which isn’t similar to X’s? How does that compare with the case of M making a work which isn’t similae to X’s? This case corresponds to using a work in a potentially objectionable way.
The reason that Getty is going to court was the AI demonstrating its lack of intelligence. It put a blurred text where Getty put their ownership claims on images, while Intelligent being recognize it for what it is and ignore it.
Re:
That’s a false assumption based on the misconception that just because you are intelligent you can also read.
If an artist has never seen text and can’t read, the result of that artist copying an image containing text will likely be similar to what an AI would produce – and approximation of the original text because both lack the context to know what it meant.
Re: Re:
Then they aren’t going to get very far in the world of art. Or real life in general.
The absurd hypotheticals people come up with to defend AI models….
Re: Re: Re:
So you think one of the prerequisites for producing art is the ability to read? I guess all that art produced by illiterates throughout history doesn’t exist then.
It’s not hypothetical, art is produced by artist influenced by other art, culture and the environment. Take an artist from an isolated tribe that hasn’t had contact with “modern” society and that doesn’t have a written langue, show the artist pictures from Getty and ask for something inspired by those pictures. The common theme of the pictures is the Getty watermark, otherwise they are all of a different subject matter. Do you think the resulting art will have an approximation of the water-mark or not?
Knowing what a watermark is, is entirely dependent on a host of other knowledge where literacy may be one part and where the concepts of copyright, intellectual property and immaterial ownership features prominently.
Re: Re: Re:2
Didn’t say that they couldn’t produce art. Just that they wouldn’t be able to get very far in the modern world of art as it stands, where people seem intent on sacrificing artists and their livelihoods on the altar of “technological progress” and using comparisons and hypotheticals to justify that “progress”.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m once again asking, is literacy a prerequisite for making art and being successful at it?
Are artists entitled to a livelihood in a profession of their own choosing?
You argument is as old as the first time a profession became obsolete because of progress.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s not a prereq for making art, but it’s a prereq for being successful at it because you need to be able to read and write in order to communicate effectively when verbal communication is off the table, you need to be able to read and write to have a job, you need to be able to read and write to use the Internet properly to share your art and ideas with the world…
Yeah, I think that humans are entitled to be able to earn a living from the most human professions that exists, and for artists to not have their work cast aside by profit-hungry corporations and impatient consumers and then calling that “progress”.
Re: Re: Re:5
Are you aware of how many people create art, how many get published, and how many make a living from their art. Self publishing has allowed many more people to publish their art and try to find an audience, and a few of those, via the likes of Patreon, can go full time as an artist. Very few of the people who create art in any field make a full time living from their art.
In reality, making money from creating art is the exception, not the norm.
Re: Re: Re:6
Which is why we need to regulate AI models that encroach on artists’ ability to make what money they’re able to, whether it be from making concept art or assets for games, backgrounds or inbetweens for animation, or the ability of an artist to get commission work instead of people prompting AI to make something in their style because an AI model scraped a bunch of their art to use as a training set.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Omnichannel vs Multichannel
In today’s fast-paced and competitive environment, one needs to make wise and informed decisions for their business to reap dividends. Among the many ways of marketing, you can use to expand your business and receive the best return on investment, omnichannel and multichannel are two of them.
It’s essential for marketers to understand the difference between omnichannel and multichannel marketing, as the path to purchase often zigzags across multiple channels and devices, including e-commerce websites, mobile apps, and offline storefronts.
Read on to find out the key differences between the two and learn which suits best for your business needs.
Abolish corporations. Abolishing copyrights while they exist would just be throwing individual artists to the wolves because they would be the ones who have their work stolen from under them by billion dollar entities more equipped to exploit it thanks to their massive wealth band sizes. While it’s true they do that now, to an extent, that doesn’t mean we should abolish any pretense of protecting the individual artist just because AI exists.
Re:
Most people understand there will be no new art unless the artists are supported, and will support artists directly. Also there are ways that artists can compete with the corporations, and offer a better experience, as the artists can connect with fans via social media in a way that the corporation cannot, because they understand their works and universes.
Re: Re:
This is the funniest thing I’ve ever read.
Re: Re: Re:
Why?
Re: Re: Re:2
The blithe naivety, completely divorced from reality.
Re: Re: Re:3
Except for all the cases where that’s proven wrong.
Copyright law will not suddenly make people begin supporting you.
Re: Re: Re:
There are lots of artists online that rely on that direct support, while giving their works away for free.
Re: Re: Re:2
How well do you figure that business model is going to work once a) all the artists currently doing paid work for businesses find themselves also having to beg for scraps on twitter, and b) trolls can pump out at zero effort sufficiently similar content that alienates their audience?
Re: Re: Re:3
Yup. I know plenty of people in the furry fandom who’ve abandoned commissioning artists or attempting to improve their own artwork because they can get AI art for free. Patreon is nice, but it isn’t going to come close to being a sustainable source of income once all commercial art jobs are taken by AI.
Re: Re: Re:4
Mmhmm. There’s only so much money that individuals can put into Patreon to support artists. The world cannot be sustained on Kickstarters and Patreons.
AI is set to supplant a large amount of animation work. Much of it the work where some of the most well-known animators have gotten their start. Pendleton Ward got folks together from the connections he made to make the original Adventure Time short that aired on Nicktoons Network. He then went on to work on The Marvelous Misadventures Of Flapjack. The connections he made there, working on another person’s cartoon, let him pivot toward pitching Adventure Time at Cartoon Network. That kind of thing wouldn’t happen if AI supplanted a large part of the animation process.
Re: Re: Re:5
The same applies to buying published works, or paying for streams. There is a limit to the number of artists that society can carry as full time artists, but note that self publishing/Patreon supports many more artists than the traditional publishers ever did.
Back when I started programing there was a year book published that listed every book published in a particular year. Also, every fiolm and TV program published in a year was listable. Now nobody can keep up with what is published on the Internet every hour.
Re: Re: Re:4
Those are the artist that get no benefit from copyright as they are, were producing works for hire. They are like portrait artists after the photography became practical, and that is needing a change in career. However the best of them will stall have a job, directing the AI to implement their vision of what is required, and they will produce more work, as they will not spend time doing the mechanical work of sketching and coloring etc.
Re: Re: Re:5
The people doing the sketching and coloring are the ones that eventually, over time, become the ones that are the “best of them”. We don’t get good artists and animators at the helm of projects for studios making cool stuff by eliminating the majority of the core work that goes into that cool stuff.
Re: Re: Re:6
You can’t get a foot in the door when the doorway has been bricked up.
Re: Re: Re:6
There’s a certain romanticism that this is the case, but most of the people who do do these menial tasks like inbetweening and background layout don’t become “the best of them”. Not every one of the people who worked on SpongeBob becomes the next CH Greenblatt or Rebecca Sugar or Pendleton Ward or Thurop Van Orman. That’s not to say they couldn’t, but those individuals were recognized for their storytelling and the potential of their concept pitches, plus an army of people to implement their dreams, not their ability to animate inbetween frames.
Re: Re: Re:5
Nitpick: By default, independent commissions aren’t works for hire, at least under US law. The artist retains the copyright and the artist’s conditions of the commission grant the buyer an implied license to use the art, often with few restrictions.
Whether most artists manage to win statutory damages as compensation for infringement is dubious to me, though the DMCA allows artists to mitigate infringement.
Re: Re:
The fall in income seen by musicians once streaming ate the CD and digital download markets begs to differ. If people can support an artist by buying an album for ten bucks or support a corporation by streaming for free, they’ve shown they’ll sing their songs as they play on Spotify and put the fact the artist gets a tiny fraction of a cent to the back of their mind. People don’t care how the hotdog is made and are happiest when it’s cheap.
Re: Re: Re:
That fall in income has more to do with the contract with the labels on how royalties are paid, than any fall in income from the actual recordings.
Re: Re: Re:2
How are album sales and downloads doing? My point is people know how unfair streaming is and have an alternative, but for the most part the outlet people have to give the most money to support artists directly when they can’t see them live isn’t the one being used. The artist support is largely lip service with music and there’s zero reason to believe it’ll be different here.
Re: Re: Re:3
The way to make a sustainable long term living as a musician is as a touring artist, a truth recognized by the Grateful Dead long before the Internet became a thing. Tina Turner and the Rolling stones, to name two, have stayed in the music industry because they stayed on the tour circuits. Recordings have not replaced live concerts because being there is a different experience to listening to a recording.
Also, how many people learn to play and instrument, or sing, and never make any significant amount of money from their music. Creativity can, and for many people is its own reward, and if a few people like their work and encourage them to produce more, that is a bigger reward.
Re: Re: Re:4
That doesn’t put food on the table or pay rent, though. Someone who got fired from an animation studio because the studio decided to replace them and the jobs of their colleagues with AI to do the sketching and coloring and backgrounds isn’t gonna want to hear about how “creativity is its own reward.”
Re: Re: Re:5
Standing in the path of progress is how to get steam rollered. Nowhere is there any guarantee that any skill will provide a job for life. Ice sellers and portrait painters used to have a trade until technology, the refrigerator and photography, put them out of business. The farrier industry shrunk to a fraction of its size as the Internal combustion engine replaced the horse. Coopers have lost their trade due to the manufacture of metal and plastic barrels.
Re: Re: Re:6
Treating artists as the same thing as ice sellers, coopers, etc. and calling it “progress” if/when they lose their jobs to AI for the sake of profit that’ll all accrue to the top is ridiculous. The only ones that benefit from artists at studios losing their jobs to AI are corporations and impatient people who want their games, movies, etc. faster. None of the savings will be passed on to consumers.
When you mention the decline of carriages and the rise of cars, I think this brings up an important point about progress: We could have done a lot more to regulate and slow our roll on how we built out our cities and freeways and highways instead of letting automobile companies have their way. Our cities would be less urban-sprawly with nightmare traffic, and we might have more public transportation where there isn’t any.
We don’t have to submit to “progress” as some nebulous thing when it’s humans that make and control the stuff, not some divine force.
Re: Re: Re:7
Is treating them the same as everybody else, if you skill becomes obsolescent you look for a new skill to learn, or go and flip burghers.
Re: Re: Re:8
Are artists becoming obsolete, or do corporations just not want to pay them for their work and regular people who have the money to afford commissions or Patreon subscriptions just not care?
There is a clear through-line in multiple places where yes, various service and manufacturing industries have had their jobs made obsolete, but artists aren’t one of them. The issue is that way, way too many people treat artists and what they do as expendable, interchangeable, and disposable.
Re: Re: Re:9
Artists will never be obsolete, but art as a profession may be.
That sort of problem – peoples’ preferences – tends to be extremely difficult to solve.
Re: Re: Re:10
Art as a profession doesn’t have to be obsolete. People are the ones who have power over technology. We can choose how to regulate these AI learning models and how corporations create them, sell them, and how other corporations use them.
Re: Re: Re:11
Restricting what AI is allowed to do so that artists can continue to have jobs as artists is solving the wrong problem. Though I admit it would be easier that the correct solution, which is to restructure society in the face of the coming wave of automation so that one’s ability to survive is not dependent on having an ability that robots do not have. That would allow anyone, including artists, to pursue the activities they want to without worrying about how to provide for their needs.
Re: Re: Re:8
Flipping burgers is also being automated.
At some point you’re going to run out of menial jobs to tell people you hate to go do.
And then they’re going to eat you.
Re: Re: Re:2
The same recording labels that do their best to NOT pay those royalties?
Re: Re:
You’d be surprised how rarely that happens outside of specialized communities.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
F8BET
NHÀ CÁI F8BET UY TÍN
#f8bet #nhà_cái_f8bet
https://f8bet0.dev/
https://f8bet.bike/
https://f8bet0.me/
Metallica was right.
People are acting like Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, etc. are just little baby artists, with a bunch of crayons clutched in their chubby little fist, showing you the drawing they did of Mickey Mouse. They are not. All of these “AIs” are machines, designed and built by corporations, which require the products of real people’s actual effort in order to function. “AI” is just another tool by which corporations will be able to extract value from people without paying them. This is going to make what Disney did to Alan Dean Foster look like generosity.
Looking forward to everyone maintaining these laissez-faire attitudes when Google feeds GitHub into Bard and fires 99% of their engineers.
Re:
Microsoft have done that with code assistant, and they have not fired all their engineers.
Re: Re:
yet
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Lol. In a world that didn’t even figure out the cause of obesity, most of the digital illiterate drivel is just more pig slop for the inepts.
If you serve no purpose and have a meaningless existence, that group of lonely people is not a substitute for anything important. Misery Ink is their paint. Its called mental illness in plain english.
“Oh! So thats what was in the closet” is the funniest joke to explain that depravity. Thats more than gender dysmorphia.
Those that didn’t mix with 3rd world slave commerce still enjoy 1st world quality. It can be explained in plain english still. Nobody speaks english to them 🙂
Re:
eww, you’re gross.
Re:
I understood less of the word salad in that comment than I did a Bill & Ben the flowerpot men episode. Impressive work.
copyright has been the GODSEND to those who have it, who are able to apply it because of the obvious amount of money that it gives to the very limited number of people. however, as far as everyone else in the world is concerned, it is nothing but a restriction on progress of any and every sort you can think of!
Post Scarcity
On the road to post scarcity, most jobs will be rendered redundant, one after another. For each one, people will fight, kicking and screaming, and demanding special protections and considerations.
As human labor diminishes in value, the challenge will be to shift our economy away from exchanging labor for the right to live.
Graphic Novel
A Graphic Novel contains human creation elements, so it could be copyrighted. Placing the AI pictures into a created work does not effect the copyright.
The AI pictures alone cannot be copyrighted as they have no human creation elements.
If photos can fool Ai with Fawkes, what about Copyright filters?
I’m referring to https://sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu/fawkes/ for altering photos subtly so they defeat facial recognition based on a photo of you. Could this or a variant of it fool copyright filters?
“Significantly, a large proportion of the world’s greatest artistic masterpieces come from this time, before copyright was invented.”
Lol! There was no alternative. It’s akin to saying the best history happened before recorded history. It’s a meaningless metric. If the artists pre-copyright did not have to rely on patrons there’s no reason to believe that their masterpieces would have been lest masterly. And a HECK of a lot of schlock got made during those days of yore. We just hung on to the good bits.
I can’t believe anyone suggesting that artists should just don sack cloth and forget about independence because the law isn’t enforced and Internet Freedoom™ and the unquenchable need for hotel art demands it so.
when AI is able to generate a Star Wars movie worth watching...
…then we might need copyright law. The people holding the copyright now seem to find this task impossible. Why not give AI a shot at it.
We don’t need Copyright. We don’t need to make pretend properties of ALL human (or non-human) creativity and restrict access to that creativity for the lifetime of a generation or two. Why deprive society by severely curtailing access of so much creativity? Do the alleged benefits that the Copyright regime supposedly provide to the society really makes it worth all the much oppressing that the Copyright regime do?
Why in the first place do we need to argue about how much the ‘starving artists’ should be ‘entitled’ to? Why do we need to give them such special treatment we are currently giving to them ? Why do we need to support this entitlement culture of ours? Why do we need to have a socio-economic class with such entitlement and privileges? There are other ways we could do to encourage creativity that do not create social inequality or social injustice. We could just leave it to the free market. No oppression at all! gasp what a revolutionary idea! Why should this idea be considered extreme? All that supposing that free market don’t work for creativity industries are just that, supposing with little basis in the realities of human nature and societies. Why promote creative industries that are based on exploiting captive markets when instead we could promote alternative business models that is more socially just, like patronage for example?
Why not leave it to the free market and let the people in supply and the people in demand discover ways to do business together without needing the government butting in and oppress one party in order to unjust enrich other party? Do we need to support more oppression in name of the ‘starving artists’?
Government forced artificial monopolies are a huge waste of societal wealth lost from opportunity costs and economic inefficiency. It is not about bringing the bang to the buck. It does not correlate to increased production in creativity or value for the society. We do not need them and all that waste of wealth that the monopolies cause. Are we already as society overpaying for our creativity output? Do we need more monopolies? what about getting the bang for the buck?
This Copyright regime takes away value from society. Limit the monopolies and you limit the economic inefficiencies thus the waste in wealth, and society would be wealthier. We don’t need to pay so much in monopoly rents and for policing and for lawyers and so and so that the Copyright regime demands of society. It’s time to move away from this unenlightened system and pretend properties in general. Let’s move to free market instead of supporting this welfare system and socialism for the ‘starving artists’ that the Copyright Regime is. Culture can thrive without the Copyright regime.
Re:
Oh go jump back up Ayn Rand’s skirt you frothing moron.
Another question is whether or not art and music will lose their appeal once we realize it’s just an equation with a fixed number of creations (however high) that conform to theory of what’s good.
Most memes are copyright infringement, yet I grew up on them. Most video game playthroughs are copyright infringement, yet I grew up on them. Many game reviews I’ve seen are copyright infringement because the footage comes from the game but during most points of the video isn’t related to the words of the video author. Most performances of songs from the radio, TV shows, movies, and video games by high school and college bands and orchestras are copyright infringement, yet I feel ecstatic when I find the recordings online. Maybe all of the fanfiction I’ve ever read is copyright infringement.
And recently I’ve become more aware of the absurdity of buying ebooks from publishers, whose DRM prevents readers from copying the ebooks they buy for their own backups, whose EULAs allow publishers to take ebooks away without warning and without remedy, and whose abusive contracts with libraries make ebooks more expensive than and less usable than physical books. More expensive to users and a magnitude more expensive to public libraries, college libraries, and archivists. That’s artifical expense.
In practice, the internet as an embodiment of copyright infringement is the progress that Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (AKA the Copyright Clause, the Patent Clause, and the Progress Clause) calls for. Even copyright as an abstract concept feels fundamentally wrong to me. It’s artificial scarcity. Exceptions similar to those provided by fair use aside, copyright gives an author control over who can modify a work, how people can modify the work, when people can share their modified versions of the work, and especially but not exclusively in the context of software, whether people can even look at what a work is made of, how the work was made, and what the work does. My current conclusion is that those privileges generally aren’t appropriate, except for the sake of granting audiences the freedoms that free culture licenses (free referring to freedom, not to price) currently attempt to provide.
The one personal right I’m certain authors must have is a right to attribution with a term of 20-50 years and exceptions regarding resharing to prevent future people from having to deal with the increasing burden of finding out whether X person who made Y post of Z work is the actual author.
If nothing else, I think the seesaw of copyright enforcement should be reversed. Make fair use an immunity rather a defense and assume that infringement hasn’t occurred until an infringement lawsuit plaintiff proves otherwise. It would eliminate much of the false copyright claims and copyright trolling that continue to plague the ongoing 21st century.
Re:
None of which addresses the fact that “AI” “art” cannot exist without human art, will be used to replace human artists, and will exclusively benefit the corporations that own the “AI” “artists” or use same to cheaply remix reboots of rehashed plot tropes and 90 year old media franchise properties. If you think Marvel and Star Wars are bad, wait until Disney can churn out ten or twenty The Last Jedis a year for a fraction of what they’re spending now.
Re: Re:
Artists can benefit by using “AI”-generated works. The same way artists take inspiration from nature and coincidental occurrences such as dreams and unusual events, an artist can take inspiration from the output of an “AI”. Artists can benefit if they choose to accept new ways of benefiting, without necessarily giving up their old practices. And not all artists who make art will be replaced. Commissions and donations (especially recurring donations) can fund production so that artist gets paid before + while making a work instead of just after. And it’s not just artists who see “AI” art as inferior in one way or another. How many people who look at human-drawn art in their free time would switch to primarily + permanently looking at ML outputs instead? Not me, at least. I have watched videos of people looking at ML outputs, but that’s because the video maker’s commentary (human work) is there.
From what I’ve witnessed of the controversy around “AI” art and “AI” code, the most glaring problem with AI generation is attribution. Strong attribution laws which take machine learning into account could solve that problem. If a prompt specifies a specific artist’s art style (or multiple), then the authors to attribute are right there in the prompt. And ML + user flagging + human review can be used to determine the art styles each output is most similar to. (For code, search algorithms can check whether an ML output shares lines verbatim with a existing software.) And if an artist compares their own art to an ML output and doesn’t see obvious and significant similarity to the artist’s existing works (not the art style in general), then that artist isn’t appropriate to include attribution to. Artists who are attributed by an ML output get a cut (a default percentage tax specified by law or whatever the parties agree on via contract). If an “AI” administrator can’t find an effective way to give the cut to the attributed artists, then the program must be reject the output and exclude the artists from prompts.
There’s also the issue of consent. Since I only care about free culture licenses, I believe that consent to use art in training data should only be required to ensure that the outputs which demonstrably copy from free culture works be released under free culture licenses (such as CC BY-SA 4.0 for non-software or the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later for software) or released into the public domain. Unlike with most proprietary licenses, the point of free culture licenses is to allow more people to use them (more users -> creative developments happen more often), so of course the outputs from free culture inputs should also be under free (as in freedom) licenses.
Re: Re:
That’s not true, you could train the AI with photos of the real world and it would produce “art”, just like how a human who have never seen art can produce art based on what they have seen in the real world.
If the criteria for someone to produce art is that they must have seen prior art, then there can’t be artists because the very presumptive first artist hadn’t any art to look at.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not the AC you were replying to, but you’re looking too hard at semantics. “AI” art as most people conceive it depends on human art. An “AI” trained only on photos would make photorealistic outputs most of the time. I would like to add that human art also depends on human art. I think that you’d be hardpressed to find an artist living within the last century who didn’t witness someone else’s art prior to making art, excluding toddlers’ drawings with crayons/chalk during the toddlers’ first art stints. And I speculate that an artist who has access to other humans’ artwork would become more creative than would an artist who only has access to what they see of the physical world.
I personally take things to the extreme and conclude that artists can grow more within a culture of more-or-less unrestricted mutual sharing. I would say that the copyright infringement engine that is the internet has been so unrelenting that it (imperfectly) simulates mutual sharing without the actual consent! But “AI” art takes the consent-less culture of the internet to a higher level by producing new outputs which raise questions such as whether making a living as an artist will remain as viable as it is and what it means to respect artists (as an artist and as a non-artist).
Re: Re: Re:2
Ah, but what if it was fed with photos that have a filter applied to them?
Not necessarily. A lot of art has been produced under the influence of drugs or by artist who didn’t perceive the world in the same way as others.
As with all new technology, it will make some things obsolete while opening up new opportunities elsewhere. Some people will always resist change and curse it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You aren’t grappling with what that commenter said, though. Art made with AI learning models that have scraped tons of works from all over the Internet to then use in training sets, it takes the consent-less culture of the Internet to a whole new level and paves the way for artists to have even less respect and less power to earn a living than they have right now. Artists who earn their living online through commission work, and folks who work at studios where execs are always looking for ways to maximize profits and avoid paying their workers and would love to cut more humans out of the equation with AI art tech. Because like I said farther up, artists and their work are by and large not valued outside of enthusiast circles where supporting artists is seen as the norm (furry fandom like Bloof mentioned, etc.).
There are certain places where resisting change is bad. But AI models gearing up to make the lives of a lot of artists worse, this is one of those places where resisting change is good. This is change via misguided individuals who don’t understand the value of art and the work that goes into being an artist, and plain-old corporate greed. We don’t have to roll over and accept this and go “Oh well, you win some & you lose some, time to suck it up and adapt”.
Re: Re: Re:4
The same could have been said by those artists who painted portraits when photography came along. That technology put most of them out of business, (but there are stiff a few portrait artists working serving the vanity of rich. However photography created new jobs, and enriched society in many ways, by allowing everybody to build their album of memories.
While, as has been pointed out, this my put a lot of people out of work in the comic and cartoon film industry, it will enrich culture by allowing those who want to to create comics and cartoons without needing an army of people to do he grunt works of making tweens and coloring sketches
Re: Re: Re:5
Exactly. AI-generated imagery may very well be to Animation what general-purpose engines such as Unity and Unreal did to video games and Blender did to CGI animation; that is, it may democratize animation so that one person can do a job rather than an army.
Re: Re: Re:6
Studios can financially support a larger number of animators and artists than independent work done that’s paid via Patreon, Subscribestar, Kickstarter, and so forth.
And the camaraderie and collaboration between people at studios has produced a ton of amazing things. I remember seeing posts from people who worked on the Amphibia cartoon after the series finale aired, sharing how they all helped lift each other up and they even made a big farewell scrapbook journal thing to thank each other. The inbetweeners, the sketchers, and more all had a blast. That’s not something that you necessarily get from indie projects made up of like 1-5 people.
Democratized but worse off and shoved into a hyper-competitive race for people to pay attention to their art or projects because everyone is making their own little thing since the studio laid them off for the sake of using AI instead; that doesn’t sound like a great thing for society at large.
Re: Re: Re:7
Okay? So people who worked on a project they were passionate about made more things based on the thing they were passionate about for a wrap-up party. How would the presence of AI suddenly start making this non-existent? What’s stopping indie projects of 1-5 people doing it? Would they do it without the presence of AI? Why couldn’t the presence of AI allow them to work on little Easter eggs for each other, since the AI takes over their tasks?
How, exactly, do you think the world works? Making their own thing in order to stand out is how the world has always functioned. Everyone wants to work on their own thing and really mostly collaborate if they think that the relationship will benefit them. This was a thing during the infancy of YouTube and the present trend of the influencer-driven reality. This is not the slamdunk angle you seem to think it is.
Re: Re: Re:8
The poster you replied to basically said “If AI art exists then artists will simply not create fanart of content they celebrate”. Which… is a pretty dumb thing to say.
Re: Re: Re:4
Now tell me that no artist have looked at art online and been inspired by it? The reality is that they largely consumed art “without consent” to produce art inspired by what they have seen. And the whole “earn a living”, should we also enumerate all the professions that has become obsolete because of technology and talk about how unfair it is?
People who don’t understand the value of art doesn’t care to begin with, people who understand the value of art should keep supporting actual artists. And if the latter abandons artists for AI art, they didn’t really cared about art and artists to begin with.
The question comes down to, if a machine can do the same task a human can given a similar input of data (in this case images), should we forbid such machines because it obsoletes a profession as it is now?
Re: Re: Re:5
In automation, there’s also the question of maintenance and upkeep. My local CVS and McDonalds have automated cashiers, but there still need to be people there in case the kiosk misbehaves. AI needs upkeep as well, and while there’s a lot of hubbub about AI jobs lost, not many people are talking about the how the AI requires people in the backend maintaining it with the algorithms, testing (which is not just bug testing), and other sorts of upkeep.
Re: Re: Re:6
The people that lost their jobs to the machines are by and large not gonna be the same ones who then spend a few years and a ton of money getting a new degree to then work on the machines. Artists getting fired and being told to suck it up and adapt to become a data analyst or some AI designer where their benefits & pay are worse (artists & animators at studios usually have union power backing them up) is one of the shittiest things that I can imagine for us as a society.
Re: Re: Re:7
How many people out there right now do you think work in the same industry they studied for in university? In high school?
Re: Re: Re:5
Again, the process by which humans learn and create art based on what they’re inspired by is not the same as AI models being trained on art mass-scraped from the Internet, with those AI models that are gonna be commercial products (or already are commercial products) that are then gonna be turned around and displace artists… these aren’t the same thing. Human Learning & Inspiration =/= AI Corporate Product Learning.
There are certain industries where automation and it becoming obsolete made sense and made our lives better. The way that a lot of the phasing out of those employees happened though, it sucked and we could have done it better.
And as well, I don’t see how AI art makes our lives better as it displaces a large number of humans in the most “human” profession that we have. Movies and games and graphic novels are still gonna cost the same, it’s just the wealth generated will accrue to a smaller number of people.
But we can do our damnedest to convince them to care. That’s also what a lot of this is about, and what it was about when people were stealing art to put into NFTs.
And to be frank, you don’t seem to care about artists but rather some nebulous ideal of technological progress and telling people to suck it up and adapt to capitalist forces rather than fighting back against the automation of the most human profession that there is.
We should forbid it because we need to learn from past mistakes rather than repeat them, and we should especially do this for professions such as art. Humans and their livelihoods are more important than getting stuff like art & entertainment done faster.
Re: Re: Re:6
Forbidding technological advancement has never been effective that I’ve heard of.
Re: Re: Re:7
Letting people and corporations develop AI like this with little to no guardrails on how said corporations or people are allowed to use it sure as hell isn’t effective or beneficial, either. Constantly offering up paeans to “progress”.
I pointed this out farther up:
I think that the AI models that people & corporations are making need to be regulated, and that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to mass-scrape art off the Internet for use in training sets, nor be able to use AI to do work when it’s clear that they have the money to pay artists.
Example that happened recently: A Netflix short used AI art to do backgrounds. Netflix claimed it was because of a labor shortage. This was a lie. The reality is that they didn’t want to pay artists a fair wage to do that work. That’s not something that corporations should be allowed to do.
Re: Re: Re:8
Possibly.
From a moral perspective, perhaps true; from a legal perspective, you’re going to have a fair use uphill battle.
This, though. I don’t think you’re going to get far by saying “Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to use logistics solutions when it’s clear they have the money to pay couriers”.
Re: Re: Re:6
There was a lot more care about art being stolen for NFTs because NFTs are inherently useless at best and a huge scam at worst. Like to the tune of thousands of dollars getting traded for absolutely nothing more than the “idea” of ownership that didn’t actually mean owning anything.
In this case, what money is changing hands?
i Love KI´s :D
IT-Paule
Produkttests
Reparaturanleitungen
This overblocking isn’t significant problem. Youtube is blocking all the ms word files, and MS word is blocking all video files and noone seems to think this is significant problem. Why would this same kind of blocking be an issue if copyright law is doing it, when technology anyway cannot handle all the file formats available in the planet.
Re:
Meshpage should be regulated, but probably not for the reasons and benefits that you want.
Re: Disingenuous and proud about it, aren't you, Tero?
You know better than anyone that the excerpt isn’t talking about “blocking” file formats. It’s about blocking non-infringing material under the veneer of reducing copyright infringement.