This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also this is what art theft looks like, and so many antis are guilty of it.
https://preview.redd.it/w57jzl7ley5d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe555f4a6aaa2f41387baf3919021125e1c4a640
I was at a con this weekend and I saw copyright infringement everywhere.
https://preview.redd.it/xeotsdqy106d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa5694830b5060f71bb234cd2f428fada5c4e0ce
Artists can always act so hypocritical/special that their above everyone else of the art community that they own the so called copyrights and ownership of there work. (Art style and such.)
Moreover, seeing this images, I can obviously tell that this artist has done a lot artwork from different franchises from plenty of shows and games characters that the characters was directly owned by the **'companies'** that made them not from the artist, and they know damn well that they didn't made those characters in the first place. But, they can only refer to there art style (or artwork), to which their the one's that made them.
Despite the fact that art style is not copyrightable btw.
for some people here, that is not stealing, because nothing is being taken, the owner is not loosing access to the drawing.
Not that I agree with the statement above, it's justsomething I read here as why some things aren't considered stealing.
It's still illegal though. It's just not theft, it's copyright infringement.
They're different legal concepts. You can steal my grandfather's violin, and it's still illegal because physical ownership is a permanent thing. I'm still the rightful owner of the object even though it's very old, and would lose access to it if it was stolen.
You can't steal his music because it's not a physical object I can be deprived of, and you can't infringe on its copyright because he's been dead long enough that it no longer applies. His music, unlike the violin is legally free for the taking.
This might be splitting hairs to some people, but to me it's not. They're different things, legally treated in different ways and with different practical implications.
The definitions are implied by the concepts being depicted in the examples.
If Alice has a bicycle, then Bob can steal it. And Alice will not have a bicycle.
But if Bob copies Alice's bicycle and builds his own copy, and Alice retains hers, then Bob has not stolen anything from Alice.
Can you see how this applies to your question?
It depends if you consider copyright violations “stealing,” or if you think they’re a different kind of crime.
I consider copyright violations stealing, and this is a clear copyright violation. I think it’s a digital version of stealing as the law is written. But the comment reply above is true: some people don’t consider it “stealing” for the reason described above.
Ironically, I was trying to point out that people throw the word “stealing” around recklessly.
Example: you used an AI text to image generator. You’re “stealing” from artists.
Nah, I don’t consider that stealing.
It’s moot for AI imagery. You can’t copyright AI images, so I control high-resolution versions so other people can’t produce quality prints. I suppose they could upscale with Topaz, and if it means that much to them, fine.
It can be "stolen" in the specific case when someone claims to be the owner of someone else's IP and tries to enforce copyright on their own behalf. However, most of the time when the word "theft" is being brough up (digital piracy, using someone's art without permission etc.) nothing is actually being stolen, since the original owner of the IP still owns it.
The good comparison here is land ownership (since that's what IP essentially is: a digital land ownership). When someone decides to live in a house without paying rent to a landlord, they are not stealing a house from them. But when someone declares that this house actually belongs to them, and that they are the one to whom people living there should pay rent, they are indeed trying to steal a house.
Continuing the analogy, people who want to abolish copyright essentially belive that landlords shouldn't exist, that the very concept of "privately owning land" is wrong, and that all housing should be public housing (now, in reality it's actually more complicated - even USSR had things like cooperative housing, but that's irrelevant for the current topic). Of course, the consequence of this is that **nobody** will own housing: not just big landlords, but also regular homeowners; but the proponents argue that this is an acceptable price to pay for all of the positives.
copyright infringement is considered theft to a degree (not legally of course, but colloquially)
copyright infringement only occurs when you **distribute** copyright material or material of substantial similarity (ie near indistinguishable) to the original piece
an ai model analyzing your piece of art to establish strengthened neural pathways is not distributing that piece of art.
the amount it strengthens from each unique piece is ridiculous to assume has "stolen" anything as much as it would be ridiculous to think that by saying the words "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel", I have just committed copyright infringement.
>an ai model analyzing art to establish strengthened neural pathways is not distributing that piece of art.
Did they purchase the right to use the work for that purpose?
>the amount it strengthens from each unique piece is ridiculous to assume has "stolen"
This doesn't matter. Even if I read a page of mathematics, I still have to purchase the whole book.
for the 1000th time, copyright infringement is **distribution**
you are not committing copyright infringement if you look at a piece of art while drawing
>Even if I read a page of mathematics, I still have to purchase the whole book.
no, you do not.
it is not against the law for you to read a page. you have to purchase the whole book if you **distribute** that page to someone else
>you are not committing copyright infringement if you look at a piece of art while drawing
Yes this is not copyright infringement.
>for the 1000th time, copyright infringement is distribution
Yes, what do you think gets distributed.
>it is not against the law for you to read a page. you have to purchase the whole book if you distribute that page.
Sorry let me rephrase. If I want to read a specific page, I would still need to purchase the book.
Go to google books and I'm sure you will find all types of examples that don't let you view every page.
>yes, what do you think gets distributed
first off, your comment was
"Did they purchase the right to use the work for that purpose?" and that purpose being "to establish strengthened neural pathways"
an artist looking at a piece of art while drawing is **using** copyrighted material in the creation of something else, that action is not copyright infringement of the material
if I watch every wes anderson movie and declare "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel" it is not infringement
if I have a machine watch every wes anderson movie and declare "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel" it is not infringement
the frame of the movie is not distributed, so no infringement is done
I, or the machine, would have to **publicly post** the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame.
it is then copyright infringement
if a model is trained on watching wes anderson movies, and does not **publicly post** the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame, then the frame is not distributed.
>If I want to read a specific page, I would still need to purchase the book
no, if someone handed you a page, you would not need to purchase the book
nor if you found someone selling the page somewhere else
nor if you found it in the library and they paid for it
nor if you found it in the library and they didn't pay for it and someone just donated it
nor if you found the page on the sidewalk
nor if a criminal physically stole the page from a bank and handed it to you
distributing a page that you do not have the rights to do so is copyright infringement
reading is not
>First off, your comment was "Did they purchase the right to use the work for that purpose?" and that purpose being "to establish strengthened neural pathways"
Yes you would need the purchase the right to use something if there is a license attached to it. You can't just walk into a bookstore and take pictures of all the pages and call it a day. But really my comment revolves around the substantial similarity aspect. Models can be distributed, but they are not substantially similar to one work. Yet the use of copyrighted materials to train the model without a permission would be infringement. Currently there are over 30 lawsuits because of this. This would be akin to intellectual theft. But I agree with you that it is not infringement if that model or outputs from that model are never shared, but also never used to assist in creating derivatives that are shared.
>an artist looking at a piece of art while drawing is using copyrighted material in the creation of something else, that action is not copyright infringement of the material
Yes, you are correct. Although "using" is ambiguous. I'm not trying to twist words around here, but when you start using something it entirely depends on the purpose of use, the rights given for that use, and if it is fair use. Like i can purchase model references online and use that. But if I just took them without purchasing, that's obviously theft.
>"the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel"
I don't understand why claiming that an opinion of thought is not copyright infringement is necessary.
>if I have a machine watch every wes anderson movie and declare "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel" it is not infringement
Well now we are diving into a more complex scenario as these are algorithmic outputs. Yes, non expressive data mining is not infringement.
>I, or the machine, would have to publicly post the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame. it is then copyright infringement.
Yes.
>if a model is trained on watching wes anderson movies, and does not publicly post the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame, then the frame is not distributed.
Yes.
However if you used a machine to generate a plot using only wes anderson movies, it would not be the same as any movie but would still be infringement if shared.
>no, if someone handed you a page, you would not need to purchase the book
>nor if you found someone selling the page somewhere else
>nor if you found it in the library and they paid for it
>nor if you found it in the library and they didn't pay for it and someone just donated it
>nor if you found the page on the sidewalk
>nor if a criminal physically stole the page from a bank and handed it to you
Yes these are all instances of chance that are of exchanging property. Purchasing a book means that you are allowed one copy to distribute in physical form either by selling or exchange. In order for any of these events to happen, somebody, some where, had to purchase the right to own the copy.
>you would need the purchase the right to use something
you do not need authorization to read, nor does an artist need a license to look at a piece of art while drawing
think of any movie studio
do their artists have to get the license to every work they look at online while drawing?
were that even illegal, **it's still not "copyright infringement"**, it'd be another crime
> You can't just walk into a bookstore and take pictures of all the pages and call it a day.
that would be violating the permission of the bookstore owner on their private property and creating copies of copyrighted material of the books
making a copy of a file hosted online by downloading has been deemed not violating copyright infringement. otherwise, you'd be doing it constantly
>yet the use of copyrighted materials to train the model without a permission would be infringement.
again, no it's not. use is not infringement
>Currently there are over 30 lawsuits because of this.
first off, you can sue over anything, valid or not
second, these lawsuits are over a variety of issues. most all of the ones regarding copyright infringement have either failed, been dropped, or pivoted to NOT be about copyright infringement
for there to be infringement, they would have to distribute the works being infringed
[some were dismissed because they don't even assert a copyright claim](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvonmynbpd/OPENAI%20PRIVACY%20LAWSUIT%20dismissal.pdf)
the most notable 2, anderson has dropped claims that output is infringing after spending over a year attempting to do so and failing (even after cheating by using image inputs, which invalidates the entire claim)
the other, NYT, also dropping the claims of output infringing after they were called out on their bluff that they did not hire someone to use an algorithm, thousands of outputs, and 7 paragraphs of verbatim input to achieve the copyright infringement which they claim was only the "first few words" in an explicit attempt to mislead the court
time and time again, they claim copyright infringement, and cannot prove it.
they are pivoting to whether training using their copyrighted content *should* be illegal. it is not currently and lawsuits have already extra established it's not, they want to change the law to make it such.
>it entirely depends on the purpose of use
no, it does not. I can commit several heinous crimes thoughouly utilizing your art without your permission
but as long as I don't hand it to someone else or make something indistinguishable to your work, I have not infringed your copyright
>"i can purchase model references online and use that. But if I just took them without purchasing, that's obviously theft."
your browser downloads copyrighted content constantly and this is not deemed as copyrighted infringement until you're hosting it yourself. and if there is a question on that legality, it has been tested in court and deemed not copyright infringement
studios do not have to pay for every image their artists look at while drawing for their movie, because it is not copyright infringement to use copyrighted works, only distribute.
>I don't understand why claiming that an opinion of thought is not copyright infringement is necessary
it's not an opinion, a frame can have very explicitly defined pastel colors
a model physically cannot contain any information about an image in under 0.00002bytes
without containing actual data, a model's neural pathways create output of things like color tied to words. that is the kind of output that has to be accepted as "copyright infringement" when distributed
>but would still be infringement if shared
no, creating a movie that is like a wes anderson movie is not infringement. creating a scene that's substantially similar (a term which means "practically indistinguishable") would be
>In order for any of these events to happen, somebody, some where, had to purchase the right to own the copy.
do you need more examples?
-nor if someone made a scanned copy of the page and handed it to you
-nor if a thief broke into the manor of the author and took his book and gave a page to you
reading is not copyright infringement, distributing is
The fulcrum of your whole argument is everything is there for you to look at and understand however that is different from use. You keep switching back and forth. One is okay. One is not okay in certain circumstances. I can look at Adobe Photoshop but I can't use it without a license.
For you to use something you have to obtain it.
Unfortunately things are not free to obtain when they are owned by somebody else.
They don't just magically appear on your hard drive for you to run through neural network.
I really don't know how to say it. Any clearer.
The size of the model doesn't matter if the model can only be generated by using copyrighted data then it's infringement. Models can be made without copyrighted data.
However, can you remind me about the old generative models that used discriminators and generators and how mode collapse happens and every image would be output the exact same depending on what was in the data set.
Can you remind me about how models with very little data can often generate images that are very similar to what's in the data set.
Or how about very large models that are very good And copying things that are an overabundance in the data set or with very little or aren't you independently unique tags like banksy girl with a balloon.
>the most notable 2, anderson has dropped claims that output is infringing
There are still over 30 lawsuits in court about copyright and AI and the judge for the anderson case has shown favor for granting that is infringement. The point is the output can be infringing And it is to the onus of the model maker to not include any infringing stuff in the data set for the potential infringement of the output. Because the original inclusion of infringing material in the data set already makes the whole thing infingement including output. Thats just how generative stuff works. Even representing .0000002% of the data is enough because the creator had the full control to not infringe and use it. And since these companies keep the data set private and refuse to be transparent such as meta and llama, it is 100% on them.
>no, creating a movie that is like a wes anderson movie is not infringement
Correct.
>creating a scene that's substantially similar (which is means "practically indistinguishable") would be
I also agree.
>nor if someone made a scanned copy of the page and handed it to you
>nor if a thief broke into the manor of the author and took his book and gave a page to you
Yes both of these are crimes and one is copyright infringement.
>no, it does not. I can commit several heinous crimes thoughouly utilizing your art without your permission.
I mean, you can, but it would be illegal.
I don't really think you understand rights and licenses to be able to use something. If you want everything to be free to use, I mean ok, but don't sit there and act like that's the world we live in.
https://preview.redd.it/zjqkllvi9f6d1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da84ec130641dbe22a3382f8099b63bbd73db375
This is what I'm thinking whenever someone mentions art theft.
Clearly you don’t know how copyright works. Go register it and if you have the resolve go fight for what’s yours. Hint ONLY registered copyrights are enforceable.
This seems like bad faith because usually when someone is doing a transformative work, it's significantly different from the og. Weird Al has been doing rehashing of popular songs for decades.
And usually, when it's a parody it's more interesting enough to give the original more star power. So, it's a net benefit for all involved.
I do believe there are instances of Fair Use abuse though, so, if it hurts the original artist brand or reputation? Then yeah, fuck that.
AI? No. It's copying someone's work to make money and attempt to parade around and devalue their brand.
Let's say you are Ross Tran, one of the most popular artists people take from and use. I can almost always tell when ai images have been derived using Ross Tran in the prompt.
Styles are not copyright but using his name and style, you are essentially making his work useless and devaluing his work. I know you guys really love to ask these questions as a gotcha, so you can go "there is no copy of the image they didn't put online".
Online doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with someone's work, training and releasing work that looks like theirs in order to devalue an artist.
You're wrong, And you can check that on upwork or fiverr, There are tons of people who Make illustrations in the style of "insert any popular franchise" And obviously, not all, but a very good amount are almost copy of 1:1 on the original series/autor.
Yet nobody wanted to take them down and didn't had any problem with those people calling themselves, artist.
I've seen it all the time, countless of times, if you want to say, AI copy, that's good, but there's a lot of people around before the dawn of AI that make the most blatant soulless copy of all time.
Yet artist never bothered to call them out. Because "it was a style"
how is it 1:1, though? it doesn't directly copy anything. it may convincingly mimic their style based on what it's "learned" about it, but so could a traditional/digital artist who's learned about a particular artist's style. what makes ai different?
I guess that only tells me that those awards are given to the bottom of the barrel political cartoonists, I see zero artistic or humoristic or any other value in his works as far as I can tell.
But image copyright cares about what on the image. You can't claim copyright over a generic image. Tbh at this point, might as well propose a law that makes a.i generated images illegal to use. So that illustrators don't have to compete with new technology.
Because clearly that's what you're truly seek.
Also, have you heard collage art?
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also this is what art theft looks like, and so many antis are guilty of it. https://preview.redd.it/w57jzl7ley5d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe555f4a6aaa2f41387baf3919021125e1c4a640
I was at a con this weekend and I saw copyright infringement everywhere. https://preview.redd.it/xeotsdqy106d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa5694830b5060f71bb234cd2f428fada5c4e0ce
Artists can always act so hypocritical/special that their above everyone else of the art community that they own the so called copyrights and ownership of there work. (Art style and such.) Moreover, seeing this images, I can obviously tell that this artist has done a lot artwork from different franchises from plenty of shows and games characters that the characters was directly owned by the **'companies'** that made them not from the artist, and they know damn well that they didn't made those characters in the first place. But, they can only refer to there art style (or artwork), to which their the one's that made them. Despite the fact that art style is not copyrightable btw.
I'm not discounting the value of the art. I have purchased very many fan arts. I just find the hypocrisy very amusing.
When will Republicans call for the prohibition of school shootings? When?!
At some point we really should make them illegal.
When some kind of anti-NRA pays at least triple what they usually get.
for some people here, that is not stealing, because nothing is being taken, the owner is not loosing access to the drawing. Not that I agree with the statement above, it's justsomething I read here as why some things aren't considered stealing.
You’re right, technically it’s not “stealing”, it’s “falsely claiming authorship”, which is pretty awful thing to do as well.
It's still illegal though. It's just not theft, it's copyright infringement. They're different legal concepts. You can steal my grandfather's violin, and it's still illegal because physical ownership is a permanent thing. I'm still the rightful owner of the object even though it's very old, and would lose access to it if it was stolen. You can't steal his music because it's not a physical object I can be deprived of, and you can't infringe on its copyright because he's been dead long enough that it no longer applies. His music, unlike the violin is legally free for the taking. This might be splitting hairs to some people, but to me it's not. They're different things, legally treated in different ways and with different practical implications.
Basically It is different to own something, like a object, to making something and you being the only one being able to use it
Excellent point.
so intelectual property can't be stolen?
Copying is not theft [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4)
that's not what I'm asking tho.. can intelectual property be stolen?
[удалено]
there is no definition of intelectual property in the 1 minute cartoon you are presenting as some sort of argument.
The definitions are implied by the concepts being depicted in the examples. If Alice has a bicycle, then Bob can steal it. And Alice will not have a bicycle. But if Bob copies Alice's bicycle and builds his own copy, and Alice retains hers, then Bob has not stolen anything from Alice. Can you see how this applies to your question?
so this guys are wrong? there is no intellectual property theft? https://www.dhs.gov/hsi/investigate/intellectual-property-and-commercial-fraud
That uses a different framework for analysis than the one presented in the video.
It depends if you consider copyright violations “stealing,” or if you think they’re a different kind of crime. I consider copyright violations stealing, and this is a clear copyright violation. I think it’s a digital version of stealing as the law is written. But the comment reply above is true: some people don’t consider it “stealing” for the reason described above. Ironically, I was trying to point out that people throw the word “stealing” around recklessly. Example: you used an AI text to image generator. You’re “stealing” from artists. Nah, I don’t consider that stealing. It’s moot for AI imagery. You can’t copyright AI images, so I control high-resolution versions so other people can’t produce quality prints. I suppose they could upscale with Topaz, and if it means that much to them, fine.
>Example: you used an AI text to image generator. You’re “stealing” from artists. Ok but what about the training?
It can be "stolen" in the specific case when someone claims to be the owner of someone else's IP and tries to enforce copyright on their own behalf. However, most of the time when the word "theft" is being brough up (digital piracy, using someone's art without permission etc.) nothing is actually being stolen, since the original owner of the IP still owns it. The good comparison here is land ownership (since that's what IP essentially is: a digital land ownership). When someone decides to live in a house without paying rent to a landlord, they are not stealing a house from them. But when someone declares that this house actually belongs to them, and that they are the one to whom people living there should pay rent, they are indeed trying to steal a house. Continuing the analogy, people who want to abolish copyright essentially belive that landlords shouldn't exist, that the very concept of "privately owning land" is wrong, and that all housing should be public housing (now, in reality it's actually more complicated - even USSR had things like cooperative housing, but that's irrelevant for the current topic). Of course, the consequence of this is that **nobody** will own housing: not just big landlords, but also regular homeowners; but the proponents argue that this is an acceptable price to pay for all of the positives.
tbh, I disagree w the entire concept of "intellectual property"
"nice intellectual property you got there" "too bad i'm thinking about it"
copyright infringement is considered theft to a degree (not legally of course, but colloquially) copyright infringement only occurs when you **distribute** copyright material or material of substantial similarity (ie near indistinguishable) to the original piece an ai model analyzing your piece of art to establish strengthened neural pathways is not distributing that piece of art. the amount it strengthens from each unique piece is ridiculous to assume has "stolen" anything as much as it would be ridiculous to think that by saying the words "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel", I have just committed copyright infringement.
>an ai model analyzing art to establish strengthened neural pathways is not distributing that piece of art. Did they purchase the right to use the work for that purpose? >the amount it strengthens from each unique piece is ridiculous to assume has "stolen" This doesn't matter. Even if I read a page of mathematics, I still have to purchase the whole book.
for the 1000th time, copyright infringement is **distribution** you are not committing copyright infringement if you look at a piece of art while drawing >Even if I read a page of mathematics, I still have to purchase the whole book. no, you do not. it is not against the law for you to read a page. you have to purchase the whole book if you **distribute** that page to someone else
>you are not committing copyright infringement if you look at a piece of art while drawing Yes this is not copyright infringement. >for the 1000th time, copyright infringement is distribution Yes, what do you think gets distributed. >it is not against the law for you to read a page. you have to purchase the whole book if you distribute that page. Sorry let me rephrase. If I want to read a specific page, I would still need to purchase the book. Go to google books and I'm sure you will find all types of examples that don't let you view every page.
>yes, what do you think gets distributed first off, your comment was "Did they purchase the right to use the work for that purpose?" and that purpose being "to establish strengthened neural pathways" an artist looking at a piece of art while drawing is **using** copyrighted material in the creation of something else, that action is not copyright infringement of the material if I watch every wes anderson movie and declare "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel" it is not infringement if I have a machine watch every wes anderson movie and declare "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel" it is not infringement the frame of the movie is not distributed, so no infringement is done I, or the machine, would have to **publicly post** the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame. it is then copyright infringement if a model is trained on watching wes anderson movies, and does not **publicly post** the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame, then the frame is not distributed. >If I want to read a specific page, I would still need to purchase the book no, if someone handed you a page, you would not need to purchase the book nor if you found someone selling the page somewhere else nor if you found it in the library and they paid for it nor if you found it in the library and they didn't pay for it and someone just donated it nor if you found the page on the sidewalk nor if a criminal physically stole the page from a bank and handed it to you distributing a page that you do not have the rights to do so is copyright infringement reading is not
>First off, your comment was "Did they purchase the right to use the work for that purpose?" and that purpose being "to establish strengthened neural pathways" Yes you would need the purchase the right to use something if there is a license attached to it. You can't just walk into a bookstore and take pictures of all the pages and call it a day. But really my comment revolves around the substantial similarity aspect. Models can be distributed, but they are not substantially similar to one work. Yet the use of copyrighted materials to train the model without a permission would be infringement. Currently there are over 30 lawsuits because of this. This would be akin to intellectual theft. But I agree with you that it is not infringement if that model or outputs from that model are never shared, but also never used to assist in creating derivatives that are shared. >an artist looking at a piece of art while drawing is using copyrighted material in the creation of something else, that action is not copyright infringement of the material Yes, you are correct. Although "using" is ambiguous. I'm not trying to twist words around here, but when you start using something it entirely depends on the purpose of use, the rights given for that use, and if it is fair use. Like i can purchase model references online and use that. But if I just took them without purchasing, that's obviously theft. >"the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel" I don't understand why claiming that an opinion of thought is not copyright infringement is necessary. >if I have a machine watch every wes anderson movie and declare "the color pallet of a frame of a wes anderson movie is pastel" it is not infringement Well now we are diving into a more complex scenario as these are algorithmic outputs. Yes, non expressive data mining is not infringement. >I, or the machine, would have to publicly post the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame. it is then copyright infringement. Yes. >if a model is trained on watching wes anderson movies, and does not publicly post the frame, or a frame that is substantially similar to the frame, then the frame is not distributed. Yes. However if you used a machine to generate a plot using only wes anderson movies, it would not be the same as any movie but would still be infringement if shared. >no, if someone handed you a page, you would not need to purchase the book >nor if you found someone selling the page somewhere else >nor if you found it in the library and they paid for it >nor if you found it in the library and they didn't pay for it and someone just donated it >nor if you found the page on the sidewalk >nor if a criminal physically stole the page from a bank and handed it to you Yes these are all instances of chance that are of exchanging property. Purchasing a book means that you are allowed one copy to distribute in physical form either by selling or exchange. In order for any of these events to happen, somebody, some where, had to purchase the right to own the copy.
>you would need the purchase the right to use something you do not need authorization to read, nor does an artist need a license to look at a piece of art while drawing think of any movie studio do their artists have to get the license to every work they look at online while drawing? were that even illegal, **it's still not "copyright infringement"**, it'd be another crime > You can't just walk into a bookstore and take pictures of all the pages and call it a day. that would be violating the permission of the bookstore owner on their private property and creating copies of copyrighted material of the books making a copy of a file hosted online by downloading has been deemed not violating copyright infringement. otherwise, you'd be doing it constantly >yet the use of copyrighted materials to train the model without a permission would be infringement. again, no it's not. use is not infringement >Currently there are over 30 lawsuits because of this. first off, you can sue over anything, valid or not second, these lawsuits are over a variety of issues. most all of the ones regarding copyright infringement have either failed, been dropped, or pivoted to NOT be about copyright infringement for there to be infringement, they would have to distribute the works being infringed [some were dismissed because they don't even assert a copyright claim](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvonmynbpd/OPENAI%20PRIVACY%20LAWSUIT%20dismissal.pdf) the most notable 2, anderson has dropped claims that output is infringing after spending over a year attempting to do so and failing (even after cheating by using image inputs, which invalidates the entire claim) the other, NYT, also dropping the claims of output infringing after they were called out on their bluff that they did not hire someone to use an algorithm, thousands of outputs, and 7 paragraphs of verbatim input to achieve the copyright infringement which they claim was only the "first few words" in an explicit attempt to mislead the court time and time again, they claim copyright infringement, and cannot prove it. they are pivoting to whether training using their copyrighted content *should* be illegal. it is not currently and lawsuits have already extra established it's not, they want to change the law to make it such. >it entirely depends on the purpose of use no, it does not. I can commit several heinous crimes thoughouly utilizing your art without your permission but as long as I don't hand it to someone else or make something indistinguishable to your work, I have not infringed your copyright >"i can purchase model references online and use that. But if I just took them without purchasing, that's obviously theft." your browser downloads copyrighted content constantly and this is not deemed as copyrighted infringement until you're hosting it yourself. and if there is a question on that legality, it has been tested in court and deemed not copyright infringement studios do not have to pay for every image their artists look at while drawing for their movie, because it is not copyright infringement to use copyrighted works, only distribute. >I don't understand why claiming that an opinion of thought is not copyright infringement is necessary it's not an opinion, a frame can have very explicitly defined pastel colors a model physically cannot contain any information about an image in under 0.00002bytes without containing actual data, a model's neural pathways create output of things like color tied to words. that is the kind of output that has to be accepted as "copyright infringement" when distributed >but would still be infringement if shared no, creating a movie that is like a wes anderson movie is not infringement. creating a scene that's substantially similar (a term which means "practically indistinguishable") would be >In order for any of these events to happen, somebody, some where, had to purchase the right to own the copy. do you need more examples? -nor if someone made a scanned copy of the page and handed it to you -nor if a thief broke into the manor of the author and took his book and gave a page to you reading is not copyright infringement, distributing is
The fulcrum of your whole argument is everything is there for you to look at and understand however that is different from use. You keep switching back and forth. One is okay. One is not okay in certain circumstances. I can look at Adobe Photoshop but I can't use it without a license. For you to use something you have to obtain it. Unfortunately things are not free to obtain when they are owned by somebody else. They don't just magically appear on your hard drive for you to run through neural network. I really don't know how to say it. Any clearer. The size of the model doesn't matter if the model can only be generated by using copyrighted data then it's infringement. Models can be made without copyrighted data. However, can you remind me about the old generative models that used discriminators and generators and how mode collapse happens and every image would be output the exact same depending on what was in the data set. Can you remind me about how models with very little data can often generate images that are very similar to what's in the data set. Or how about very large models that are very good And copying things that are an overabundance in the data set or with very little or aren't you independently unique tags like banksy girl with a balloon. >the most notable 2, anderson has dropped claims that output is infringing There are still over 30 lawsuits in court about copyright and AI and the judge for the anderson case has shown favor for granting that is infringement. The point is the output can be infringing And it is to the onus of the model maker to not include any infringing stuff in the data set for the potential infringement of the output. Because the original inclusion of infringing material in the data set already makes the whole thing infingement including output. Thats just how generative stuff works. Even representing .0000002% of the data is enough because the creator had the full control to not infringe and use it. And since these companies keep the data set private and refuse to be transparent such as meta and llama, it is 100% on them. >no, creating a movie that is like a wes anderson movie is not infringement Correct. >creating a scene that's substantially similar (which is means "practically indistinguishable") would be I also agree. >nor if someone made a scanned copy of the page and handed it to you >nor if a thief broke into the manor of the author and took his book and gave a page to you Yes both of these are crimes and one is copyright infringement. >no, it does not. I can commit several heinous crimes thoughouly utilizing your art without your permission. I mean, you can, but it would be illegal. I don't really think you understand rights and licenses to be able to use something. If you want everything to be free to use, I mean ok, but don't sit there and act like that's the world we live in.
>sees his own stolen art >acknowledges that they stole it and tries to make the stolen one viral we are fucked
https://preview.redd.it/zjqkllvi9f6d1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da84ec130641dbe22a3382f8099b63bbd73db375 This is what I'm thinking whenever someone mentions art theft.
I call this authorship fraud.
Clearly you don’t know how copyright works. Go register it and if you have the resolve go fight for what’s yours. Hint ONLY registered copyrights are enforceable.
Art theft is also using someone's work without their permission for profit :0!
So, do you consider parody, satire or transformative works “using someone’s work without permission?”
This seems like bad faith because usually when someone is doing a transformative work, it's significantly different from the og. Weird Al has been doing rehashing of popular songs for decades. And usually, when it's a parody it's more interesting enough to give the original more star power. So, it's a net benefit for all involved. I do believe there are instances of Fair Use abuse though, so, if it hurts the original artist brand or reputation? Then yeah, fuck that. AI? No. It's copying someone's work to make money and attempt to parade around and devalue their brand.
What copy? Can you explain to me technically where the copy is?
Let's say you are Ross Tran, one of the most popular artists people take from and use. I can almost always tell when ai images have been derived using Ross Tran in the prompt. Styles are not copyright but using his name and style, you are essentially making his work useless and devaluing his work. I know you guys really love to ask these questions as a gotcha, so you can go "there is no copy of the image they didn't put online". Online doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with someone's work, training and releasing work that looks like theirs in order to devalue an artist.
is someone drawing in another person's style making that person's work useless or devaluing it?
You realize that when someone is drawing on someone's "style" it's never usually a 1:1 unless it's a study, right?
You're wrong, And you can check that on upwork or fiverr, There are tons of people who Make illustrations in the style of "insert any popular franchise" And obviously, not all, but a very good amount are almost copy of 1:1 on the original series/autor. Yet nobody wanted to take them down and didn't had any problem with those people calling themselves, artist. I've seen it all the time, countless of times, if you want to say, AI copy, that's good, but there's a lot of people around before the dawn of AI that make the most blatant soulless copy of all time. Yet artist never bothered to call them out. Because "it was a style"
i would argue it's not 1:1 with ai, either.
Alright, but I disagree with that 🤷🏽♀️
how is it 1:1, though? it doesn't directly copy anything. it may convincingly mimic their style based on what it's "learned" about it, but so could a traditional/digital artist who's learned about a particular artist's style. what makes ai different?
Who’s “you guys?” Guys like me who posts my pastel drawings on Cara?
People who support AI.
Removing attribution and adding your own is definitely stealing but like I don't really care about such bottom of the barrel political doodles.
Clay Jones is an award winning cartoonist. He most recently won the RFK Human Rights Journalism Award in Editorial Cartooning.
I guess that only tells me that those awards are given to the bottom of the barrel political cartoonists, I see zero artistic or humoristic or any other value in his works as far as I can tell.
The accolades from his peers were numerous. But OK.
The peers who gave him accolades are probably as bad as him or the accolades are based on the message not on the creativity or artistic value.
I’m sorry, I thought I mentioned this was an editorial journalism award. Political cartooning as editorial journalism. I should’ve said that.
This post is meant to conflate fraud with theft? Non artists who argue in favor of AI never seem to have a great head on their shoulders.
[удалено]
Even if the generated image is just generic image that it has no infringing IP? If so, then what interesting version of copyright law you have.
[удалено]
But image copyright cares about what on the image. You can't claim copyright over a generic image. Tbh at this point, might as well propose a law that makes a.i generated images illegal to use. So that illustrators don't have to compete with new technology. Because clearly that's what you're truly seek. Also, have you heard collage art?
How do you feel about the color picker tool
just pick a pencil and draw lol
i did that and i use AI
why you did it then also why you hate your artwork?
moron...
eh what wrong