AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
172 points (100.0% liked)
news
23545 readers
743 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have almost complete aphantasia and dysgraphia. I can describe a picture but I could never draw it even on a computer. Despite the technology to overcome my Neuro divergency being at my fingertips I shouldn't own my creations because you don't like the tools I used?
Ableist Classist Luddite. "Art is only for the few who can dedicate years of study to perfect their technique and fuck any technology that makes art more accessible. oh and digitally made music isn't music."
Wait just one sec comrade. Noone said you can't use it, but you really think you should be entitled to make money as an artist? You can literally get a job as an AI prompt writer/engineer. But what you want is to be recognized as an artist.
Fine, then create a bunch of AI art, frame it, and take it to a gallery or to a market. Put it in a portfolio and display it on a website. Go network with other artists in your area and promote your work as art, see where it gets you. I'm genuinely curious.
AI has the ability to write code, but very few software engineers have lost their jobs because of it. Why? Is it because AI code, like AI art, sucks ass?
A lot of people here struggle with MH and some have overcome and found success. Maybe don't be so quick to label others as chauvinistic for pointing out that your idea is a priori nonsense that has little to no basis in reality. The fact remains that your struggles don't prevent you from picking up a paintbrush or a pencil or a mouse or whatever. Quadrapalegics still paint landscapes, Chuck Close is a world famous portrait artist who is face blind.
AI art is trained on the art of others, full stop. Noone says you can't use it to create images for your own enjoyment. Maybe there is some value for creators in using AI? But the value is created for capitalists to suppress wages of creatives and force people into unemployment. Hollywood writers went on strike over this shit. People don't fucking like it and regardless of how you feel about that, art is subjective. So best of luck, get over yourself
I mean, why else are we complaining about artists losing jobs? This seems blatantly true to me, people should be able to be artists if they enjoy making things.
If you can honestly go out into the world and market yourself as an artist, do the work of an artist, as in design, manufacture, sell art, while using images produced with stable diffusion that you had no hand in developing, and you're transparent about it to your clients, go for it. More power to you. You're making art from stolen art in a society where the only way for artists to make money is selling their original designs. Artists work their butts off for not a lot of money, but I'm no moral warrior, people steal all the time, make money from stolen shit, etc. Make the money you can while you can. But that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to judge you. If you're making stuff for your own consumption, even better since it doesn't complicate things. Go ahead and call yourself an artist too, I don't care. But if you do all that and people get mad about it it doesn't make them "Classist Ableists" that was a cheap bullshit thing to say. If you're really gonna be an artist you're gonna have to take some harsh critique, especially if you're using a medium that everybody hates.
You're probably right, I shouldn't have gone off like that, why do I care about someone else's opinions? You're right, there's enough gray area, and the history of art is the history of people who were told that what they were making wasn't art calling themselves artists. It just seemed really out of line to insist its okay and accuse others of chauvinism for disagreeing. Maybe OP was just making stuff for their own consumption and enjoyment and we lost the plot. But instead of explaining that they defended the worst parts of ai art as virtuous.
aphantasia doesn't mean you can't draw, it means you can't visualize in your head
you can have great visualization skills but still suck at drawing
You shouldnt be able to make money and steal from artists who made the AI art possible in the first place though, youre taking for granted that the art is free in the first place and more of these people online should be paid
the art of actual artist which is being stolen and used to make pastiches by tech companies with billions of VC bucks behind them. Like are you intentionally failing to see the point here?
It is absolutely being stolen when the art of people is being taken by VC funded tech companies and repurposed for commercial use without any compensation nor permission. Are you doing a bit right now?
I think it's bizarre to see "Socialists" siding with techbros and VC companies against artists and workers. The economic relationship is why it's theft. The creation of art is for many artists how they sell their labor, how they make money, how they get food on the table, generative AI does not currently exist in any capacity except large tech companies who are commercializing this art without the permission of these artists often explicitly against their wishes and reaping the full rewards of that. It is an exploitation of their work.
The luddites were right you realize of course? My issue is with capitalism yes, and the expansion of copyright to an industrialized art theft ring run by tech companies to the detriment of artists. Something you are cheerleading based on... what, contrarianism? A desire to be fucking wrong?
My art is work, i should be paid for it. Its weird socialists are laying cover for corporations and the robbing humanity out of another human experience. Youre not entitled to a perfect drawing of Hank Hill smoking weed, you do the best of your ability and thats fine.
Piracy is not the same as IP fraud, which is what the OP amounts to
nobody stole anything. they got a copy of the data of an image. That data is publicly available and anyone looking at that image on their computer has a copy of that data.
I'm not against artists being paid. I'm saying that AI is nothing without an operator and that means AI art is made by artist who should be afforded all rights of any other artist.
Youre again taking for granted that a lot of the art is free, when it shouldnt be. The people who make that art should be making a living doing something that takes so much work and study to be able to do.
I might be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you aren't drawing a line between being able to view, save, and edit data on your computer for whatever personal reasons vs. turning that data around to make a profit.
The problem is the stealing of labor. Not by you, mind, but by the people who put together these AI codebases. Artists did not put up images expecting them to be able to automatically used to obsolete their job, they expected people to directly copy or save them, which would maintain their IE signatures and stuff. This is why artists really dislike tracing, because taking someone else's creative expression and passing it off as your own is a (subjectively) kind of scummy thing to do that's much worse than piracy or IP theft (not because it's particularly bad, but because those things are like literally not bad at all).
The issue is fundamentally that AI models are exploiting someone's labor to be created. It's just the same kind of labor exploitation we always do but scaled up a bit.
The root issue is that money and copyrights should both not exist
but yes in the meantime whatever helps the artists the most should be done, but of course it won't because why would it
In the system we have where art is commodified there are barriers to entry. Class determines access to training and tools used to make orriginal images of value as does physical and mental ability. Using technology to overcome those barriers is a good thing. Being against tech that provides the marginalized with access to things because it will "take artist's jobs" is Ludditist and classist because it is upholding the petty bourgeois artists and keeping out the unwashed masses of the neurodivergent, untrained and physically disabled.
In the legal case referenced the person who gained the copyright and won the case was an individual. It was not the AI developer. If any thing it is a case to use that a person using AI is the copyright owner and not a corporation who develops the tool.
The issues you raise are valid but they are issues with capitalism and not with the tech. AI is a tool and capitalists have always tried to use tools to further exploit people. that doesn't mean we should abandon all tools.
I'm not responding to unlicensed bad takes.
good because I'm not responding to people who don't back up their disagreement with discussion. Go back to reddit you can offer the same level of discourse with a single click over there.
homophobia and "no you" isn't the great argument you think it is.
Says the person who isn't explaining their position and is hurling abuse like a monkey flings shit. I'll say it again. Go back to reddit where this sort of behaviour is acceptable.
You mean own as in have? sure. own as in being able to sell them? maybe. Own as in courts will fine everybody else using same picture? Nah
you shouldn't be entitled to copyright on it
why? Because I made it on a computer? or because the code that the computer used was very complex? or because during some of the code uses data that is freely available on the internet?
because you didn't write the code for the algorithm, you didn't make any of the training data pictures, and you didn't do anything that could be considered 'creative' or 'talented' to make it. Real fucking artists that put hours of time, effort, and creativity into their work deserve to have it protective. By plugging in "looking at a sunset from a mountain" or some shit into stable diffusion doesn't make you entitled to the shit it puts out. terrible take.
Rubbish. You're just assuming the user put in little effort. It's perfectly possible to put in little effort using pen and paper too. The end result looks less like a final piece, but it's probably equally close to what the artist tried to express. No one who uses downloaded brushes in Photoshop write the code for importing and drawing with those brushes. Nobody who uses photo textures wrote the code for their cameras. Nobody who uses Blender wrote the code for the light transport that happens when you hit render.
Drawing a style guide, drawing the composition with a sketch, and paint overs are all completely normal parts of the process when using Stable Diffusion, and none of that is where the creativity comes in.
you're right, that was a bad argument
the problem is that the AI trains off of the data of unwilling artists without credit.
Did you invent the paint brush?
Working hard does not have any intrinsic moral value. That is puritanist
. There is no value in suffering.
i should also clarify that i am not defending IP, the opposite in fact. i am saying that someone who makes an AI image isn't entitled to IP on that image.
Because it is a composite of the art other people made
So is colage. Using other art in art is very common. Every song that samples another song isn't art?
A majority of the data that LIM train off is not even "art" they are images. They lack the context and emotive qualities that differentiate art from information.
If the collage is literally just using the constituent elements the same way they were originally used, yes, that is textbook plagiarism and I already explicitly made this comparison
Sampling would by convention be considered plagiarism, which is why "sampling culture" is a thing, because it exists within a different but also defined set of norms around what is or is not acceptable and this has its own ongoing controversies that I would suggest not flattening into "the hip-hop people say plagiarism isn't real", which is what your non-argument amounts to