this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
224 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
39575 readers
214 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What kind of argument is that supposed to be? We've stolen his art before so it's fine? Dickheads. This whole AI thing is already sketchy enough, at least respect the artists that explicitly want their art to be excluded.
His art was not "stolen." That's not an accurate word to describe this process with.
It's not so much that "it was done before so it's fine now" as "it's a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows" that can be used to justify it. As well as the view that there was nothing wrong with doing it the first time, so what's wrong with doing it a second time?
I don't like when people say "AI just traces/photobashes art." Because that simply isn't what happens.
But I do very much wish there was some sort of opt-out process, but ultimately any attempt at that just wouldn't work
People that say that have never used AI art generation apps and are only regurgitating what they hear from other people who are doing the same. The amount of arm chair AI denialists is astronomical.
There's nothing stopping someone from licensing their art in a fashion that prohibits their use in that fashion.
No one has created that license that I know of, but there are software licenses that do similar things, so it's hardly an unprecedented notion.
The fact of the matter is that before people didn't think it was necessary to have specific usage licenses attached to art because no one got funny feelings from people creating derivative works from them.
pirating photoshop is a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows. that doesn't make it legal or condoned by adobe
I don't know what this has to do with anything. Nothing was "pirated", either.
i'm not making a moral comment on anything, including piracy. i'm saying "but it's part of my established workflow" is not an excuse for something morally wrong.
only click here if you understand analogy and hyperbole
if i say "i can't write without kicking a few babies first", it's not an excuse to keep kicking babies. i just have to stop writing, or maybe find another workflow
The difference is that kicking babies is illegal whereas training and running an AI is not. Kind of a big difference.
did you click the thing saying that you understand analogies?
You're using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That's not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain. Kicking a baby is not the same as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don't map to each other.
You can't dodge flaws in your argument by adding a "don't respond unless you agree with me" clause on your comment.
actually that's exactly what i was using it for.
if you read carefully, you'll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you're continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you'll see that i implied i wasn't making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies
i didn't intend to. i did it so i wouldn't have to waste my time arguing with those who don't understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you'll excuse me, i'm going to stop
edit: okay, i've been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don't understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment
[^1]: yes. analogous doesn't mean "the same". it means "able to draw demonstrative parallels between
Not at the point of generation, but at the point of training it was. One of the sticking points of AI for artists is that their developers didn't even bother to seek permission. They simply said it was too much work and crawled artists' galleries.
Even publicly displayed art can only be used for certain previously-established purposes. By default you can't use them for derivative works.
At the point of training it was viewing images that the artists had published in a public gallery. Nothing pirated at that point either. They don't need "permission" to do that, the images are on display.
Learning from art is one of the previously-established purposes you speak of. No "derivative work" is made when an AI trains a model, the model does not contain any copyrightable part of the imagery it is trained on.
Of course they need permission to process images. No computer system can merely "view" an image without at least creating a copy for temporary use, and the purposes for which that can be done are strictly defined. Doing whatever you want just because you have access to the image is often copyright infringement.
People have the right to learn from images available publicly for personal viewing. AI is not yet people. Your whole argument relies on anthropomorphizing a tool, but it wouldn't even be able to select images to train its model without human intervention, which is done with the intent to replicate the artist's work.
I'm not one to usually bat for copyright but the disregard AI proponents have for artists' rights and their livelihood has gone long past what's acceptable, like the article shows.
If I run an image from the web through a program that generates a histogram of how bright its pixels are, am I suddenly a dirty pirate?
If you run someone's artwork through a filter is it completely fine and new just because the output is not exactly like the input and it deletes the input after it's done processing?
There is a discussion to be made, in good faith, of where the line lies, what ought to be the rights of the audience and what ought to be the rights of the artists, and what ought to be the rights of platforms, and what ought to be the limits of AI. To be fair, that's a difficult situation to determine, because in many aspects copyright is already too overbearing. Legally, many pieces of fan art and even memes are copyright infringement. But on the flipside automating art away is too far to the other side. The reason why Copyright even exists, at least ideally, is so that the rights and livelihood of artists is protected and they are incentivized to continue creating.
Lets not pretend that is just analysis for the sake of academic understanding, there is a large amount of people who are feeding artists' works into AI with the express purpose of getting artworks in their style without compensating them, something many artists made clear they are not okay with. While they can't tell people not to practice styles like theirs, they can definitely tell people not to use their works in ways they do not allow.
No, that's a derivative work. An analysis of the brightness of the pixels is not a derivative work.
Sure, but the people crying "You're stealing art!" are not making a good faith argument. They're using an inaccurate, prejudicial word for the purpose of riling up an emotional response. Or perhaps they just don't understand what copyright is and why it is, which also puts their argument in a bad state.
Case in point. That's not why copyright exists. The reason for the American version of copyright is established right in the constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". If you want to go more fundamental than just what the US is up to, the original Statute of Anne was titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning".
The purpose of copyright is not to protect the rights or livelihood of artists. The protection of the rights and livelihood of artist is a means to the actual purpose of copyright, which is to enrich the public domain by prompting artists to be productive and to publish their works.
An artist that opposes AIs like these is now actively hindering the enrichment of the public domain.
Wow.. so in your mind there is basically no copyright and nobody owns anything. That is incredibly reductive and completely ignores centuries of legal precedence since the constitution was written.
You are basically claiming that anything that is ever put on display anywhere, ever is public domain and that piracy doesn't exist.
No, I'm not claiming that and I have no idea how you're managing to come to that conclusion from what I wrote. There's no connection I can discern.
A histogram cannot output similar images, it's pointless to argue the fine details of an analogy that doesn't apply to begin with
To call it "stealing" might be inaccurate, but are the artists wrong to say that their intellectual property rights are being violated, when people using their works without consent to train AIs with the express purpose of replicating those artists' works? I have seen several artists pointing out AI users who brag to them that they are explicitly training AIs using those artists' galleries and show that it's outputting similar works.
How is it "promoting the progress of useful arts" not the same as "incentivizing artists to continue creating"? Are you going to argue what's "useful"? If there is interest in replicating artists' styles with AI, then that is an admission the people doing it see use in those works. Otherwise, it's the same, and protecting their livelihoods through the privilege of a temporary intellectual monopoly is how that promotion of arts is done.
I definitely see the value of the Public Domain, but if expanding it at any cost was the primary goal of copyright we wouldn't have roughly century-long copyright. Which I don't think is good per see but that's another discussion. Still, the existence of copyright at all is a concession that grants that for artists and creators to develop their works and ultimately enrich humanity's culture, they need to be able to control their works and have a guarantee to a stable career, to the extent that they can sell their own work. It's a protection so that not everyone can show up imitating that artist and undercut them, undermining their capability to make new creative works. Which is what many people have been doing with AI.
If anything that could enrich the Public Domain was enough reason to drop Copyright, we wouldn't have any Copyright. The compromise is that Public Domain as a whole will be enriched when the artist's Copyright expires.
Bring publicly viewable doesn't make them public domain. Bring able to see something doesn't give you the right to use it for literally any other reason.
Full stop.
My gods, you're such an insufferable bootlicking fanboy of bullshit code jockies. Make a good faith effort to actually understand why people dislike these exploitative assholes who are looking to make a buck off of other people's work for once, instead of just reflexively calling them all phillistines who "just don't understand".
Some of us work on machine learning systems for a living. We know what they are and how they work, and they're fucking regurgitation machines. And people deserve to have control over whether we use their works in our regurgitation machines.
They were not used for derivative works. The AI's model produced by the training does not contain any copyrighted material.
If you click this link and view the images there then you are just as much a "pirate" as the AI trainers.
The models themselves are the derivative works. Those artists' works were copied and processed to create that model. There is a difference between a person viewing a piece of work and putting that work to be processed through a system. The way copyright works as defined, being allowed to view a work is not the same as being allowed to use it in any way you see fit. It's also innacurate to speak of AIs as if they have the same abilities and rights as people.
Was he paid for his art to be included?
no one's art is being "stolen". you're mistaken.
That's true, but only in the sense that theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different things.
Generating stuff from ML training datasets that included works without permissive licenses is copyright infringement though, just as much as simply copying and pasting parts of those works in would be. The legal definition of a derivative work doesn't care about the techological details.
(For me, the most important consequence of this sort of argument is that everything produced by Github Copilot must be GPL.)
That's incorrect in my opinion. AI learns patterns from its training data. So do humans, by the way. It's not copy-pasting parts of image or code.
At the heart of copyright law is the intent. If an artist makes something, someone can't just come along and copy it and resell it. The intent is so that artists can make a living for their innovation.
AI training on copyrighted images and then reproducing works derived from those images in order to compete with those images in the same style breaks the intent of copyright law. Equally, it does not matter if a picture is original. If you take an artist's picture and recreate it with pixel art, there have already been cases where copyright infringement settlements have been made in favor of the original artist. Despite the original picture not being used at all, just studied. Mile's David Kind Of Bloop cover art.
You're correct in your description of what a derivative work is, but this part is mistaken:
The intent is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" so that, in the long run, the Public Domain is enriched with more works than would otherwise exist if no incentive were given. Allowing artists to make a living is nothing more than a means to that end.
It promotes progress by giving people the ability to make the works. If they can't make a living off of making the works then they aren't going to do it as a job. Thus yes, the intent is so that artists can make a living off of their work so that more artists have the ability to make the art. It's really that simple. The intent is so that more people can do it. It's not a means to the end, it's the entire point of it. Otherwise, you'd just have hobbyists contributing.
I like what you're saying so I'm not trying to be argumentative, but to be clear copyright protections don't simply protect those who make a living from their productions. You are protected by them regardless of whether you intend to make any money off your work and that protection is automatic. Just to expand upon what @grue was saying.
By the same token, a human can easily be deemed to have infringed copyright even without cutting and pasting, if the result is excessively inspired by some other existing work.
AI doesn't "learn" anything, it's not even intelligent. If you show a human artwork of a person they'll be able to recognize that they're looking at a human, how their limbs and expression works, what they're wearing, the materials, how gravity should affect it all, etc. AI doesn't and can't know any of that, it just predicts how things should look based on images that have been put in it's database. It's a fancy Xerox.
Why do people who have no idea how some thing works feel the urge to comment on its working? It's not just AI, it's pretty much everything.
AI does learn, that's the whole shtick and that's why it's so good at stuff computers used to suck at. AI is pretty much just a buzzword, the correct abbreviation is ML which stands for Machine Learning - it's even in the name.
AI also recognizes it looks at a human! It can also recognize what they're wearing, the material. AI is also better in many, many things than humans are. It also sucks compared to humans in many other things.
No images are in its database, you fancy Xerox.
And I wish that people who didn't understand the need for the human element in creative endeavours would focus their energy on automating things that should be automated, like busywork, and dangerous jobs.
If the prediction model actually "learned" anything, they wouldn't have needed to add the artist's work back after removing it. They had to, because it doesn't learn anything, it copies the data it's been fed.
Just because you repeat the same thing over and over it doesn't become truth. You should be the one to learn, before you talk. This conversation is over for me, I'm not paid to convince people who behave like children of how things they're scared of work.
It's actually not copyright infringement at all.
Edit: and even if it was, copyright infringement is a moral right, it's a good thing. copyright is theft.
It's likely copyright infringement but that's for the courts to decide, not you or me. Additionally, "copyright infringement is a moral right" seems fairly wrong. Copyright laws currently are too steep and I can agree with that but if I make a piece of art like a book, video game, or movie, do I not deserve to protect it in order to get money? I'd argue that because we live in a capitalistic society so, yes, I deserve to get paid for the work I did. If we lived in a better society that met the basic needs (or even complex needs) of every human then I can see copyright laws being useless.
At the end of the day, the artists just want to be able to afford to eat, play games, and have shelter. Why in the world is that a bad thing in our current society? You can't remove copyright law without first removing capitalism.
No. And it's not just me saying that; the folks who wrote the Copyright Clause (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson) would disagree with you, too.
The natural state of a creative work is for it to be part of a Public Domain. Ideas are fundamentally different from property in the sense that property's value comes from its exclusive use by its owner, wheras an idea's value comes from spreading it, i.e., giving it away to others.
Here's how Jefferson described it:
Thus we see the basis for the rationale given in the Copyright Clause itself: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," which is very different from creating some kind of entitlement to creators because they "deserve" it.
The true basis for copyright law in the United States is as a utilitarian incentive to encourage the creation of more works - a bounty for creating. Ownership of property is a natural right which the Constitution pledges to protect (see also the 4th and 5th Amendments), but the temporary monopoly called copyright is merely a privilege granted at the pleasure of Congress. Essentially, it's a lease from the Public Domain, for the benefit of the Public. It is not an entitlement; what the creator of the work "deserves" doesn't enter into it.
And if the copyright holder abuses his privilege such that the Public no longer benefits enough to be worth it, it's perfectly just and reasonable for the privilege to be revoked.
This is a bizarre, backwards argument. First of all, a government-granted monopoly is the antethesis of the "free market" upon which capitalism is supposedly based. Second, granting of monopolies is hardly the only way to accomplish either goal of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts" or of helping creators make a living!
... You realize the reason it promotes progress is because it allows the creators to get paid for it, right? It's not "they deserve it" it's "they need to eat and thus they aren't going to do it unless they make money." Which is exactly my argument.
It's a silly way to put that since the "privilege granted" is given in to Congress in the Constitution.
Overall though, you are referencing a 300-year-old document like it means something. The point comes down to people needing to eat in a capitalistic society.
Capitalism isn't really based on a free market and never has been in practice.
Sure but first enact those changes then try to change or break copyright. Don't take away the only current way for artists to make money then say "Well, the system should be different." You are causing people to starve at that point.
Except when it's being used to enforce copyleft.
Aside from all the artists whose work was fed into the AI learning models without their permission. That art has been stolen, and is still being stolen. In this case very explicitly, because they outright removed his work, and then put it back when nobody was looking.
Let me give you a hypothetical that's close to reality. Say an artist gets very popular, but doesn't want their art used to teach AI. Let's even say there's even legislation that prevents all this artist's work from being used in AI.
Now what if someone else hires a bunch of cheap human artists to produce works in a style similar to the original artist, and then uses those works to feed the AI model? Would that still be stolen art? And if so, why? And if not, what is this extra degree of separation changing? The original artist is still not getting paid and the AI is still producing works based on their style.
Comic book artists get in shit for tracing other peoples' work all the time. Look up Greg Land. It's shitty regardless of whether it's a person doing it directly, or if someone built software to do it for them.
Fine, you win the semantic argument about the use of the term "stealing". Despite arguments about word choice, this is still a massively disrespectful and malicious action against the artist.
Strictly speaking it wouldn't exactly be stealing, but I would still consider it as about equal to it, especially with regards to economic benefits. It may not be producing exact copies (which strictly speaking isn't stealing, but is violating copyright) or actually stealing, but it's exploiting the style that most people would assume mean that that specific artist made it and thus depriving that artist from benefiting from people wanting art from that artist/in that style.
Now, I'm not conflicted about people who have made millions off their art having people make imitations or copies, those people live more than comfortably enough. But in your example there are still other human artists benefiting, which is not the case for computationally generated works. It's great for me to be able to have computers create art for a DnD campaign or something, but I still recognize that it's making it harder for artists to earn a living from their skills. And to a certain degree it makes it so people who never would have had any such art now can. It's in many ways like piracy with the same ethical framing. And as with piracy it may be that people that use AI to make them art become greater "consumers" of art made by humans as well, paying it forward. But it may also not work exactly that way.
People aren't allowed to produce similar styles to other humans? So do you support disney preventing anyone from making cartoons?