Was his art available on a free use license? If so, then he has no right to anything. If it wasn't then yeah, pay the dude or delete the model. Why is this even a debate?
Saying an AI isn't allowed to train off your art is the same as saying someone isn't allowed to see your art. It's ridiculous.
If you put your artwork out there publicly, then too bad.
I mean, if a human trained to copy his paintings and sold them for profit it still doesn't count as fair use unless it's sufficiently "transformative".
Diffusion models are certainly not sufficiently transformative.
>authors guild vs Google
Supreme Court says it's OK to use copyrighted material in training a machine learning algorithm >Blanche vs Kooms
Supreme Court says that cutting out part of a picture and pasting it into a collage meets the minimum requirements for being a transformative work and is fair use
>I mean, if a human trained to copy his paintings and sold them for profit it still doesn't count as fair use unless it's sufficiently "transformative".
Yeah, except that paintings replicas have been sold since like forever
>Berlin-based artists Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst are working on tools to help artists opt out of being in training data sets. They launched a site called Have I Been Trained, which lets artists search to see whether their work is among the 5.8 billion images in the data set that was used to train Stable Diffusion and Midjourney. >https://haveibeentrained.com/ >mfw
>trained an AI on his art 93,000 times
>then he was cyber bullied
good
Imagine devoting your life to learning something a machine can do faster and better than any human can.
this
programmers are deprecated
Cope
AI cant paint.
based as fuck, i pray for the downfall of all "artists" and i wish the whole industry gets wiped out asap, the delicious seethe will be phenomenal
this is the equivalent of NFTgays reeing over people copying their .jpgs.
Was his art available on a free use license? If so, then he has no right to anything. If it wasn't then yeah, pay the dude or delete the model. Why is this even a debate?
No, because if a human trained his skills looking at those painting that is fair use, AI is doing the same thing
seethe inkcel
Saying an AI isn't allowed to train off your art is the same as saying someone isn't allowed to see your art. It's ridiculous.
If you put your artwork out there publicly, then too bad.
>cyber bullied
So what? He's not going to lose any work. He's now more famous than ever.
I mean, if a human trained to copy his paintings and sold them for profit it still doesn't count as fair use unless it's sufficiently "transformative".
Diffusion models are certainly not sufficiently transformative.
>authors guild vs Google
Supreme Court says it's OK to use copyrighted material in training a machine learning algorithm
>Blanche vs Kooms
Supreme Court says that cutting out part of a picture and pasting it into a collage meets the minimum requirements for being a transformative work and is fair use
Fair enough I suppose. I'd personally hold the transformative threshold higher but hey it does sound legal.
Yes they are. They never produce any of the work he's ever made. It's far more transformative than what artists do "in the style of"-like in general.
>I mean, if a human trained to copy his paintings and sold them for profit it still doesn't count as fair use unless it's sufficiently "transformative".
Yeah, except that paintings replicas have been sold since like forever
Okay, but he can still paint. AI cant paint. Digital "artists" cant paint either.
>Berlin-based artists Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst are working on tools to help artists opt out of being in training data sets. They launched a site called Have I Been Trained, which lets artists search to see whether their work is among the 5.8 billion images in the data set that was used to train Stable Diffusion and Midjourney.
>https://haveibeentrained.com/
>mfw
Again...anons just launch a page for artists where they can put their blood or signature or inspiration or someone else will get that money
noice