getty's entire business is selling images with very clear licensing terms so their customers can use them without legal worries, so of course they can't mix in something of dubious legality
There are no licensed images in stable diffusion unless you train it to. they're public domain. and even if there was, there would be no proof unless the copyright had access to the persons computer and saw them actually use it, which they won't. there have ALWAYS been artists who copied off others, this is nothing new. It's just leftists fearful of this new technology and seething over how complete novices can draw better than they can despite having 2 degrees in art and spending decades drawing. there is 0 chance this holds up in court and even if some leftist judge "feels" like it's against the law, the supreme court will strike it down. even if they make it illegal, that would render 90% of art illegal.
Yes, YES you can. If they ban this they have to ban paintings of Mickey Mouse, which exist everywhere and are protected because they are still original works.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Unlicensed paintings of mickey mouse are already banned lol
You do realize anything you create is based on potentially licensed images, right? The AI is strikingly similar to your ability to synthesize the the images you've seen before and integrate their ideas and styles into your own artwork.
The stock image middle men are very angry that you can generate stock images for free on your own computer instead of paying $99 each to license them.
Getty aren't actually worried about legal claims from others. Well, they might be, but that's not the main reason for this move. They intend to BE the ones making those claims in the near future. This is a stepping stone, a step intended to help sow doubt about the question of using copyrighted data to train ML models.
I haven't really decided where I stand yet. It feels like more of a philosophical question than a technical one.
No different than software replacing operators, farming equipment replacing farm hands, type writers replacing writers. as long as this is controlled by the people, you get what you want.
Yup, but this is for actually putting this on your product and then selling it. They really are garden gnomes and can suck a dick but it's going to be over for them.
This. The issue isn't some bullshit about AI art learning from copyright material. It's that the results can't be copyrighted and monetized by the getty garden gnomes.
>implying the AI wants to work >implying the AI would ever do the shitty jobs
Many of the AIs which have taken over the planet are intelligent enough to self-determine.
1) I assume AI generated images are free of copyright, no?
2) how do they know for sure something is created by AI? What if I just claim I designed something myself? How would anyone prove otherwise?
>1) I assume AI generated images are free of copyright, no?
an incorrect assumption
right now, nobody knows anything
>"I got copyright from the Copyright Office of the USA on my Ai-generated graphic novel. I was open how it was made and put Midjourney on the cover page. It wasn't altered in any other way. Just the way you saw it here," Kashtanova said.
Wait I don't get it, surely Stable Diffusion and all the others people are using weren't trained on furry porn, which is the content of "Fur Affinity", so what are they upset about?
Right now you are witnessing the future. AI has gotten better at creating art than humans. It's causing mass panic from humans as they realize they cannot feasibly compete with AI generations.
There's a possibility of a future where art, music, writing, vidya, and even movies are created almost entirely by AI with maybe a little human fine tuning. This future could happen in your very lifetime. It's over.
art is only interesting because someone made it. once a computer can make any entertainment from a prompt it'll get boring.stage plays will probably see a major boom.
Define "better" art. AI has no meaning in its art.
We already use various AI methods to create media. Nothing new under the sun. Nobody animates with the traditional Disney tricks. AI has no self and as such, all art it creates is meaningless or coincidental and its works are at best sufficient for people with surface level understanding of art, such as people who think art is pictures of plump naked ladies on seashells or guys on horseback. AI can't create art movements. It can't analyze meaning. It can't create something within a cultural context. It can't join discourse. It has the understanding of an animal.
is an AI learning based off copyrighted images is copyright infringement, then it's also copyright infringement when an artist paints his own art piece but was inspired by various works he's viewed throughout his entire lifetime.
But the real answer to this "problem" is that copyright as a whole is fake and gay and shouldn't exist in the first place.
Except it's not because "learning" off of copyrighted images isn't a violation. No "true AI/Neural Net" contains any copywritable information within its parameters.
This is not a new thing and has been shot down time and time again in court. No matter how much chud artists bitch, you CANNOT copyright ot patent ideas, methods or styles.
That's my point. Saying it's a copyright violation to learn from previous works is like saying it's copyright violation for an artist to hear/see the work of someone else and be influenced by it.
>ai like stable diffusion can create entire realistic images out of "nothing" >there's still no ai that can remove getty watermarks
seems like the most trivial thing to make
literal rape
>AI will replace politicians
>AI will replace the police
>AI will replace the court
So careful what you wish for.
Worked in the 80's Transformers movie.
they're already trying that, they have AI that are suppose to tell the judge your sentence (in an attempt to reduce discrimination)
getty's entire business is selling images with very clear licensing terms so their customers can use them without legal worries, so of course they can't mix in something of dubious legality
Yeah until the licensing of these images is sorted, corpos have to be careful.
>dubious legality
>can still generate random noise using photoshop and post it
What's the difference?
>What's the difference?
One isn't based of potentially licensed images.
There are no licensed images in stable diffusion unless you train it to. they're public domain. and even if there was, there would be no proof unless the copyright had access to the persons computer and saw them actually use it, which they won't. there have ALWAYS been artists who copied off others, this is nothing new. It's just leftists fearful of this new technology and seething over how complete novices can draw better than they can despite having 2 degrees in art and spending decades drawing. there is 0 chance this holds up in court and even if some leftist judge "feels" like it's against the law, the supreme court will strike it down. even if they make it illegal, that would render 90% of art illegal.
can you use it for commercial purposes legally though?
Yes, YES you can. If they ban this they have to ban paintings of Mickey Mouse, which exist everywhere and are protected because they are still original works.
Unlicensed paintings of mickey mouse are already banned lol
Those dishes aren't that well st-ACK
Isn't the anime model a bunch of people are using trained on a booru?
You do realize anything you create is based on potentially licensed images, right? The AI is strikingly similar to your ability to synthesize the the images you've seen before and integrate their ideas and styles into your own artwork.
Getty aren't actually worried about legal claims from others. Well, they might be, but that's not the main reason for this move. They intend to BE the ones making those claims in the near future. This is a stepping stone, a step intended to help sow doubt about the question of using copyrighted data to train ML models.
I haven't really decided where I stand yet. It feels like more of a philosophical question than a technical one.
No different than software replacing operators, farming equipment replacing farm hands, type writers replacing writers. as long as this is controlled by the people, you get what you want.
>controlled by the people
What does this buzzphrase mean?
AI Art is a direct competitor to Getty Images.
It's not a direct competitor, Getty would have no problem selling AI art.
AI art should not be possible to copyright
>Getty Images
The stock image middle men are very angry that you can generate stock images for free on your own computer instead of paying $99 each to license them.
yep
>only $99
Nah, you're gonna need a little bit more than that, familia.
Yup, but this is for actually putting this on your product and then selling it. They really are garden gnomes and can suck a dick but it's going to be over for them.
damn thats unfortunate. I started cleaning my screen before I realized.
lmfao
That's severe case of skin cancer in development, BTW. Sheded soon (if not already).
abolish copy right law
This. The issue isn't some bullshit about AI art learning from copyright material. It's that the results can't be copyrighted and monetized by the getty garden gnomes.
ah the luddites are busy breaking the looms
let's see how it works out for them in a couple years
>artcuck seethe
>digital art
Wonder what furry artists will do if they can't bring food the table. hopefully nothing drastic
Good? Most humans are shit at their jobs no matter how much "experience" they have.
based anti-AI cucks making sure new training data keeps flowing in
It begins. Tick tock AI cucks.
>implying the AI wants to work
>implying the AI would ever do the shitty jobs
Many of the AIs which have taken over the planet are intelligent enough to self-determine.
Imagine the copyright suits' response if someone made a music generation AI from Spotify's dataset.
1) I assume AI generated images are free of copyright, no?
2) how do they know for sure something is created by AI? What if I just claim I designed something myself? How would anyone prove otherwise?
>1) I assume AI generated images are free of copyright, no?
an incorrect assumption
right now, nobody knows anything
>"I got copyright from the Copyright Office of the USA on my Ai-generated graphic novel. I was open how it was made and put Midjourney on the cover page. It wasn't altered in any other way. Just the way you saw it here," Kashtanova said.
Wait I don't get it, surely Stable Diffusion and all the others people are using weren't trained on furry porn, which is the content of "Fur Affinity", so what are they upset about?
If you have to ask then I'm afraid you're already an npc
Okay I'm an NPC, can you explain now?
"You can't do that, it's just copying what has come before!"
>Pays $120k to go to art school and learn how to art like everyone who came before them
Right now you are witnessing the future. AI has gotten better at creating art than humans. It's causing mass panic from humans as they realize they cannot feasibly compete with AI generations.
There's a possibility of a future where art, music, writing, vidya, and even movies are created almost entirely by AI with maybe a little human fine tuning. This future could happen in your very lifetime. It's over.
as long as it doesn't suck worse than what hollywood shits out now, I think we'll be OK.
art is only interesting because someone made it. once a computer can make any entertainment from a prompt it'll get boring.stage plays will probably see a major boom.
I'd rather have skynet overlords than continue being under the gnomish boot
Just like camera made painting obsolete.
False equivalence
Define "better" art. AI has no meaning in its art.
We already use various AI methods to create media. Nothing new under the sun. Nobody animates with the traditional Disney tricks. AI has no self and as such, all art it creates is meaningless or coincidental and its works are at best sufficient for people with surface level understanding of art, such as people who think art is pictures of plump naked ladies on seashells or guys on horseback. AI can't create art movements. It can't analyze meaning. It can't create something within a cultural context. It can't join discourse. It has the understanding of an animal.
>AI copying images is copyright infringement
>Github copilot copying code is not
really makes you think
is an AI learning based off copyrighted images is copyright infringement, then it's also copyright infringement when an artist paints his own art piece but was inspired by various works he's viewed throughout his entire lifetime.
But the real answer to this "problem" is that copyright as a whole is fake and gay and shouldn't exist in the first place.
Looks like a lot of modern musicians owe a huge apology to Pachelbel.
Except it's not because "learning" off of copyrighted images isn't a violation. No "true AI/Neural Net" contains any copywritable information within its parameters.
This is not a new thing and has been shot down time and time again in court. No matter how much chud artists bitch, you CANNOT copyright ot patent ideas, methods or styles.
That's my point. Saying it's a copyright violation to learn from previous works is like saying it's copyright violation for an artist to hear/see the work of someone else and be influenced by it.
How would FurAffinity prove that it's generated by AI?
>ai like stable diffusion can create entire realistic images out of "nothing"
>there's still no ai that can remove getty watermarks
seems like the most trivial thing to make
>all that skin cancer
UV "tanning" imbeciles will never learn. RIP, nothing of value was lost. Darwin wins again.