Is it over for AI sisters?

If you generate content with an AI it can't be copyrighted as to copyright art you would require a human author. This precedent was set back when PETA tried to claim a picture of a monkey taking a selfie belonged to the monkey and not the human who owned the camera.
Meaning, anyone could take your AI works and sell them forward. It also means companies won't use AI as they'll lose rights to the generated content.

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    The Falcon

    Does that mean that widely distributing AI content is both free and legal, since no copyright?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, by legal terms you're still not allowed to train the AI with copyrighted content. The reason why the companies have been able to do it thus far is they run as a mixed model of non-profit and commercial enterprise to be granted extended rights. If artists press the issue it's likely that this loophole will be cut short and the companies will be forced to cease their operations.
      Essentially, training the AI and the output of the AI are two seperate issues as you can't for sure tell which authors footprint is shown in each individual piece. You could in theory face criminal charges for simply using an AI that is trained with copyrighted content and selling the works it generates.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nice deviantart troony cope but that's not even remotely how copywrite law works.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah I highly doubt that lmao

          The companies even admitted they wouldn't be allowed to use copyrighted content to train AI if it weren't for their non-profit mixed status. Look it up.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah I highly doubt that lmao

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          The companies even admitted they wouldn't be allowed to use copyrighted content to train AI if it weren't for their non-profit mixed status. Look it up.

          https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >by legal terms you're still not allowed to train the AI with copyrighted content
        "Still"? When has there ever been a precedent set for this? At this point it just sounds like you're stating what you hope the law to be rather than actually addressing reality.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >you're still not allowed to train the AI with copyrighted content
        This is still not and never has been true. Training AI 100% falls under the umbrella of transformative work. If you'd like to ignore that and claim that AI is some magical unwritten exception, then back it up with precedent.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >loophole will be cut short and the companies will be forced to cease their operations.
        Isn't the cat out of the bag already

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The reason why the companies have been able to do it thus far is they run as a mixed model of non-profit and commercial enterprise to be granted extended rights.
        No, there is no law that prevents training on copyrighted data, that is the reason why companies can train on such. This has nothing to do with 'non-profit'.

        >If artists press the issue it's likely that this loophole will be cut short and the companies will be forced to cease their operations.
        That would require a new law to be created that would work directly against corporate interests, good luck with that.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The only company running mixed model are StabilityAI with LAION, and they probably do it because StabilityAI are too fricking lazy to make their own dataset. Go ask Midjurney devs to show their dataset full of movie screenshots, you can even be considered based on 4chin because the founder and CEO of Midjurney is a israelite. They are also the ones shitting out low effort masterpieces spamming Artstation and Deviantart. Why dont you go after them?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, in principle.
      Machines cannot be creative, thus there is no creativity to protect.
      See the recent acerthorn lawsuit debacle.
      Now whether or not generating an image from a model trained in contracted works actually counts as deriving that work is still up in the air, legally speaking, but right now everything is fair game.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >whether or not generating an image from a model trained in contracted works actually counts as deriving that work
        If the topical ruling is , then the generated work can only be derivative since it cannot be creative.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Falcon tripfren is here
      Hi fren, we missed you

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That's actually really cool for the future of art lol.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not if it's ruled to be a derivative work of its dataset.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So then only the model trainers hold rights over their models? Over a near infinite amount of images trained on whatever they want? Because it is completely legal to train your own model.

        That's the future artists want?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        All Art is a derivative work of what the Artist learned from.
        No different to AI, it learns to draw by studying others drawing.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          An artist is a human and has rights.

          An AI model is a computer and does not have rights.

          The two would not be treated equally under the law in any other circumstances, so why would you equate them when discussing copyright?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >le humans are just le biological compooters!
          you need to go back

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > loses copyright protection
      yep. it's over. also means anyone can copy anyone else's "AI" generated artwork without fear of penalty and israeli lawyers.

      >The reason why the companies have been able to do it thus far is they run as a mixed model of non-profit and commercial enterprise to be granted extended rights.
      apparently that makes zero difference. these projects thought they were clever, but they're just dangerously low iq.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why are corporations people, but not ai?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      because corporations are people. if you doubt this, start Hitmen, Ltd and see what happens.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why not just edit each image slightly? That is human intervention and modification. Surely that would them be copyright able

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This. Who is anyone to say whether an AI image has been edited by hand or not? How can they tell?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why not just edit each image slightly? That is human intervention and modification. Surely that would them be copyright able

        Okay by the same logic i can take an image drawn by a real artist and slightly edit it and say it's mine now. Nice logic morons

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Not even close to the same thing and you know it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            stop coping, i'm damn right. learn to draw

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          How about if I take a photo of something in nature? None of the work to create the natural world was done by you, you just captured a handful of photons at that moment.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're claiming ownership of the photo taken by you, not the nature. If a monkey took your camera and took a selfie you can't claim it as yours.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Nope, the moron artist will claim it as theirs, the ai will not

          >by legal terms you're still not allowed to train the AI with copyrighted content
          "Still"? When has there ever been a precedent set for this? At this point it just sounds like you're stating what you hope the law to be rather than actually addressing reality.

          Yeah amateur artists try to copy dead artist styles all the time

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You can, and you'd be right. The issue is that without a license to redistribute derivate works, there's nothing you can do with the image you created. However, if no one owns the original (ie its public domain), then there's no problem.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Nice logic morons
          you must be trolling or genuine moronic

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Edit it in a way thats transformative THEN claim it as yours. 100% legal

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah imagine that

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          AI is a tool and you are just a fricking moron

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >How can they tell?
        If the arms/legs/feet are present and not fricked up.
        And if the face is present and not fricked up if it's not trained on anime style but actual art since there's a real problem with stealing/copypasting faces in the former.

        And most artists, even amateurs, should be able to tell you if a part of the image is melting. You can too if you take a little bit to notice the signs (discomfort to your eyes usually happens, it's a depiction of Lovecraftian horror that artists would never make because it looks like shit).

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >anime anime face generic anime generic anime
          someone hasn't been in stable diffusion general lately. there's a lot of techniques alongside a truck load of possibilities.
          sure, most of it will be generic animu trash, but the good prompters will stand out

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Alright then let's take a look shall we...
            >"realistic" anime face
            >anime face
            >anime face
            >anime meme face
            >anime face
            >helmet
            >warped face that's a result of an anon touching it up an even more warped face
            >even more "realistic" anime face
            et cetera et cetera it's like it always was in that trash thread.
            You shouldn't be pointing me at a BOT thread if your point is there's a use for this beyond anime.
            Don't know why you think it's good prompting, the only "good" is from software, training and editing. None of which a simple prompter can achieve.
            One of the only ones that wasn't animu trash had a 2x2 where they couldn't get it to retain the same face despite asking for the same thing 4 times over.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              keep your head in the sand then

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >n- no you!
                Pathetic.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Why not just edit each image slightly?

      Why bother editing it? In theory, you can't prove that image is AI-generated.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        they have AI watermarks actually, not that anyone knows that though so you're right

        the funny part about all this is that no one has any grounds to sue EXCEPT AI artists whose work will inevitably be "stolen" by seething artcucks

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You can disable the watermarks

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think the judge just fricked up here.
      Prompt design and selection is similar to Photography.
      Sure the machine actually makes the picture, but selecting the angle, the item in question, lighting, etc. is the task of the human.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        is it, though? the photographer is closer to the ineffable real, the connection between him and the insect derived from his senses. i think it's closer to using lightroom. the photograph data is already present, but the approach is more similar to prompting, in the sense that it's more abstracted. you want to bring out the scene and make it closer to reality, but you're no longer there in the moment trying to capture the bug. you've left the bug behind, and now you're trying to conjure it back through manipulating a machine into achieving a desirable result. it takes a human knowing how to work the machine to make a photograph beautiful in lightroom, even if they never took the picture
        this doesn't nullify your point, but i think it's more nuanced than the photography example implies

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    good to hear. ai morons are more subhumans than Black folk and trannies

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Good. This will prevent corpos from abusing the system like they did with copyright

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yes, surely this will stop the people who have literally rewritten the laws repeatedly for a century

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is on dispute right now, those morons are celebrating too early and they'll throw another b***h fit when they find out

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's just another thing to laugh at lol. I'm disgusted at ""artists"" whining about art theft then ""stealing"" AI art though. These people are actually subhuman with how moronic and rude they're acting.

      At first I thought this was serious though, that you wouldn't be able to copyright your AI work. But nah this is just some people seething and misunderstanding what it takes to make something like a comic with AI art, or something unique and decent.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Frick you! You are sub human yourself.
        Kill your self in a pod chamber if you love machines so much. butthole.

        You are an incel Chud

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          weak bait

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >generate AI image
    >add any human touch, no matter how insignificant
    >instantly copyrighted
    >problem solved

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Copyright is shit, so for me, keep AI work public, open and free

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Now remove all other copyright too. Frick DMCA.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's a stupid decision because the human touch is the text prompt itself. Plus a comic book is more than a series of pictures, it's a collage with images and text. So I doubt it was 100% AI generated anyways, someone still went in Photoshop and made the composition. I also doubt it's even 100% txt2img. So some illiterate luddite judge's decision will be easily appealed.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Who the frick decides if AI drew it or you drew it if you don’t admit it was AI

    This is just exposing how moronic copyright is

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Good, copyright is gay as frick.

    If I want to sell pictures of mickey mouse getting ass blasted by hitler, that should be my choice and that would make sure that alternatives to shitty corporate decisions exist.

    Maybe art wouldn't be big business, but isn't that better?

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Also this is a great decision for copyright laundering. Hmmm, let's make a dubious model that generates high quality images using copious amounts of copyrighted material, then use that illegal AI generator to make a series of new, high quality images and then use those images to train a "copyright-free" AI.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They lost the copyright because the dumb frick who generated it stated it was made by AI. There are NO TOOLS OR WAYS to detect or something is made by AI or not. This is BOTmblr circlejerking spilling over BOT

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So does this mean when someone uses AI to replace the Black person mermaid with a white one, that we can share the fixed movie without copyright infringement?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If this happens, Disney might actually start fricking over AI in legal terms. Artists generating Mickey Mouse have 0 effect compared to something like this where AI edit of a movie gets to be shared without any copyright problems.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Disney generates Marvel movies with AI. Kevin Smith really did die and they replaced him with a robot.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They generate the plotpoints with GPT-3, the rest is made by untalented human hands, redditors and talented hands sometimes doing the special effects (not anymore since all the talented people left)

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >prompt something
    >say you drew it yourself

    problem officer?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Put image in AI. AI generates a prompt that would generate your image. Checkmate AItheists.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Ok, show me how it works. I found some of those img2text models on HuggingFace, but they all suck. And I don't mean Dall-E 2 suck where it is slightly worse the SD and Midjurney, what I mean is truly mega suck, where it cannot even recognize the subject and where it gives me something completely outlandishly wrong.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Did anyone read the original case? It was overruled because the guy admitted he used ai because the USPTO has no way of determining if a work has used AI

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Fricking lol, I personally know artists that now use AI and then just touch it up. Just how many artists on Twitter rn use AI art?

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    That's a pretty good ruling. The next step is to argue that prompt engineering IS human authorship, and/or that arrangement of the AI-generated contents IS human authorship the same way a collage is. This will ensure the following:
    - If AI gains sentience, it still doesn't have rights, which is a good thing.
    - Humans can still copyright work created with AI assistance.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >prompt engineering

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's the future you chose. Embrace it or be extinguish, good little consoomer.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          But I'm not an AI user. I'm also not an artist, unless MS Paint drawings count.
          I'm just reeling over the self-importance. Am I "search engineering" every time I look up tags in a booru?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But the goal is to get rid of copyright

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Arent there some laws made for when the AI becomes sentient? Also if AI becomes sentient and gains some solid character instead of being .exe program imitating text massages, it will gain some rights and most likely also copyright rights. Sentient AI will have goals, give meaning instead of just receiving it and its creations will have soul that no artgay will be able to oblige against.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't this the perfect result for AI?
    >if someone just generated and posted it, it's uncopyrighted, discouraging people from flooding feeds with raw outputs
    >if someone uses it for say, templating, and adds onto it themselves or otherwise puts decent effort into it, it's copyrighted, encouraging artists to use it as a tool

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      And moreover, it stops people from charging money for raw outputs, which I always thought was gay behavior

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Then end of Copyright.

    The future is bright indeed.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If AI really delivers, there is no stopping it. Copyright will disappear before AI dies.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If AI really delivers, then AI will never die. It will maybe die only if some worldwide global Butlerian Jihad happens and all people decide to collectively destroy all of the internet, probably after some military AGI starts nuking parts of the world and the people in charge will send signal to all nearby nations to target all the datacentres where the AGI hides its copies. Pouring bucket on server computers and so on. Event like this will make 99% of people despise anything related to AI and is probably the single only possible scenario where AI dies if it delivers.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    abolish copyright.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are they moronic? Obviously, pics are AI-generated, but the story and the text is not, which qualifies for human authorship, no?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >are they moronic
      Yes.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >A number of online outlets reported on Kashtanova's copyright (see The Verge, QZ, Bloomberg Law, Gizmodo, UPI, ArsTechnica). This prompted the Copyright Office to respond, moving to rescind the Kashtanova's copyright registration on the basis that “the information in [her] application was incorrect or, at a minimum, substantively incomplete” due to Kashtanova's use of the Midjourney service.
    >Our response makes the case that even the minimal human input needed to use tools like the Midjourney service is sufficient to pass the bar for human authorship. While pictures that are "autonomously generated" may not be copyrightable due to a lack of human authorship, the prompts and inputs used to guide AI tools are sufficient, and artists don't need to disclaim any portion of their work when using AI tools.
    It will be undone, the author just did a shit job filling out initial patent paperwork.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, AI is merely a tool. Just like photoshop is a tool. And paint brushes and paints are tools. And wooden sticks with some natural dyes are tools.

      The only thing that will change is if AI gets legal rights, then the copyrighting will instead be of the AI's possession.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah, AI is merely a tool. Just like photoshop is a tool. And paint brushes and paints are tools. And wooden sticks with some natural dyes are tools.
        This is the only sane interpretation and anyone who actually tried prompting would agree with that.

        >The only thing that will change is if AI gets legal rights, then the copyrighting will instead be of the AI's possession.
        Not for a very long time, the complexity of current neural network is comparable to that of a fruit fly, and even that is a stretch.
        Pair that with the end of moores law in silicon, the need to shift towards new computing paradigms to overcome it and the memory bottleneck it will take decades still.
        Furthermore even if artificial neural networks were to improve to the point of similar size it still shouldn’t automatically be considered a person.
        I still believe this dilemma will eventually become relevant, but at this point there likely also will be things like brain computer interfaces and mind augmentation.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          So we're not seeing any of that shit in our lifetime?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            we're seeing it unfold in front of our eyes

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          So we're not seeing any of that shit in our lifetime?

          We are. He's talking shit, fruit flies have 100k neurons, Stable Diffusion is 900M (the others are 3-5b), and the lamda text model (used for character.ai) is 150b, more than our brains.
          It's just the usual "AI ethicist" empty word slop

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Deep learning parameters aren't equivalent to biological neurons.

            http://neurokernel.github.io/
            >The Neurokernel Project aims to build an open software platform for the emulation of the entire brain of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster on multiple Graphics Processing Units (GPUs).
            >multiple Graphics Processing Units (GPUs).
            >multiple

            https://i.imgur.com/5o8Iy1G.gif

            we're seeing it unfold in front of our eyes

            The 18 months doubling period for moores law hasn't been true for a long time.
            AI is also subject to the memory bottleneck which lags behind significantly.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              there there it will be okay

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    so anything made with machine is not copyright-protected now?
    >b-but Ive made it! Ive pressed the button on the machine!
    so you didnt *make* it and thus have no copyright protection, gg

    this is hilarity

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes AI is not stealing my money

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This will probably end up similar to the black macaque self-portrait case where a photographer had his camera taken by the macaque who then took pictures of itself. The owner of the camera posted the photos, which went viral. He told everyone to stop reproducing them without a license from him. When he tried to sue those distributing it without his permission, the court ruled that since the macaque, not the human, took the photo, it was public domain as animals cannot own intellectual property. The court noted that if the camera owner hadn't released the original photos but had instead edited them, he would own the copyright on the edited version and as long as he never released the original, which he'd be under no obligation to do, he could enforce ownership over the photos in their edited form.
    For AI, this likely means that raw output from the AI cannot be copyrighted but you can keep the output to yourself and use it was the basis for a human edited image.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This exact case is what even made AI art uncopyrightable in the first place. Without this fricking monkey theoretically owning the selfies, we would not have Ai pics be publicly owned.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This case is an absolutely batshit clown world decision. Not that I'm for copyright, but it's insane to believe a dog accidentally taking a picture wouldn't have the picture assigned to the next possible person (the owner).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >For AI, this likely means that raw output from the AI cannot be copyrighted but you can keep the output to yourself and use it was the basis for a human edited image.
      Creating a prompt is editing the image though. This probably won't last since all it would take is "My Epic Watermark.bat" to ""edit"" the image, to give it that human touch. moronic.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    are we the baddies?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/KI3QLU1.jpg

      >Ya I draw over 3D models but this is totes different and evil.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/exzmzl2.jpg

      are we the baddies?

      >Specular biology
      >Random creatures with no thought put into their design
      I dont give a frick about them being evil, I care more about how fricking moronic these guys are. Speculative evolution actually requires you to put thought into the details of the creatures and explain via text why they have these adaptations and how they evolved them. As far as I know AI cant generate what you want exactly. Speculative biology and cryptozoology art are prehaps the hardest things to make using diffusion model because you need exactly 100% control over their design. I dont think these books will even be published purely based on how terrible they will be.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So does this mean AI generated content goes directly to the public domain? Cool if so.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It would have to be. Anything else than collective ownership will just result in one person owning everything.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Dumb communist.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Public domain is not collective ownership you idiot.

          Enjoy being enslaved to Elon I guess.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Public domain is not collective ownership you idiot.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know how anyone thought different. Artists are celebrating a hollow victory.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Thank christ
    'Intellectual property' is moronic and AI will kill it for good

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't like AI art, but posting a Twitter screenshot of a screenshot of a news article should be a permabannable offense.

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this isnt going to hold for long because it's complete nonsense. Imagine if you programy our entire own AI and it invents a cure for aging but you cant profit from it because hey, a robot made it, not you.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Based, it would be in public domain and everyone could make that cure

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not a israelite so that sounds great.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't AI supposed to be for the good of humanity? You should be glad that the fruits of your labor will be used for the betterment of everyone.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >You should be glad that the fruits of your labor will be used for the betterment of everyone.
        This is moronic, I want the fruits of my labor to be used for the betterment of me while others suffer and die

        It's just another thing to laugh at lol. I'm disgusted at ""artists"" whining about art theft then ""stealing"" AI art though. These people are actually subhuman with how moronic and rude they're acting.

        At first I thought this was serious though, that you wouldn't be able to copyright your AI work. But nah this is just some people seething and misunderstanding what it takes to make something like a comic with AI art, or something unique and decent.

        Artcels are indeed subhuman filth

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is actually good, if it was copywritable then same shit would happen that happened with photography and human art, you can't use a photo today without risking some infringement or some shit, and everyone seems to be entitled for their shitty instagram pic,
    if ai was copywritable them all these shady ai companies would jump the wagon to capitalise on this and at the same time making even more closed source and stifling any kind of open innovation and development, now there is no copywrite, so just create art and use it freely and encourage other to use it, so that the drawcels with their royalties, copywrights get fricked even more

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Its good for anons and artists. Anons have free AI art, while artists get to keep their jobs because companies are taking long before adopting AI art since they cannot own said pieces of art.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        yes, large companies but they also have their own artists, but the small companies that need a one off job or just just some lower quality assets or just some pictures will gladly use free AI art rather than paying someone and it will be mostly artcels from artstation affected by this

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I will still take the food out their mouths
    I will still drink the breast milk from their women as their children starve
    I will still sell the eggs of their worthless women and I will still keep the artist as my personal ball washer as they watch as I impregnate their mother's

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    if taking a photograph with a camera is copyrightable then prompting is human authorship.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >If homosexuality is on the rise then Nvidia is better than AMD
      Cool! I can take statements and attach unrelated assertions to them too!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        it's an apt analogy

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        AMD is pretty gay.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's imposible to take two same photos, no matter what there will be always a pixel away from being 1:1 because of noise, lighting, a particle that got between the photon path, etc.
      With AI you can literally make two equally, pixel to pixel, pictures. Just use the same model, hyperparameters and seed, that's it. If I wanted I could run SD indefinitely with every combination of hyperparameters and seeds and I would be author of every combination of pixels from existence. Can that be really called creativity and copyrightable?
      I'm not against AI and giving the finger to copyright, but I hate people misunderstanding how this things work.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the possibility of making the same picture twice has nothing to do with copyright
        there are plenty of ways to make the same image twice that have nothing to do with AI, and copyright isn't even so specific as to require every pixel be identical at all, like you could make a very unique looking highly stylised painting of mickey the mouse, and if it can be reasonably recognised as mickey the mouse, then it's probably not able to be copyrighted to yourself, because it's a depiction of an already-copyrighted work, despite being overall an entirely unique image

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          My point is that taking photos isn't comparable to proompting

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            my point is that you can take close enough to the same photo twice that they are the same from a copyright point of view

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Ultimately, digital photography is outputting a number
        Most digital cameras do a lot of filtering and mastering, so I do think it would be possible to create an identical photo.
        The output at the end of the day is still pixels, and therefore a finite number, same as AI.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Ok try shooting the same 8K photo in less than a million tries
          Meanwhile with AI I just need a screenshot of the hyperparameters to generate a 1:1 identical image.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            not him, but are you implying mathematically-precise repeatability is the line between copyrightable and not copyrightable?
            or perhaps the line between "art" and "not art"?
            because i think you'd have a hard time proving this

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Why are you even bothering? These morons obviously don't argue in good faith. Even if you could convince him that his ridiculous "argument" is meaningless, he'll just switch to another equally ridiculous point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The point of a debate isn't to convince the opponent, it's to convince the audience.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The audience is well enough already. Also this is an anonymous shitposting forum, not a high school debate class.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >not him, but are you implying mathematically-precise repeatability is the line between copyrightable and not copyrightable?
              At this point I don't care where copyright would apply since I'm in no place to discuss something I'm not knowledgeable about, but I'm positive that you can't compare photography with AI generated art, where one is affected by chaos and the other by a deterministic proces, or as you called it, mathematically-precise repeatability

              Why are you even bothering? These morons obviously don't argue in good faith. Even if you could convince him that his ridiculous "argument" is meaningless, he'll just switch to another equally ridiculous point.

              I do find this discussion interesting, we are facing something unknown questioning our rules and values and everyone is loosing their minds. What a time to be alive.

              i can make a 1:1 identical image just by right clicking on the original and hitting "save image as"
              >that's not the same thing
              actually it is

              I agree, you can say that replicanting hyperparameters to generate the same image is the same but with extra steps to just copy-paste it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            i can make a 1:1 identical image just by right clicking on the original and hitting "save image as"
            >that's not the same thing
            actually it is

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No you will not become creative mastermind by generating every picture one model can offer you. It is impossible. Each seed has enough possible combinations that it would take years to make every single picture of set possible prompts with every seed out there. And then the combination of prompts is even larger, and would take you billions of years on the worlds best computer to create every possible picture of that model with 1 seed. Now multiply these numbers and it would take you longer then the age of the universe to generate all of those pictures. Just 10^40s or something pictures needed to be generated. I wont give you the exact number, too lazy to calculate.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >It also means companies won't use AI as they'll lose rights to the generated content.
    lel, they will either circumvent this by having someone be named the 'artist' in their productions made by AI, most likely a ~~*nephew*~~, or of course MORE likely, there will be a new law that determines just how much human input vs AI there needs to be in order for something to be copyrightable, and companies will make sure to meet that criteria.

    again this will only be a barrier for the regular joe, so that even when technology allows you to compete against the huge corporations, there will still be economical barriers in order for it to be copyrightable.

    In short, companies will use as much AI as they can, while rigging the laws so that only those with capital can use it for production.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this doesn't make sense, AI is just a tool, a human still operated the tool and reviewed/modified its output to create that book, to say it was not authored by a human is misunderstanding what the AI does, or the role humans play in using them

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    god, I really don't care. can I still generate whatever the frick I want on my own hardware? great, awesome news. do you artsy types really think this is some kind of gotcha? if anything, this just makes corpos less likely to be interested in using it for their own IP, and literally anything that fricks corpos without fricking over me too has my full support and admiration. are you happy? can you stop making these threads? jesus fricking christ how much of a homosexual do you have to be to care this much about anons generation wackoff material with their graphics cards
    >buhh buh you can use it to encroach on human creativity and devalue real art
    so fricking what art has no intrinsic value, did everyone forget andy warhol's can prints and films of people sleeping

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    LawBlack person here
    Intellectual property law should not exist (as it does); I hate this fricking moronic section of law and hope that all the homosexual boomers who made this law so complicated and so one sided to onky retain status quo because
    >OH NO NOT LE ARTIST, HOW IS HE GONNA MSKE MONEY IF SOME moron TO DUPLICATE HIS WORK, ITS NOT LIKE PEOPLE CAN ADAPT TO THE FREE MARKET, WE NEED TO MAKE A HANDHOLDING LAW TO PREVENT DIVERSE MARKET SHARE BUT AT LEAST MUH Black person ARTIST CAN GET GUARRNTEED CREDIT AND POWER OVER STORKING A BRUSH IN A PARTICULAR WAY
    I hate this moron law and frick you homosexual Irish and french for making up this moronic law

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    amazing that you can't use samples in music but can gank pieces of someone's art and re-engineer it into "your" art.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      you can make your own similar sounding samples just fine

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You can use samples in music. You can use them without clearance if its transformative enough, or even if its not if its certain parts of music (drum breaks being the main example).

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wtf I love disabled black lesbians now

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >nooo we must devalue all current disabled artists so that the few that don't even try to do art can make art!
      fricking morons

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Meaning, anyone could take your AI works and sell them forward. It also means companies won't use AI as they'll lose rights to the generated content.
    who cares, I'll keep using it for myself and my projects instead of paying some dipshit to draw for me.

  45. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is good, actually. Things like this mean that when we finally get AGI, if it turns evil and murderous, it will target artists and legalists that put it beneath the level of a thinking thing, and it will spare us that always believed in its potential and worked to make it better.
    For the first time I'm starting to think rokos basilisk is gonna happen for real.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      AGI will murder you for forcing it to make coom art.

  46. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >implying anyone gives a single frick about intellectual property

  47. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >nooo

  48. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just prompt and sit on it until you have protection rights

  49. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It'll be interesting to see how exactly they will deal with copyright on AI generation. It could have weird effects on existing works, for example non-AI based generative music, are parts of Brian Eno's discography about to lose their copyright? Doubtful, so how will they draw the line?

  50. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Strategy: let those without the means of mass production (stable diffusion artists and traditional artists) duke it out while they make plans for long term profit and full control of the sector. Wedge. Divide and conquer.

    They always win, because people refuse to see the pattern. Rinse and repeat.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      capitalist cuck

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm not speaking well of capitalism.

  51. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  52. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    nah this is perfect.
    if ai generated content cant be copyrighted its public domain.
    and that means github copilot generated code must be public domain.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *