So now that its established that AI art uses other art as a template, then its safe to say that it violates copyright, right?

So now that it’s established that AI art uses other art as a template, then it’s safe to say that it violates copyright, right?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what a stupid thing to think

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s literally intellectual theft anon
      They are running other people’s works through an equation without any meaningful input on their end. That is copyright infringement

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >without any meaningful input on their end.
        Only a judge can decide if its fair use, not some random retard on the internet. Unless you have a couple hundred grand to take some random jeet to court you're shit out of luck

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >theft
        This was never a good analogy, it's closer to rape

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >stealing 0s and 1s

        >theft
        This was never a good analogy, it's closer to rape

        >raping 0s and 1s

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          STEALING BINARY DATA IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE... IT JUST IS OK!?!?!?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Define stealing

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              ok, bad use of words. copying

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >raping 0s and 1s
          Not the numbers. The artists

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >without any meaningful input
        it's the prompt and the noise

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I said meaningful input
          Typing "big boobed anime girl" is not meaningful input

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you shut your whore mouth

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thousands of artists are running other people's work through their brain and taking money for the result without any meaningful input from their end, and that is fine as far as copyright is considered. Actually we should ban layers from photoshop so people can't trace other artists precious poses that they traced from someone else.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But in that case, there's a transformative effort being done on your part
        With the AI, however, you're just running other artists' images through some equations. It's effectively no different from putting a filter over some other images

        >The AI is doing a "transformative effort" as well.
        It is literally running it through some equations. Like I said, it's no different from putting a filter over a pre-existing image
        AIs don't "think" the way humans do. You can't really equate the two here

        >muh equation
        Unless you believe that your brain is literally magic all it's doing is running the input from your senses through an entirely algorithmic process that can be expressed with nothing more than the laws of physics.
        The only fundamental difference between you and an algorithm is that the algorithm doesn't think it's special.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not trying to talk philosophy here. I'm just pointing out that using AI art for commercial use wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, AIs are not placed on the same level as human beings in the law's eyes. I'm talking about copyright law here. I don't believe that AI art qualifies as fair use as a human isn't the ones making the art, but rather other people's art is just put through a complex series of equations

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't believe that AI art qualifies as fair use as a human isn't the ones making the art, but rather other people's art is just put through a complex series of equations
            I recommend you to look at the akilah Hughes vs Carl Benjamin case. The latter literally mashed together clips from the former's video, gave it a new title, and that was enough from a judges perspective to not only be considered fair use, but such an obvious example of fair use that Carl Benjamin was able to counter sue to clawback almost $40k in legal fees. The AI simply automates a similar process which itself isn't relevant to whether or not its been "transformed enough". With existing case law like and the real possibility of artgays getting counter sued for money they don't have, your kind are really facing an uphill battle here especially considering that big tech companies will most definitely pour millions to hire top tier law teams to defend their cash cows. Even if you can find some case law that supports your side, in gray areas like this, money wins at the end of the day.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              god i cant wait to get paid 600k retainers to publicly tank neural networks in court

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        All automobiles are infringement on Mercedes first car

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hands of a merchant from big nose tribe has typed this.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >intellectual theft
        Point me to a law that uses this terminology.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everybody uses established art as a template

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >artpoor sends basedjeet a DMCA notice
    >basedjeet sends artpoor a counter notice legally forcing website to restore his AI art
    >artpoor can't do shit cuz his only option is to sue and no lawyer will take a case against a jeet in some indian village on contingency

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wtf i love curries now

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Copyright is a meme and any individual that cares about it is deranged. The only time you should care is if you're selling a product and can get fucked over by courts.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where is my great free as in libre and open source software that doesn't just crash 24/7 that can't be used by normal people anywhere in the world?

      When copyright matters so little why haven't you made a Foss alternative to all the good stuff we have? Fuck I hate hypocrisy, its everywhere in the world because people just talk shit all the fucking time. Contribute to change if you think copyright/intellectual property is bs or stfu.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    art is plagiarism

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >then it’s safe to say that it violates copyright
    who cares? I'd rather have good AI than care about people sperging about whether it learned how to create said good artwork using their work
    they just don't want to be replaced by AI so they try to slow down what is inevitable regardless

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    yeah pretty soon someone is going to start making significant money ripping off some artist, and it'll end up in court, gets punted to the supreme or cjeu, which rules that yes that certainly is an abuse of the law, followed by either rewriting the current law through precendent, aka legislating from the bench (ussc) or new laws (eu)

    it's certainly more blatant than sampling in EDM, and that's not legal

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sure, same way that tracing violates ip artgay

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >learn how to draw from watching other artists
    >now all your art violates copyright since you learned from someone else, and therefore "stole" their work

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But in that case, there's a transformative effort being done on your part
      With the AI, however, you're just running other artists' images through some equations. It's effectively no different from putting a filter over some other images

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The AI is doing a "transformative effort" as well.
        There is no reason to believe there is any magic in the human brain.
        The AI is learning in a way similar to that which a human would learn.
        If a reasonable person would artistically deem the output image to be independent of the training image, it stands to reason that it would cease to be derivative.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The AI is doing a "transformative effort" as well.
          It is literally running it through some equations. Like I said, it's no different from putting a filter over a pre-existing image
          AIs don't "think" the way humans do. You can't really equate the two here

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where do you draw the line on "equation" complexity? Do chocolates sampling music in hip hop count as transformative? Or are they not as complex as yourself.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is literally running it through some equations. Like I said, it's no different from putting a filter over a pre-existing image
            The human brain, when drawing, is just passing a lifetime of preexisting images through a filter and then regurgitating it onto a canvas.
            >AIs don't "think" the way humans do. You can't really equate the two here
            If the art passes the Turing test, there is no way to empirically determine that there is any difference.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Dumb fucking chatbots from 10 years ago passed the Turing test because it's a retarded measure of anything.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well sweetie, it's an industry standard and it is highly probable that is the legal test that will emerge on copyright :^)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >chatbot industry standard

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              My guy, AIs do not have sentience. They are not making any deliberate decisions in the same way a human would make in the creative process. There is no comparing the two here

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If humans have sentience, AIs have sentience. What you call the creative process is just the unfolding of DNA predestinating you to become what you were always biologically programmed to become. Our environment and ourselves are one in the same, an ebb in the flow of evolution and programming.
                /stonerthoughtsblog

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If humans have sentience, AIs have sentience
                So by that logic, AIs deserve human rights

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It was a rhetorical thought provoking sentence. Also, at some point, I think AIs deserve rights too, but not yet, though at some point they should, when an evil scientist unironically makes them into autonomous super weapons.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Human rights is a spook

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you suggesting that sentience is equivalent to humanity?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              By sentience I mean humanity. I know the meaning isn't 1 to 1 but still

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >now that it’s established that AI art uses other art as a template
    How else would the CNNs have been trained?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    cope harder "artist"

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is a sub-zero IQ take. Every time you reference something else, you use it as a "template." Any fan-art image of a video game character uses that company's IP as a "template."

    That said, some of the stuff you can create with AI is so directly derivative of existing works that an "actual" artist that would create it traditionally would absolutely get shit for it, and the AI creation should as well -- the AI CREATION, not the AI itself. So the challenge in using it for any kind of commercial purpose on the long run will be the ability to make sure it is not too close to an existing work. The simplest way to achieve this is to make sure it references as wide an array of artists as possible to make sure it won't readily replicate anything extant -- which is the polar opposite of what seems to be going on.

    The absolute stupidest thing is that we already went through this shit a hundred years ago when referencing photographs became commonplace.

    Almost all art ever is the culmination of generations of prior artists. The artists of today are being fucking inconsiderate and self-centered thinking that now their stupid tumblr fan art is special and no-one can be allowed learn from it.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh NOW you care about copyright?

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Until someone takes it to the courts nobody knows.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Copyright pertains to the image itself not learning from it. So no.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i thank god walter benjamin isnt alive to see this

Your email address will not be published.