The once-prophesized future where cheap, AI-generated trash content floods out the hard work of real humans is already here, and is already taking over Facebook.
I know you’re wanting to argue your point, so I’m only going to say one thing. Yes, it is sometimes stealing. Not all of the time, but some of the time. If you use a live artist as a prompt for selling and that artist isn’t getting paid (like musicians now do with sampling), then yes it’s stealing. You’re not only stealing their work, but you’re also stealing their business.
Thanks, I hate it. Your article is going into the current law and how it doesn’t compare to the new way of stealing. The spirit of copyright law is, if you made it, you have the rights to it because you made it. You can sell it, decide what happens to it, etc., for a certain amount of time. The laws need to change, not the artists just accepting that their work and style will be stolen because corporations figured out a way to steal more from the already not paid enough group.
This part especially, is absolute bullshit:
The theory of the class-action suit is extremely dangerous for artists. If the plaintiffs convince the court that you’ve created a derivative work if you incorporate any aspect of someone else’s art in your own work, even if the end result isn’t substantially similar, then something as common as copying the way your favorite artist draws eyes could put you in legal jeopardy.
They’re trying to say, “Haven’t you been “inspired” by someone else? How can you judge this widdle ole’ computer program then?” Fuckers, please. Someone being inspired by someone else is already a gray area in copyright law. See any musician being sued by the Marvin Gaye family.
Now use the analogy of taking a single artist who has a decent living making their own stye of art. Now take 10,000 artists trying to copy the "style* of that artist and put those completed works out in 10 seconds as opposed to your work, which takes skill building, your imagination and time. The current copyright laws aren’t meant for AI, they should be ignored as a basis for anything.
The article does a very good job at show how it isn’t stealing. Particularlly this part:
Fair use protects reverse engineering, indexing for search engines, and other forms of analysis that create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. Here, the fact that the model is used to create new works weighs in favor of fair use as does the fact that the model consists of original analysis of the training images in comparison with one another.
I understand that you are passionate about this topic, and that you have strong opinions on the legal and ethical issues involved. However, using profanity, insults, and exaggerations isn’t helping this discussion. It only creates hostility and resentment, and undermines your credibility. If you’re interested, we can have a discussion in good faith, but if your next comment is like this one, I won’t be replying.
I understand that you are passionate about this topic, and that you have strong opinions on the legal and ethical issues involved. However, using profanity, insults, and exaggerations isn’t helping this discussion. It only creates hostility and resentment, and undermines your credibility. If you’re interested, we can have a discussion in good faith, but if your next comment is like this one, I won’t be replying.
Not doing any of that, but okay.
Edit: I guess I was cussing, lol. It’s the internet and I think you’ll be fine.
And don’t pretend like one court ruling makes something right. Look at roe vs wade.
The musician point is absolutely valid, artists ask permission before using each other’s work. Vanilla ice got absolutely fucking lambasted for stealing queen’s under pressure. Destroyed his (totally mediocre, imo) career.
I excuse me, I made a swear
Go back to your cubicle you uncreative crybaby bitch
I know you’re wanting to argue your point, so I’m only going to say one thing. Yes, it is sometimes stealing. Not all of the time, but some of the time. If you use a live artist as a prompt for selling and that artist isn’t getting paid (like musicians now do with sampling), then yes it’s stealing. You’re not only stealing their work, but you’re also stealing their business.
You should read this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF if you haven’t already. The EFF is a digital rights group that recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
Thanks, I hate it. Your article is going into the current law and how it doesn’t compare to the new way of stealing. The spirit of copyright law is, if you made it, you have the rights to it because you made it. You can sell it, decide what happens to it, etc., for a certain amount of time. The laws need to change, not the artists just accepting that their work and style will be stolen because corporations figured out a way to steal more from the already not paid enough group.
This part especially, is absolute bullshit:
They’re trying to say, “Haven’t you been “inspired” by someone else? How can you judge this widdle ole’ computer program then?” Fuckers, please. Someone being inspired by someone else is already a gray area in copyright law. See any musician being sued by the Marvin Gaye family.
Now use the analogy of taking a single artist who has a decent living making their own stye of art. Now take 10,000 artists trying to copy the "style* of that artist and put those completed works out in 10 seconds as opposed to your work, which takes skill building, your imagination and time. The current copyright laws aren’t meant for AI, they should be ignored as a basis for anything.
The article does a very good job at show how it isn’t stealing. Particularlly this part:
This isn’t a new way of “stealing” it’s just a way to analyze and reverse engineer images so you can make your own original works. In the US, the first major case that established reverse engineering as fair use was Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc in 1992, and then affirmed in Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation in 2000. So this is not new at all.
I understand that you are passionate about this topic, and that you have strong opinions on the legal and ethical issues involved. However, using profanity, insults, and exaggerations isn’t helping this discussion. It only creates hostility and resentment, and undermines your credibility. If you’re interested, we can have a discussion in good faith, but if your next comment is like this one, I won’t be replying.
Not doing any of that, but okay.
Edit: I guess I was cussing, lol. It’s the internet and I think you’ll be fine.
Reverse engineering?
So, stealing, with a fancy name.
And don’t pretend like one court ruling makes something right. Look at roe vs wade.
The musician point is absolutely valid, artists ask permission before using each other’s work. Vanilla ice got absolutely fucking lambasted for stealing queen’s under pressure. Destroyed his (totally mediocre, imo) career.
I excuse me, I made a swear
Go back to your cubicle you uncreative crybaby bitch
The Marvin Gaye comment sounds like you are defending copyright trolling
Nope, just pointing out that they won one and lost another, it’s a gray area. Nice try though.
Ah ok. Nice try of what? I don’t have a horse in this race
They’re not selling this picture…lol stop lying.