[HN Gopher] Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists?
___________________________________________________________________
Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists?
Author : teddyh
Score : 25 points
Date : 2024-07-31 22:01 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| gnabgib wrote:
| (2023) Discussions (19+16 points, 1 year ago, 90+16 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751031
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744059
| minimaxir wrote:
| This post is from 2023, and the mentioned lawsuit is still
| ongoing, with the last update in May 2024 saying the lawsuit can
| go forward: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stability-
| ai-midjou...
| petesergeant wrote:
| I have to believe the answer will be found to be yes, but,
| unencumbered or appropriately licensed datasets will show up (and
| are probably being actively sourced by major players). I have
| some sympathy for artists whose style can be mimicked by people
| just name-checking them.
| XorNot wrote:
| You've never been able to copyright a style though.
| dartos wrote:
| No, but a style has also never been able to be automatically
| extracted and packaged as a product in and of itself.
| colonelspace wrote:
| But if I create a magic box that generates work in the style
| of a specific artist, based on me feeding that artist's work
| into the magic box, then sell access to the output of the
| magic box, notably output that results from a request using
| the artist's name, that seems to deprive the artist of
| something, based on my use of the artist's work.
|
| Copyright isn't really the issue, it's a company exploiting
| the work of others. It's literally the only value of the
| magic box.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| That's how human brains work too. There are people who can
| mimic styles very well. They need to be "fed" the style
| first though.
| digging wrote:
| Scale and availability matter
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| So if you put one buggy whip maker out of work a year,
| it's okay. But if you put hundreds of over the course of
| a couple of years, now it's wrong? Cars must be illegal.
|
| When have we ever put the scope of the impact as part of
| the judgement of the legality of disruptive businesses?
| When did the impact of WalMart on small businesses matter
| legally, or Amazon on independent bookstores, or iTunes
| music store on independent music stores, or Netflix on
| video rental stores? Or NAFTA on American factory
| workers?
|
| Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the scale of the
| impact transformative impacts the question of legality;
| it never has before.
|
| If you are talking about the social problem of skilled
| people willing to work who cannot find meaningful
| employment: well, let's address that directly, but not by
| banning generative AI.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| > it never has before.
|
| Look up the Digital Markets Act.
| colonelspace wrote:
| Is it how human brains work? Even if it is, why does that
| make it ok on an industrial scale?
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| Yes but a human brain needs years of training to to get
| the basic skills, and further needs to refine on a
| specific style which can take anywhere from days to
| months/years depending on prior experience. There are
| also social connotations that apply to humans that come
| with copying another artist's style. AI can do it
| 10x-100x quicker and the copier can remain completely
| anonymous much easier. This changes the dynamics.
| amonith wrote:
| Individuals are allowed to do that by law. Companies
| cannot do that to create commercial products. They need
| to obtain relevant permissions / licenses from the
| creators first.
| taylorius wrote:
| This is true - but such artists can't create a new one
| every few seconds. A change in scale is a change in kind.
| Such "democratization" is, in my view, rather demeaning
| to an artist, who doubtless worked hard to develop a new
| style, only to have their work digested by the machines
| and a million imitators pop up almost immediately.
| LoganDark wrote:
| The last time I saw someone doing this the human artist
| was about as hated as AI is. They intentionally mimicked
| the style of a specific other artist which directly
| impacted the other artist's sales and also mental health
| petesergeant wrote:
| Yeah, I think that's it. I think there's a difference in
| the machine deriving "labial flower paintings" from first
| principles and having been trained with a bunch of pictures
| tagged as Georgia O'Keefe and spitting them out when
| someone asks for a picture in her style
| breck wrote:
| Anyone who thinks ideas can be stolen suffers from "IPDD":
|
| https://breckyunits.com/ipdd.html
|
| We should feel bad for these people, and help guide them to the
| light, otherwise they will go extinct.
| nuforia wrote:
| You seem to be suffering from RAD
| ravenstine wrote:
| If AI art is stealing then perhaps a significant number of us
| should be behind bars right now.
| EGreg wrote:
| Tons of people on HN love to downplay ANY serious problem with
| AI and I am here for it. Very amusing
|
| And always the same arguments too -- not much detail but just
| throw & go LOL
| amonith wrote:
| "AI art is stealing" is an oversimplification of "companies are
| stealing unlicensed user generated content to create a
| commercial product" which is absolutely true. Nobody grants
| commercial use rights to their output by default, you have to
| ask for that.
|
| Nobody cares that humans learn in principle the same way as AI.
| Law - which is meant to protect and help individuals to foster
| healthy competition & innovation without disrupting the social
| order + prevent monopolies - allows that. Large corporate
| entities should not be allowed to use that unlicensed content
| the same way. That's it. That's the whole point. Content was
| stolen to create commercial AI products.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| This question is increasingly equivalent to asking if everyone is
| stealing from everyone else. The short answer is no. But it is
| possible that a lot of activities will become impossible to do if
| their value is moved to some AI
| moose44 wrote:
| A photocopier isn't an artist, even if it can re-create the Mona
| Lisa.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-31 23:01 UTC)