Post B4UIddJWLvFSkFtlcO by johan@tilde.zone
(DIR) More posts by johan@tilde.zone
(DIR) Post #B4SxHKxVchMjFfAav2 by nina_kali_nina@tech.lgbt
2 likes, 0 repeats
Legit question.Someone commissioned art from an artist. The artist used gen AI to cheat, lots. Like, 80% of the image is slop. The person who ordered the art posted it and seemingly - probably - liked the result. Would you let them know? In what way/words?I guess if it was me ordering the commission, assuming I didn't know the artist used GenAI and lied to me, I'd want to know ASAP. But I don't know more about the situation surrounding this commission. I have no idea if the usage of AI was disclosed by the artist. I fear I'll break someone's heart by telling them "the artist you liked lied to you, sorry".
(DIR) Post #B4U5IEgVQhfMsD7GrI by johan@tilde.zone
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nina_kali_nina What the hell!Do you like the painting?Is it unique?If the answer to both questions is "yes," then what difference does it make what it was drawn with? The price question, like the artist didn't do enough work for that amount of money? — It shouldn't bother you if the answer was "yes" to both questions.
(DIR) Post #B4U5IEsCjD1XSUac5o by nina_kali_nina@tech.lgbt
1 likes, 1 repeats
@johan I don't know why I have to explain this, but...Passing an output of a copyright laundry machine as your own is inauthentic, and it is disrespectful to people who made the art on which the machine was trained.I'm not going to argue about it here any more than this, though.
(DIR) Post #B4U5MDF4jbUHYfBLtY by lumi@snug.moe
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nina_kali_nina @johan i second this. there is no way genai outputs should ever be acceptable anywhere, for many many reasons
(DIR) Post #B4UDMF6waMTIzHu6wi by neatchee@urusai.social
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lumi @nina_kali_nina @johan And that's before we even mention the fact that, at the moment, out is still completely up in the air whether that image they paid for is even eligible for copyright. How would you feel if you paid an artist for an image you expected to be associated with your brand or product, only to find out later, after already dedicating time and resources to making it part of your brand identity, that anyone is allowed to copy and reuse it because it's ineligible for copyright?
(DIR) Post #B4UIddJWLvFSkFtlcO by johan@tilde.zone
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neatchee @lumi @nina_kali_nina Anything used to identify a brand must be registered as a trademark (the terminology may vary, but the essence is the same). If something is registered, others cannot use it.
(DIR) Post #B4UIddU9iNktHEsGC8 by neatchee@urusai.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@johan @lumi Logos and brand names are trademarked, yes, but that is nowhere near the totality of what goes into brand identity.Take the design of the Master Chief from Halo as an example. That character's visual and gameplay design, backstory, dialogue, etc are a huge component of the Halo brand. And those things are copyrighted, not trademarked.
(DIR) Post #B4UIddfV2CpTqQBJsO by johan@tilde.zone
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neatchee @lumiThis area is really complicated Key point:Copyright arises automatically.A trademark requires registration and evidence of commercial use.But in your example, if I use a drawing commissioned from an artist to identify my brand and register it, then it is protected, no matter whether it is a logo, a corporate pattern, or a mascot.
(DIR) Post #B4UIddmwaWmgDVfGTo by neatchee@urusai.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@johan @lumi I understand the difference between trademark and copyright. And I understand that trademarks are registered while copyright arises naturally. None of that changes the fact that brand identity - not Brand Identifiers, not Trademarks, but the abstract concept of a brand's identity - involves copyrighted content that you don't want stolen or diluted. And the law is not yet clear on whether AI output is eligible for copyright, with many jurisdictions around the world actively moving towards classifying AI generated content as ineligible for copyright
(DIR) Post #B4UIddu2AASIZUyvWy by johan@tilde.zone
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neatchee @lumi You're right that the legislation on this issue is very vague. Ultimately, the one with the best lawyers wins. Especially since the first post claims 20% human labor, which is already a good claim for copyright.
(DIR) Post #B4UIde0ll7qKuO8J1s by lumi@snug.moe
0 likes, 0 repeats
@johan @neatchee all this talk about IP law wipes the bigger issues of generative models under the rugthey still have huge environmental costs, they still strip humanity away from everything, they're still huge plagiarism machines designed to regurgitate slop from a lot of data where consent was never given, etc
(DIR) Post #B4UIgeNupMsMw2OPvk by lumi@snug.moe
0 likes, 0 repeats
@johan @neatchee point is, this technology is extremely unethical
(DIR) Post #B4UJTBli0insNBfPGq by neatchee@urusai.social
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lumi @johan The issues you're describing - all very valid and legitimate - are relatively abstract problems that require significant societal change to address long term. And there is an argument to be made that I don't have a moral obligation to educate others on the ethical problems with their choices.I'm not sweeping those issues under the rug, I'm saying "yes that's all true and in addition to the ethical considerations, if you know someone is taking a risk they are unaware of you have an obligation to inform of that risk."We can do both things.
(DIR) Post #B4UJiBEuGB9d4lTLG4 by lumi@snug.moe
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neatchee @johan yeah, maybe it was uncalled for for me to barge in and say that. wasn't trying to say you weren't aware of it. sorry about that
(DIR) Post #B4UKPRrGLdQv4O2qOm by neatchee@urusai.social
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lumi I appreciate your point, fwiw. There was just probably a better way to present it 💜
(DIR) Post #B4UKRGI4KLQLlxRpjM by lumi@snug.moe
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neatchee yeah. thank you :neocat_snuggle: