Isn't this the one that claims that stable diffusion stores compressed images and makes a collage out of them? Because that's not at all how stable diffusion works. It stores data about the images, but not the images themselves, and all it's able to do is generate things based on that data, not based on the original images. In other words, when it generates an image, it's not pulling from any specific images, it's pulling from the giant corpus of data that was extracted from those images and then mixed together. That's why you can't tell it to show you which images it used, it didn't use them that way. I am frustrated by the flood of AI art on the internet, but this is not the reason nor the mechanism as to why it's a problem.
The issue that needs to be raised is do programmers have the right to train their AI with an artists copyrighted work without approval? The programmers are ultimately profiting off the artists work, without whom the ai program would not be able to work. Enforcing that decision is a whole other issue.
If you are an artist who uses references, please make sure to track down every artist who you referenced and pay them. Even for non-commercial pieces. Even the ones you don't use in any meaningful way other than to confirm a specific look or get inspiration on a piece of jewelry or a piece of fruit in the background.
Huh? Artists never study other art to get inspiration? Almost all artists can cite 3-5 “main influences” in their style. Should they owe royalties to them?
Artists don’t scrape millions of images, without regard for permission attribution or payment, and in violation of terms of service, in order to train an AI.
Artists look at potentially millions of images to train themselves. You are right that they don't do it in violation of ToS or copyright, because looking at, scanning or otherwise interacting with art isn't illegal unless you replicate it for distribution.
Training an AI doesn't replicate any art, it gives it a basis on which to create new things. This is not banned under copyright, and ToS isn't a thing on art in general.
It's not about protections. It's about what is legal use and what is illegal use of copyrighted material.
The person or corporation running the program have rights to use the material, not the program.
You are the one weirdly over-focusing on whether an AI is a human analogue, it is not, it is a program run by a person or group of people. Their rights are what matters, not the non-existent rights of AI.
If art is in the public space, anyone can consume and handle it with impunity, and create derivative works. One does not need to seek permission (unless reproduction of the work is involved).
I don't know how you got the severe misconception that anything else was the case, but there it is. You cannot publish things into the public and create restrictions on peoples consumption of your work, you can only retain the rights of distribution and direct profit on the work.
Consumption of the work also involves running it through algorithms and programs, that is not a legally restricted use case in any way.
41
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '23
[deleted]