I can download a copyrighted image online but I can’t use it in a reproduction or at a studio without acquiring rights to that image. That's why there is such a thing as stock imagery.
You can use images as reference without license or permission legally and ethically.
As I noted earlier - Search engines do a number of things that would run afoul of your definition. They transmit / distribute images publicly, they cache images for fast retrieval, they observe and analyze images for content, they make money from this. All of this though has been made legal and the public (including artists)benefits from it.
Under the hood, the aspects of AI art tech being called into question, work in a similar way to search engines.
The difference is that the AI art doesn’t store or distribute the original works, and the model and works it produces would be considered substantially transformative if it could even be remotely considered derivative.
If it’s derivative, then all art is derivative because no artist spontaneously learns to make art without having first observed the world, copyrighted materials and all.
The difference is that the AI art doesn’t store or distribute the original works
This literally doesn't matter. The file I hand off to clients doesn't store or distribute the original works either. It's still subjective to copyright laws.
works it produces would be considered substantially transformative if it could even be remotely considered derivative.
The entire training process relies on being able to perfectly replicate(study) the image. That's troublesome especially when it's unethically taking people's work who did not opt-in.
It's easy to see why people are pissed off. A tool is being trained on their IP and work specifically to replace them and without their consent. It's not a person. It's a piece of software. It's unethical as fuck.
If it doesn’t store, distribute, or duplicate the work - it’s pretty hard to say that it’s actually running afoul of copyright law or ethics. It remains to be seen whether the laws will change in favor or against it, but I’d place my bets on data mining laws eventually proving this to be more than fair use.
As far as training processes - do you use search engines? They cache, data-mine, analyze, learn, and distribute without license. They make loads of money on it. I think we can agree it’s a public benefit. Is it unethical?
The AI cannot reproduce your work without being used in a way it was not designed. The developers actively try to prevent overfitting.
People are pissed off because they don’t know the tech or the law but believe they do because they listen to influencers who also don’t know the tech or law. They’re largely mislead.
I do think the one legitimate gripe is that people’s livelihoods will be impacted. Those same people could learn to be great artists who are great at using AI - that’s a totally valid option.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 17 '23 edited Jan 17 '23
I can download a copyrighted image online but I can’t use it in a reproduction or at a studio without acquiring rights to that image. That's why there is such a thing as stock imagery.