Comment on Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art
sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 1 year agoI can understand partially your argument, and I’d agree the work you personally do is your own, but the art generated by the AI is not.
Is as much your art as the person who googles extensively to find images that they ten cut out and place into. As much your art as taking it to another person, asking them to make the edits, and revising.
Now, if the image you get from google is royalty free, and the revision artist along with you agree to signing off their rights, you’d be able to copywrite your work. I’d agree in the same situation with AI, if the people who’s art makes up the model agree to that circumstance, you should be able to copywrite. Otherwise you’re just taking credit for others work because you described it well enough while in training it into your own.
Zarxrax@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No specific person’s art is being put into my generated image, unlike if I were to copy an image from Google. If a model is trained on 1 trillion images, then every single one of those images influenced the weights in the model which then resulted in the output.
But my argument there is that when the generation becomes very integrated into the workflow as a tool, then it can be nearly impossible to separate out what was actually created by me vs what the ai did.
sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I disagree, you can see signatures and figures drawn by individual artists in even the largest models of today. Also, only a fraction are what you specified
Though trillions may be used, only billions are of dragons, millions of clocks, and thousands of something more specific
I work in the AI field specializing in vectorizatiom, creating automated systems to catch failures, and it’s clear to me what gets imprinted onto the nodes is just other peoples work. The line-work, colouration, composition, etc. on a particular output will be from a tiny fraction of the models training and will be, individually per addition or edit, directly taken from a handful of images.
This is why you can get text based or code based AI to word for word output some of their trained work. Same with image based, though only pieces again.
All the actual decision making, the colouration, the composition, line-work, perspective, base stylistic choice, etc. will be made by another person or people before being detected by the AI and output when the correct input (prompt) is given.
To be clear, If I had called pokemon fish whenever you put in the word fish something stylistically pokemon would be output with nothing to do with fish. It’s not learning what our prompt actually means just what gets it a head pat from the dev.
It’s not just learning what a word means and outputting a new image, it’s finding a way to output the origional data in a way that makes somebody like me, an AI dev, say “yeah that’s about right”. That’s all
Once more, because each time I stare I hate AI I get misinterpreted, I hate that it’s taking without permission. If that is granted then it’s perfectly moral.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 year ago
If I like a particular element of a piece of art, like the way they painted a distinctive piece of clothing in a portrait, and I copy that element in my own work, am I stealing their work?
sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Did you trace the linework, did you copy exactly the colouration and composition, could you place one over the other and see it’s nearly exactly the same? if so, yes. Yes you did. If you think to yourself, I like these specific elements of this art and am going to take them into account while creating a new piece, with new ideas, then no. You did not. AI art does the first.