Comment

Comment on Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art

The amount of training data needed for a model is so huge that you’d have to use only artwork that was preemptively licensed for that purpose. Individually asking artists for permission to use their work would be far too expensive even if they all agreed to let you use their work for free.

source

Sort:hotnew top

BURN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
And why is that a problem?

Artists should have control over their work. It’s not my problem that a big company vs a small company is stealing my work, I don’t want either of them to.

I no longer post anything online that I create cause I’d rather nobody see it than it be stolen for AI training.

source
sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
That is correct, though there could be campaigns to collect art otherwise. There are plenty of artists in the open source world who could do it, and asking individuals to signal boost these calls to action can get more push. Once more, no matter what, big corps will always have more monitary resources. The power of open source is volunteer manpower and passion. Even if these weren’t the case, the moral argument still stands in using a persons work to replace them without permission.

Regardless of that even, what this will do is cause stagnation in the art field if not protected. Nobodies going to share their art, their method, or their ideas freely in a world where doing so allows a massive corp to take it freely without permission, thus replacing them. This kills ideas of open distribution of art and art information. It will become hidden, and new ideas, new art, will not be available to view.

Allowing people to take without permission will only ever hurt the small artists. Disney will always be able to just “take” any art they make.

Also, you’re not entirely correct on that. Models made for specific purposes don’t actually need the absurd amount generalist models need. However in the context of current expectations yeah, you’re right on quantity.

source
- FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Massive corps don't need to use the output of "little artists", they have their own massive repositories of works they own or license that they can train AIs on.
  
  The small artists won't be able to use those AIs, though. Those AIs will belong to Disney or Getty Images, and if they deign to allow others to use them it'll be through paywalls and filters and onerous licensing terms. The small artists would only be able to use open models freely.
  
  This insistence on AIs being prohibited from learning from otherwise public images is going to be a phyrric victory if it ever comes to pass.
  
  source
  - BURN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’ll be a massive victory for artists and a failure for all the sham AI prompt generators.
    
    There’s not a single downside to requiring all material used in training to be licensed.
    
    source
    FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    There’s not a single downside to requiring all material used in training to be licensed.
    
    It destroys the open source/hobbyist sector. The only AIs that would be available for artists to use would be corporate-controlled, paywalled, and filtered. That's a pretty huge downside.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments