Because the corporation is ALWAYS at fault, duh. This is the internet, there’s only one way to look at things
Iwasondigg@lemmy.one 8 months ago
I don’t understand the controversy really. A graphic designer at Disney used stock photography in their design of the poster, that’s pretty normal and extremely common. It turns out that whoever uploaded that stock image to the service used AI to create it, but how is that Disney’s fault? I don’t get it.
BB69@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Mojave@lemmy.world 8 months ago
[deleted]Nevoic@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Lmfao I love how utterly simple-minded some takes are. Like no way could this clusterfuck of IP (owning thoughts), the worry of AI “taking jobs” (e.g doing work that would otherwise be done by humans), and selling of the work on a marketplace at all be tied to the idea of capitalism.
In other economic systems, having work automated would be a good thing, not an existential threat to the functioning of our entire global economy. I’m blown away that people don’t understand that simple truth.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
Why would they use a stock image of Loki? That already seems like its own copyright issue. Any image or likeness of a Disney character isn’t exactly “stock”.
ante@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Read the fucking article, man. It’s not a stock image of a character, it’s the spiral clock background.
TheTetrapod@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s just the spiraling clock in the background in question, not the Loki stuff.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
I mean, besides the Roman numeral mistake and Shutterstock’s licensing rules, which is just a side conversation, what’s the backlash?
Are we supposed to be immediately outraged when some artist uses some level of AI-generation when trying to create something? Is everybody going to be outraged when somebody uses Photoshop Generative Fill, or is that suddenly okay because it’s part of a commercial tool?
cereal_killer@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
It is literally why stock photographs exist in the first place.
Shazbot@lemmy.world 8 months ago
There’s one that comes to mind: registration of works with the Copyright Office. When submitting a body of work you need to ensure that you’ve got everything in order. This includes rights for models/actors, locations, and other media you pull from. Having AI mixed in may invalidate the whole submission. It’s cheaper to submit related work in bulk, a fair amount of Loki materials could be in limbo until the application is amended or resubmitted.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
AI collides with Copyright. The 2 systems don’t work together at all.
Because if an image is generated, who “owns” it?
- The person who wrote the prompt
- The AI that generated the image
- The researchers that developed the AI
- The artists the AI is based upon
It just doesn’t work. And AI is here to stay. So the only possible solution I see is that we revise the entire copyright system.
Which is long overdue anyway. Disney has gotten away with too much already.
Shazbot@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If we apply the current ruling of the US Copyright Office then the prompt writer cannot copyright if AI is the majority of the final product. AI itself is software and ineligible for copyright; we can debate sentience when we get there. The researchers are also out as they simply produce the tool–unless you’re keen on giving companies like Canon and Adobe spontaneous ownership of the media their equipment and software has created.
As for the artists the AI output is based upon, we already have legal precedent for this situation. Sampling has been a common aspect of the music industry for decades now. Whenever an musician samples work from others they are required to get a license and pay royalties, by an agreed percentage/amount based on performance metrics. Photographers and film makers are also required to have releases (rights of a person’s image, the likeness of a building) and also pay royalties. Actors are also entitled to royalties by licensing out their likeness. This has been the framework that allowed artists to continue benefiting from their contributions as companies min-maxed markets.
Hence Shutterstock’s terms for copyright on AI images is both building upon legal precedent, and could be the first step in getting AI work copyright protection: obtaining the rights to legally use the dataset. The second would be determining how to pay out royalties based on how the AI called and used images from the dataset. The system isn’t broken by any means, its the public’s misunderstanding of the system that makes the situation confusing.
Zehzin@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The picture was not flagged as AI.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 months ago
How is that Disney’s fault?
ericisshort@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It isn’t.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
Can we talk about how Shutterstock only allows their own AI-generated images? Stock image sites will be the first to face the guillotine of AI generation, and this is how they protect themselves?
Good riddance. I got my video card and several Stable Diffusion models that are way better than the prices they charge.
ante@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You’re not a business whose sole purpose is to sell/license images. If you read the article, it explains that their models are trained using only images from their library, which seems like a sensible approach to avoiding copyright issues.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
There’s no copyright issues to avoid. Stable Diffusion is not suddenly illegal based on the images it trains on. It is a 4GB database of weights and numbers, not a many petabyte database of images.
Furthermore, Shutterstock cannot copyright their own AI-generated images, no matter how much they want to try to sell it back for. That’s already been decided in the courts. So, even if it’s their own images its trained on, if it was fully generated with their own AI, anybody is free to yank the image from their site and use it anywhere they want.
This is a dying industry trying desperately to hold on to its profit model.
Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 8 months ago
More reason for Disney to just use AI generated art. I don’t see the point of artists anymore.
Maven@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Wow that name does NOT check out.
Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Sure it does. People create stuff. Artist create over priced same stuff but also sue you if you think about sharing it with anybody or creating your own. And the whole time they demand your attention by invading any cool space to busk. Like tipping culture, it invades every space. Eventually spaces that were collaberative and imaginative and unique are sued to oblivion and threatened with DMCA take downs so that this mediocre and costly mass produced stuff can be sold for 20x its value. If artist disappeared tomorrow, we would see a boom of content creation like never before. If we removed all the people trying to make their dollar in our spaces we would be left with actual creators not artists.
They’re greedy bottom feeders and only get worse the more popular they get.
Think of Justin bieber + psychosocial. Really Fun. Justin bieber or slipknot, not as fun. And in a world of spotifies and YouTube that have taken over everywhere, we all lost the unique creative opportunity the internet provided because we all need to over pay for the artist nobody asked for. Its only going to get worse. The internet was a refuge for people to get away from the over produced corporate crap and instead the artist brought them all here and censored and sued and threatened and put up paywall after paywall all to funnel us to their shitty fucking ad supported websites and pateron
ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 8 months ago
… okay.