The once-prophesized future where cheap, AI-generated trash content floods out the hard work of real humans is already here, and is already taking over Facebook.
They are taking an artist work and reproducing it - changed slightly. If you did that to a Disney work (AI or not) would they consider it copyright or fair use?
Disney considering it one way or the other doesn’t mean anything, legally speaking. It’s not so much about “used a reference” – you can take a movie still-frame and make an oil painting of it and it’ll be your work. It’s about that how the spammers use AI doesn’t have sufficient artistic intent, sweat of the brow, whatever your local standard is, to actually give you copyright over its output, as such it’s as if you had simply photocopied the thing. It certainly is possible to use AI in a way that gives you copyright over its output, even with img2img, but those people ain’t doing it. It’s also possible to photocopy that still-frame in a way that gives you copyright, e.g. if you collage and otherwise transform it in an artistic manner.
you can take a movie still-frame and make an oil painting of it and it’ll be your work.
Maybe but not usually. This is making a derivative work. Derivative have their own copyright, but permission of the original owner is required to make them. In US terms, it might be fair use, if the painter wants to, say, make an artistic statement about consumer culture. EG Mickey Mouse has shown up in South Park episodes for the purpose of satire. That’s fine.
Whether the OP describes infringement is doubtful to me. No one owns the right to make pictures of EG people next to wooden dogs. On its face, there is no infringement.
OTOH, if there’s nothing deeper behind the painting, then it’s just unlicensed merch. EG, Disney has come down on day care centers for using their IP.
I’m not sure if it affects your larger point, but I suspect the problem with day care centers is not that they’re copying a specific work, but that they’re using characters that Disney owns.
True, I chose a very bad example there and muddied the waters.
Normally, trademarks aren’t so bad, relatively speaking. As long as there’s no confusion about who is responsible for the product, and there’s no defamation, you should be able to use those pretty freely. When “trademark dilution” comes into play, it can get onerous, though.
Dual copyright is a thing, if your work is not sufficiently transformative (for example if you retain enough substantial original features that it’s clearly recognizable) then it can be infringing if the original even if your changes is under your copyright.
Its not plagarism. Its not stealing either. Its training. The only artists who complain about this dont care about making art and are only concerned about making money.
When a robot replaces your job (or perhaps your friends or family) and you/they lose their way of earning money will your argument remain the same?
If AI/robots could give us the utopia from sci-fi books it’d be grand and I’d be inclined to agree with you. But they aren’t, no one is getting early retirement because a robot replaced them in a factory and artists aren’t getting residuals from the derivatives these “trainings” are creating. It’s theft, outright, and the thieves are trying to make money off these originals.
its not stolen, its AI generated.
it’s worse than that, the article talks about img2img using AI. so these click farms are ripping real images and using that as the img2img prompt
So? its not stealing.
They are taking an artist work and reproducing it - changed slightly. If you did that to a Disney work (AI or not) would they consider it copyright or fair use?
Depends on what you are using it for.
“The general fair use definition is that fair use is any use of a work that is not done in an effort to profit from the copyrighted work.”
Source
AI companies are most certainly making an effort to profit from the content they’re deriving from copyrighted works.
That’s not sufficient alone
Disney considering it one way or the other doesn’t mean anything, legally speaking. It’s not so much about “used a reference” – you can take a movie still-frame and make an oil painting of it and it’ll be your work. It’s about that how the spammers use AI doesn’t have sufficient artistic intent, sweat of the brow, whatever your local standard is, to actually give you copyright over its output, as such it’s as if you had simply photocopied the thing. It certainly is possible to use AI in a way that gives you copyright over its output, even with img2img, but those people ain’t doing it. It’s also possible to photocopy that still-frame in a way that gives you copyright, e.g. if you collage and otherwise transform it in an artistic manner.
Maybe but not usually. This is making a derivative work. Derivative have their own copyright, but permission of the original owner is required to make them. In US terms, it might be fair use, if the painter wants to, say, make an artistic statement about consumer culture. EG Mickey Mouse has shown up in South Park episodes for the purpose of satire. That’s fine.
OTOH, if there’s nothing deeper behind the painting, then it’s just unlicensed merch. EG, Disney has come down on day care centers for using their IP.
Whether the OP describes infringement is doubtful to me. No one owns the right to make pictures of EG people next to wooden dogs. On its face, there is no infringement.
Mickey Mouse and various other Disney stuff is trademarked which is a whole another can of worms.
I’m not sure if it affects your larger point, but I suspect the problem with day care centers is not that they’re copying a specific work, but that they’re using characters that Disney owns.
True, I chose a very bad example there and muddied the waters.
Normally, trademarks aren’t so bad, relatively speaking. As long as there’s no confusion about who is responsible for the product, and there’s no defamation, you should be able to use those pretty freely. When “trademark dilution” comes into play, it can get onerous, though.
There’s no difference from s copyright perspective
Dual copyright is a thing, if your work is not sufficiently transformative (for example if you retain enough substantial original features that it’s clearly recognizable) then it can be infringing if the original even if your changes is under your copyright.
It’s not stolen, it’s ‘stolen’.
It is “stollen” and filled with marzipan
AI trained on plagiarized art created by real humans who were not compensated for work that AI companies are now making money on.
Aka stealing
it’s worse than that, the article talks about img2img using AI. so these click farms are ripping real images and using that as the img2img prompt
Nope they mean someone generated it then others stole it and are reusing it
Its not plagarism. Its not stealing either. Its training. The only artists who complain about this dont care about making art and are only concerned about making money.
The kool-aid is laced, kid. You should put it down.
Removed by mod
It’s always helpful when someone shows us their entire ass like this.
When a robot replaces your job (or perhaps your friends or family) and you/they lose their way of earning money will your argument remain the same?
If AI/robots could give us the utopia from sci-fi books it’d be grand and I’d be inclined to agree with you. But they aren’t, no one is getting early retirement because a robot replaced them in a factory and artists aren’t getting residuals from the derivatives these “trainings” are creating. It’s theft, outright, and the thieves are trying to make money off these originals.
There’s a lot of whiny “artists” on Lemmy lmao