Lawsuits Will END AI Art Apps
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 16. 05. 2024
- Artificial intelligence art generator apps are more popular than ever. AI art apps produce amazing images and many are FREE! There's just 1 problem ... that is AI art generator lawsuits. In this video, I tell you the stories of human artists caught in the middle of this controversy.
To consult with me, schedule a time to meet here đ calendly.com/iancorzine/ian
To join my free WhatsApp community, called Metaverse Beginnings, click here đ nas.io/metaverse-beginnings
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTERS:
0:00 AI Art Generator Class Action Lawsuits
0:20 How Do AI Art Generators Work
0:31 AI Artist Problem
1:00 How to Train AI Art Generator
2:08 AI Art Generator Copyright Infringement
2:36 AI Generated Art Lawsuit
3:57 Why Lawsuits Will End AI Art Generators
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#aiartgenerator #aiartcommunity #aiart - VÄda a technologie
![tattoo printer tutorial[ì íëšìì ëŹŒ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g40_GwEJak0/mqdefault.jpg)
To consult with me, schedule a time to meet here đ calendly.com/iancorzine/ian
To join my free WhatsApp community, called Metaverse Beginnings, click here đ nas.io/metaverse-beginnings
Good morning sir long time no see though how are you today?
Hi Ian, once again-awesome video. Nailed it out the park. If you suggest that MJ and other AI companies can't stand on transformative art evidence and Fair Use precedent, and they settle putting up a pay wall, then there's no incentive for the end users to use their platform. This UX has taken people's imagination over like wild fire and open endless possibilities re: MJ art applications; shirts, posters, etc-all this for free too-come'on. I don't know how the same volume of users will ever return to pay a fee, with the prospects of getting sued by the copyright holders, and or limited license applications, or payments to the dataset copyright holders. However, if...IF...MJ takes this to jury, we could be looking at the start of a whole new industry, unlike the napster era, copy to copy. This is copy to new piece of art.
it's 100% take those artist work. you said the program just looks and is generated. but that's just the wording, the reality is the program still needs information from those picture files on the internet. it's 100% steal.
Bad news for me. I canât continue ripping off other peopleâs work, putting them out of a job to sell mouse pads. The world is such a bitch sometimes.
Lmao
It begins to lie that this is not theft. Which bothers me. This is a 100% STEAL! They do not create their own Art! THEY REUSING ALREADY CREATED ART! That It's!
Dude, you draw from ---0--- AND THAT'S IT!
With noise, without noise, this is a STEALING! It's like I take you picture and smear that picture over on with paint and then to say "this is not the same picture.
Disclaimer: This guy incentivized NFTs, was into blockchain which is a scam and even used a deceptive title and description in this video.
I would take what Ian says with a mound of salt, as it is probably half-truths.
True. Plus, we donât even know what the future of AI Art will be since these lawsuits were filed fairly recently.
@@oriongear2499 Adobe says their Firegly art generator only uses public domain art and opted in Adobe stock art. I've tried it. Firefly is just as good as MidJourney and even better in some respects, plus it avoids copyright issues. The standard used by Adobe could be adopted by other companies, and the AI Art results will be of the same quality as other AI Generators scrapping everything, and this is why AI Art is here to stay.
@@joemicallef It is likely that artists will provide their work to Adobe Firefly voluntarily and for a fee.
But not without being asked, with which everyone can do whatever he or she wants.
I was really excited about AI art at first, and even considered opening a print shop, but after doing my own research, I want nothing to do with it. The worst part, in my opinion, is the number of people who seem to enjoy watching their fellow humans suffer, and even rubbing it in... It's very disturbing for obvious reasons.
And not enough proof? Have you not seen the identical images generated by those machines?
Even if it's not stolen, it's not well-regarded for a real artist to copy the exact work of another artist. They face community backlash, and this is exactly what these AIs are doing.
Since it's not you who copied the work, you may think it's perfectly fine. However, now it's just plain artist identity theft on a massive scale. Why didn't they just hire artists to train their AIs? It seems like malicious intent, plain and simple.
Is this where we are at?
Took me my entire life to become an artist, i use my work to feed myself.
Techbros have no right to ruin something as sacred as art.
It's not really ruining it, it's making it better.
@@Death-777 it's not making it better, not by a long shot.
If we don't take a skeptic approach, this may ruin the comission art market, something a lot of people use to literally feed themselves.
@@shiranuiraccoon7521 You can train it on your own art.
@@CultofThings and?
Have you ever thought that someone could train an AI in my artstyle and have free impersonating rights over me? Maybe they can pump out trash copies of my style far quicker than i can produce them, making my job useless, apply this to a worldwide scale and you have massive worker layoffs, massivelly increased barriers of entry in animation/art jobs, comissions becoming less and less viable as a source of income and every social media gets flooded by AI "art" making it harder and harder to grow an account too, should we celebrate shit like that? đ
Not to mention the very simple concept of: being an artist means loving to actually create, not delegating it to a souless machine, every artist will tell you the same thing, there's no passion on writting prompts.
Would you like to have your job taken by a dipshit who never studied your craft? His only claim to fame being a software any other person could use?
It will create a world of people without the passion you have becoming the driving force of a job you legit loved, while your dreams get shattered because there's little way to compete with a tech that simply was made to replace human work.
Automation could be of great use for improving education, improving worker safety on dangerous jobs, help with food distribution and trouble solving... yet it's being used to replace human work, a lot of market and food chains have it, it now came for art, and soon it will come for literally every job, yours on the chopping block too and might be taken from you sooner than you think.
Think skeptically about what you want for the future, AI is a destructive force and needs to be regulated in it's infancy, not when it becomes a behemoth of an industry and thus it's too late to take on.
You are missing a key element of the diffusion process. They take an artist's image, apply noise, and then de-noise the image and THEN they take that result and the information gets stored in the latent space. Which acts as a big library with coordinates. People think it is randomly created because the seed of an image (serialized number) is randomly generated but if a software told you the seed of an image then you could copy paste a prompt, and use the exact same seed and you would get the exact same result as the person who thought it was random and being created on the fly by the ai. The analogy of "photo-bashing" or "collage" is actually much more relevant than proponents of ai realize. It is an extremely sophisticated version of collage and photo-bashing. Sad to say it operates very similarly to how worlds are generated in Minecraft. They use a randomly generated seed to determine the sequence of random iterations of black and white pixels to generate a noise map and that noise map tells the software the elevation of each block. It seems randomly generated dynamically but if you had the seed you can duplicate the resulting generation down to the pixel. Also, there is even more to be said about over-fitting. If an Ai is trained to deeply on one specific subject, style, image, version, etc. then it is only a matter of time before it resorts to making duplicates of the material it was trained upon. The more tightly it is trained, the more likely it is to over-fitting. Which is exactly why Stable Ai avoided using copyright material for their text to music ai. The only reason they did not do the same thing with the text to image ai is because the results were not as marketable without using all of the incredible art that artists have posted online.
Wow! Happy to have this knowledge. Thank you.
Not quite correct.There is no image data stored in latent space, the AI uses the diffusion and reverse diffusion algorithms it has learned from practicing on bilions of images, through many iterations, to take randomly generated noise (which comes from the combination of seed, prompt and optionally some chaos) and 'reverse diffuse' it into a new piece of imagery. It's not reconstructing anything that already exists, nor is it accessing stored images (or noise patterns) to make a collage or derivative. When you lock the seed AND the prompt, all you are doing is selecting a fixed 'moment', like a point in space and time, and pairing it with a fixed 'input sequence' chosen from all the possible random phrases in all the languages of the world. Furthermore, the phrase is an 'exact match', so 'lemon juicer' is NOT the same as 'juicer lemon'. The variance needs only be minute in order to completely change the point in latent space the generator uses as it's noise source. Like in quantum physics, this suggests that all possible variations exist simultaneously but only the one chosen appears. However, it is the act of choosing that determines the result, not the pre-ordained 'contents' of the latent space. ie hearing the noise is what makes the tree fall, to borrow an old philosophical.
â@@WatcherintheRye I'll admit my (limited) understanding as a programmer of known languages; none of which is related to Ai, is mostly based on what was discussed in Corridor Crew's "Lawyer Explains Stable Diffusion Lawsuit" video as well as the Corridor Cast Ep# 163. I have watched them both a couple times now and every time I do I gain a better understanding that I did not have before. I am developing an iterative understanding if you will. đ
@@WatcherintheRye
"There is no image data stored in latent space, the AI uses " . .
the AI" ? THE? No.
Clearly there are many variation of AI and not all operate as you say. I dare say most all, if not actually all, do operate using a copy or image data of a copy of original art.
Regardless, the -- practicing on billions of images -- means those billions of images(original art) are the basis of newly created (i.e., copied to some degree) artwork.
So, the question would be is it fair use to use original artwork to develop something that can replicate (to some degree) the original artwork even though a near exact replica might only occur infrequently at random?
Ai cannot "look" at an image without making an electronic copy of it.
The original copy of the image may not be identical down to every last atom of color but it is well outside of what would be "fair use".
A lot of gatekeeping in the comments.
Now I understand that these human artists spent a lot of time and resources to learn their specific skills, so they feel like their life's work is being taken away. However, it's inevitable that Ai-generated images will eventually be accepted. It's evolution. Think of paper maps, human translators, even professional photographers used to be more relevant. Now anyone with a smartphone can take pictures without paying a professional. The trick is to work with Ai, instead of fearing and fighting it. It's INEVITABLE, sadly, or fortunately - depending on who you are.
No. Thatâs not how âai art generatorsâ work - thatâs specifically diffusion models.
Oh, ok. How do others work? Midjourney? Deviant Art?
@@yoursocialmedialawyer Diffusion models are a small part of ai art, but happen to be popular right now. Many other things exist such as style transfer, gans, etc which donât use diffusion.
What if you train A.I. Art on your own artwork by creating your own models using textual inversion?
I see nothing wrong with that
Sadly I have decided to put a watermark on my artwork to inform that AI Art bots are not permeated to use my artwork. đ§
And that's a Great decision ;)
It's a shame it's not the AI that compiles the databases then. And also that since the generator creates art from scratch, whatever watermarks you put on your stuff won't make any difference at all to what the generator produces. If you don't want your images to be seen, either don't post them on the internet or block robots.txt from indexing your website. Those are the choices available.
@@WatcherintheRye Thinking about it, NFTs aren't safe from from AI Art bot as well. I not into the NFT thing, but I know the community wouldn't be happy if the bot used their work. đ€
Good luck though. The lawsuits are useless when giant companies approach AI.
I'm definitely losing sales because of AI. And those so-called AI artists are really getting on people's nerves. They don't even know how to sketch. They're only artists as long as their WiFi connection doesn't cut off.
Well some (I) run it on a local computer and have created their own models
Their are not artist in the same sense, but just as photography is art if it expresses the feelings and thoughts of an author, AI generations can be art
@@afkcnd2395 "Their are not artists in the same sense, but just as photography is art if it expresses the feelings and thoughts of an author, AI generations can be art"
____________
There will no be AI art generations when they cut your electricity off.
@@stanimirgeorgiev.87 I can just imagine an ai artist getting a job and having to sketch something on paper. They wouldn't be able to and that would be funny af
@@thecreativeducky5781 Hahaha, practically the jokes with these so-called "AI artists" are endless. And it's fun to think about. But I prefer to imagine a future without "AI artists" and "creators". For me, no matter how evil it sounds, the logic of life is "you prove yourself --- then you get!" And that's as it should be. What do we have in the case of these """AI""" "creators". Uneducated people, people many of them just lazy, now at the push of a button they produce content and that content itself has power.
And when I say power, I don't even mean that these people are now making money from "their" "works". But the problem is that they make money undeservedly and on the backs of real artists.
Because they don't create anything. AI creates. And the people who use AI are people with two left hands
(exceptions are only those who are real Artists and they implement some techniques from AI to speed up their work by training AI on their own styles, but this is quite different from the case of non-Art uneducated prompters---slider pushers).
So, AI doesn't "draw" from scratch. It just fills an already created image with noise, then cleans up the noise out of the image. Then again it suffocates the image with noise until at the end it clears the selection so the image looks a "new" different way. BUT PRACTICALLY THIS IS SIMPLY REUSE OF AN ALREADY CREATED IMAGE. Give this AI mixer a blank slate to play its noise from and let us see what the AI will "draw". He's gonna draw my shit, that's what he's gonna draw!
And I, as an employer, am fully aware of these circumstances that "AI" "creators" are not suitable for a professional position in a company.
It's also clear that I can't run my company without my artists. They make OUR COMMON money. I help them by giving them work with which they support their families, they work for me providing production for my company and so the wheel turns. Such is the natural order of things in real life!
Any other fool who thinks otherwise is just another fool trying to skate up to the pile.
However, these "AI artists" still cause problems for private artists who are not part of large companies and depend on freelance projects. That's why I want a complete ban on these "AIs".
No one who doesn't deserve it deserves to make money from something he really CAN'T!
Many abstract artists don't know how to sketch either. Fluid pour artists? Many couldn't sketch anything. Are you going to be an uber-gatekeeper of the high-brow art supreme court and deem that fluid artists and abstract painters are not actually artists because they can't sketch?
What a silly metric.
thanks for this video! but i just wondered if the glitches on your video is done purposefully or not.
Hello hope to get an answer . So regarding youtube strike. I uploaded a video and there is music on the video , it's 7 minutes long , the music used i got it off youtube, the vide titles copyright free and description says is free to use, i used it on my video and added the link to the song on my description . I received a copyright strike from a totally different channel stating I used their song for part of the video, however i did not use the song they claimed and they only claim it was used for half the video which the video is longer and the same song is used throught. Will this be valid for a counter?
I still don't understand why ppl keep saying "it doesn't steal cause it doesn't store" if an AI image have an artist PERSONAL style or even signature IT IS theft, it would be like saying that tracers don't steal cause they only copy an artist but erase the original after doing it. The damage it's the same
> *AI image have an artist PERSONAL style*
A style that, on top of not being something one can really "own" in the way one owns a trademark or copyright, is not built in a vacuumm - which IMO makes targeting this stuff on the matter of style IMO a stalemate vs other issues being raised.
@@gondoravalon7540 anyone can tell when an image it's AI, they're not different from one another and all have the same "feeling" , and it's not about owning such as in copyright (since AI pics can't be copyrighted according to law) it's about the artistic identity of an artist
picture created are new and mix of ai experience. Did other artist learn (which you all called steal) from other artists.
any plans to make a video on the Gonzalez case?
I canât wait for the legal definition of what art is after we watch lawyers sperg trying to define it.
All these people with $$ in their eyes thinking people are going to pay them for A.I. art that they can easily generate themselves need a reality check.
The people who do buy ai art need to be mocked... "Like, dummy, you could have just prompted that yourself"
@@heavenseek It is sad, I've seen people sell ai and sometimes the buyers don't know. When they find out they want a refund, so I believe a law should be to identify it is ai before it can be sold, as it's more like a scam atm
@@thecreativeducky5781 Ya, that's a form of fraud for sure.
@@heavenseek that blows my mind - why buy something free? And they also leave positive reviews - what?
@@snacesib8729 Ya, it's crazy. Either they were bamboozled or they believe that the prompter is a highly gifted mix of artist and inventor / tech expert.
It'll play out.
They may someday stumble on the many yt channels showing a henhouse of ghetto-mamas embracing this as their latest get rich quick scheme.
And so ai art companies will attempt to control the work their machines produce, to a degree in which they refuse to acknowledge for the human art they have scraped... classic
Jeanne and I are working on a little video concerning artists and copyright laws. I wonder which of you videos would be best for us to refer to so we can point our viewers to you.This video will feature a book I've copied a design from that I've seen made by other stained glass artists. We find your guidance very helpful..thanks.
What about the Google Books Supreme Court case which would likely indicate a fair use precedent for this type of use? Being that it is a thing, I'm not so sure the companies will just lay down and settle.
I donât think it applies. If Iâm not mistaken, Google took the entire copyrighted books by scanning them and reproducing them. I believe that would be considered derivative art from what understand this is not derivative Art, this is learning from looking and analyzing an art.
@@yoursocialmedialawyer How can looking at and copying be fair use, and looking at and learning from not be? Seems like "copying the ingredients" is legal, but "learning them" isn't... I see a distinction without a difference there. What Google did was arguably more, and was fair use... so I'd think up to that line would evolve to be "safe harbor".
You don't see the full picture. Midjourney and co. may not use the stolen images directly within their dataset. But their datasets are still full of data which is generated by using these copyrighted images in the process. It's just adds some layers to it.
AI art programs are currently enabling a lot of unethical behaviour with the expense of a click. I hope the companies see their responsibility and make their products serve humans and not exploit humans for the benefit of few. Big Tec should not be able to capitalize on the lifework of other human beings without consequences.
> *But their datasets are still full of data which is generated by using these copyrighted images in the proces*
To be pedantic, putting the bar at copyright **status** doesn't make sense, especially in countries where copyright status is automatic when an eligible work is put into a fixed medium. If the problem was with copyrighted works being used period, creative commons works licensed so people can use it for training, and volunteering your own works, would be put off limits too.
Basically, copyright status =/= licensing status.
A signature both physically(on image in multiple places) and digitally (embeddd in the file/data) should be required.
Eventually this will kill originality & creativity and also discourage future talented artists from learning the skills/training required to become an expert in their desired art field.
Art is a Gift that should be produced by humans not the/a beast (Ai) of our creation
Well, Joe, I think the time has passed for that. I mean, artists could create art, but not post it. Can you think of a world in which human and AI art could coexist?
something must be done in *reality* now to permanently ID it as *artificial* since it is. A good eye can tell the difference now but in a short few years it will be unrecognizable.
As for it's use, it most definitely will be abused for greed for it's ease/convenience which will also be abused.
Our creativity got us this far and history has shown we eventually become to rely upon our creations, even to the point of being unable to function w/out them. Just imagine the consequences relying on an artificial source for the creations we will rely on...
This artificial art is only a sliver of a much bigger artificial picture.
Ai isn't going away but I find it unwise to let new experiments loose before consequences/problems can be remedied, the alternarive is to risk possible irreversible consequences/problems.
@@yoursocialmedialawyer of course we can create art but not post it. but that's like saying "don't have a storefront if you don't want to get robbed." artists rely on getting our portfolios out in order to make a living. I could see AI art tools and artists living in peace.... but not when we are competing for the same market. If we had more public funding for the arts - if we decided to invest in paying artists for the work they do for society regardless of how well they can commodify their work - then I wouldn't care at all. As it stands, we just have to decide.... do we want human-made art in the world? Do we want human artists caught at the hobbyist level - only having time to create after they spend 10 hours working a job that will pay for living expenses? Or do we want to see what people can create when they have time to dedicate themselves to their craft?
@@nunyabusiness164 Sounds like you're misidentifying the problem as AI when it's really just capitalism.
I am not so sure about the copy-right assessment. I think it will heavily depend on the judge actually and how they interpret copyright protection and the idea behind it. As there is the word of the law and then there is the spirit of the law, so to speak.
One just has to look at one example to understand the root of the issue. Greg Rutkowski. A guy who's one of the most used names in prompts made with Ai image generators. And that is where the issue starts. It becomes incredibly easy trough those image generators to impersonate someone and create countless of images in the style of someone. So much so, that the net will eventually be drowned in images and it becomes very difficuilt to distingiush them from each other. So, what you end up with is an algorithm which was "trained" on the work of someone which then is used to replace the person. Without their consent. Or any compensation. And Ai companies are actually aware of that issue, as you do not see the same situation happening with Ai music generators where they take "popular" tracks to do the same thing. And why? Because we all know, how the Music Industry is. And to what great lengths they go, to prevent something geting "stolen" - for better or worse I am not judging that.
The point is, that we're already seeing artists getting hurt. Not only with Greg Rutkowski, who isn't very fond of the idea of his work being "analysed" by the algorithm. Other artist saw their work "taken" for the algorithm. And once they expressed their concern and dislike even more people did it just out of spite. Is that really how this should go in the future? Where we end up in a situation where people won't even share their work online anymore, in fear of it being "taken"?
We have to wait and see what courts decide. But there is much more to consider here than just what ever if the art is being directly stolen or not. Because whole identities are being assumed here trough the technology. A lot of real people will be hurt by this. And we have not even talked about the whole issue about how the datasets (LAION5) have been created in the first place, where research priviliges here in Europe have been missused to create them and non-profit organisations turning to private companies to generate billions in profit. A lot of this, just reeks of datalaundering. If those algorithms also become better over time, there will be no stoping of fakes, manipulations and illegal content being created, like violent stuff, child pornography you name it.
Legislators will have to react to this one way or another.
as an artist who has spent my life learning to paint, draw and create: I am praying on the downfall of AI art sooooo hard!!!! We cannot automate away everything humans do and then wonder why we feel empty
I equate it to mathematicians and calculators. Just because we have calculators, it doesnât mean that the mathematicians go away.
To get what you wished for, does not necessarily mean to get what you actually want, there is a big difference and it's often not a pleasant realization. Likely legislation to addresses it would put derivative works (because it's what AI generated content is) at a serious risk, including human work... well more so than the currently flawed and heavily abused system we have in place.
@@yoursocialmedialawyer Well mathematicians do a lot more than basic arithmetic. The ancient Romans, Indians, Greeks, Chinese, etc mathematicians were coming up with trigonometry and geometry and all kinds of incredibly complex math. By the time calculators came out, things like calculus, insanely advanced geometry, statistics, etc had already been around for a long time.
Calculators can add and subtract, but mathematicians solve and analyze unimaginably huge theories and concepts.
You can tell a calculator to divide 100 by 25, but you can't tell it to intuit the theory of calculus. But with AI art programs, they can replicate exactly what artist do. Ai art can perfectly mimic human emotions and ideas in a way that I at least find terrifying.
It ain't going going down even if every lawlsuit goes in your favor, it's all free and open source at this point. Too bad, you will have to look elsewhere to take someone else's joy away.
@@chainermike "take someone else's joy away."
you talk like we arenÂŽt worrying about our careers, what a cool person you problably are.
hmmm. Maybe some settlements will occur. However, Gettyimages and the artists performing these lawsuits now aren't looking for compensation so much as looking to kill AI art generators. I don't think they will settle for anything less than the complete ruin of the Ai companies so as to start a process to kill any future prospect of Ai art generators being made by anyone else. So I believe these initial lawsuits will be fully fought in court so as to draw definite lines where and how the 'Ai war' will be taken next.
Getty images has there own art generator LOL and AI so no . no one going to kill image generators .
Funny thing we were literally just talking about this subject and boom, goos to see you Ian and great info.
eh Joe! I'll remove the listening device I have at your place ... just kidding (I won't)
@@yoursocialmedialawyer đđ
So what happens when AI companies start buying the images or do what they are doing now and have custom images made for them. Will it still be illegal ?
It will probably be legal. Since they asked for permission. I think AI art will become the next stock image websites. You pay for the service. And the stock websites (aka AI apps) will pay royalties to the artists whose work they used to train the AI. It sounds like a good deal to me.
Hi sirđą i just got some emails today, youtube is sending me a lots of copyright claims owned by PEDL (warner chappell) is it false copyright claim? Please help me. My videos got some copyright claims and and my revenue is being shared with the company. I hope you can help me with this problemđ€§đ„ș I thank you in advance. Godbless you
eventually people will make their own personal ai artists. cut out the companies who will try to sue and this stupidity could all have been avoided if they just pay artists their worth.
How does a machine "look" at, "analyze", and utilize images without scanning, processing and storing them in some manner?
thats what I've been saying? you trying to say that the Ai just ''look'' without scanning the sh1t out of artist's art... gtfo from here!!
The same way you would analyse a painting to learn from it.
@@HenriZwols not really tho
@@HenriZwols a machine has to scan an image, process it through a system of algorithms to analyze it, store it to "remember" and then composite (digitally) the data with other data its collected (scanned, analyzed, and stored) to produce new images.
Thats not how humans do it. And the machine violates copyright law in regard to digital media as it svans, stores, processes and transmits ip data without compensation or consent of the owner. AND it does so at an industrial svale and speed that humans absolutely cannot accomplish.
So its not at all like how hunans do it. And using vocabulary that sounds like human behavior to describe computer processes, doesnt change that
This guy using a âglitchâ look by splicing 1 frame in there. Due to the high production value and occurrence of the âglitchâ I suspect the reason is to subconsciously increase retention. Smart move good sir smart move.
LOL! Actually man ... it's just a mistake ... still learning good editing skills ... pardon my skills đ€Ł
@@yoursocialmedialawyer hahahah see what assuming does? đ€Łđ€Łđ€Łbut for real that mistake got me through the whole vid. Maybe keep messing this up?đđ appreciate the reply as Iâve been watching you since the beginning of 2022. You da best in the CZcams law space. Thank you again
This is a super unpopular opinion, but I think this lawsuit, if done properly, would actually finally properly lay the foundation for the so called AI art.
It would finally have artists be able to use this technology to be customized to their own art without having them be copied by someone else.
One information that they could use is that in order for then to feed the images to the neural network, they do have to temporarily store them to their server, even if they get deleted later on. It may also be argued that it is an extention of photo manipulation of copyrighted material.
One more thing to note is that, an important concept in deep learning is generalization. Basically deep neural networks were built to try to mimic how biological brains generalize things that they learn and turn that data into incomprehensible mush, known as the weights and biases. There are difficulties in training these models, where they fail to generalize the various information fed to them and instead lean toward reproducing only certain kind of outputs. This is known as overfitting. It's a concept that is derived from statistics.
The so called AI, for now, refers to black box statistical models. It's all just stats. It always has been stats. And it often doesn't help people who want to analyze stats, because it's a black box model, meaning that the actual values stored in them, in this case the weights and biases, are practically meaningless on their own. Either way, the AI hype will die down at some point.
While true that the neural networks are basically logical acting statistics and mathematical formulas - we do not know what creates consciousness in biological beings to dismiss an artificial "intelligence" out of hand. Since we can't explain the biological consciousness it is difficult to state with certainty that the AI is nowhere near it, as we don't even know nor can say with any certainty, how far away it actually is.
Yes, this is consistent with my reading. Thank you for the time you spent helping us understand. I appreciate you.
It begins to lie that this is not theft. Which bothers me. This is a 100% STEAL!
I have no problem with AI art, but the moment people start to use it for monetary gain, that's where it has to STOP. You DIDN'T make that image, and you don't own it either, meaning that you cannot use it for profit! Simple as that!
Well, you could monetize a public domain image too like selling shirts with this image. So I think you could also sell shirts with AI generated images. But since you do not have the copyright on these images (nobody has) this means everyone else could also sell shirts with the same image.
True. This is the current legal status surrounding AI art. I'm curious to see how this will pan out in the near future.
> *but the moment people start to use it for monetary gain, that's where it has to STOP. You DIDN'T make that image*
So?
A company, using that logic, wouldn't be able to sell a game because it wasn't coded by the CEO, but by a whole team of people.
@@gondoravalon7540 Dude, if you're making a videogame, you are supposed to PAY all the people who worked on the code and animations and all that stuff! A videogame is a teamwork, and everyone who works on a videogame gets CREDIT. You get it? As a CEO, people are hired to work for you, and so, it's legal.
Hi Ian, once again-awesome video. Nailed it out the park. If you suggest that MJ and other AI companies can't stand on transformative art evidence and Fair Use precedent, and they settle putting up a pay wall, then there's no incentive for the end users to use their platform. This UX has taken people's imagination over like wild fire and open endless possibilities re: MJ art applications; shirts, posters, etc-all this for free too-come'on. I don't know how the same volume of users will ever return to pay a fee, with the prospects of getting sued by the copyright holders, and or limited license applications, or payments to the dataset copyright holders. However, if...IF...MJ takes this to jury, we could be looking at the start of a whole new industry, unlike the napster era, copy to copy. This is copy to new piece of art.
Blew my mind with this comment. Thank you. There are so many legal issues I look forward to tackling.
I totally agree and this is the reason why I'm having nothing to do with AI art. People are no doubt setting up whole businesses relying on AI art, and the bottoms could fall out entirely if different license restrictions evolve out of these lawsuits for use of images generated by AI. Also, it isn't clear whether legal specifications would be retrospectively applied to art that has already been generated and already in the marketplace. Imagine if you built a business based on AI, started to generate steady sales, and then you have to literally take everything off sale because the AI company had been legally obliged to change its licence agreements. I think sensible business owners will think twice about using AI art even after the licenses have all been rewritten. Why use something where there is uncertainty in copyright if you can use something where you are absolutely certain you have license to use the material because you obtained the license direct from the copyright holder and/or artist? :)
but MJ already has a pay wall.
Great job on this video. Also to all favorite video game footages? I enjoy PinkKittyRose playthrough of games commentary or not.
I like ai art as much as human art, but I donât think the issue is whether the art is stolen or not, itâs more a matter of if itâs too similar to an original image, then the ai art should pay royalties?
3:00 If they don't store the actual Full HD JPG file, doesn't mean the file is not there.
It stores the reconstruction steps, basically an encoded/compressed, low dimensional version of the ingested material. Similar to a ZIP folder.
With same prompt and seed, you get the same image every time. So prompt and seed work like an address to low dimensional data points.
These algorythms can interpolate between data points before/during the reconstruction phase and return blendings of primary material.
There is only so far you can go before you are really stretching the definition of "the original file," IMO - for example, there is no compression algorithm in the world that can compress 240 terabytes into 6-10 gigabytes (and especially not in an instant). If that were the case, holy cow would the tech industry be a buzz - for instance, we'd finally be able to have real competition to the likes of CZcams perhaps.
â@@gondoravalon7540 I didn't say it's the original file. It's a low dimensional representation of it. An encoded, compressed and optimized representation, that is returned as a lossy copy when decoded.
That's what neural networks are good at - optimizing data.
"New" images are obtained by interpolating between data points.
How does it fit into 6-10gb?
First, it doesn't have to use every sinlge sample. A big portion may be filtered out.
Second, it completely changes the way images are stored.
Compare it to raster vs vector.
A 4K JPEG file of a simple logo that takes Megabytes of space, can be represented by one simple formula that takes only a few bits.
Also, there is a lot of redundant data when dealing with such big amounts of it.
Anyway, it's not magic at the end of the day.
Just smoke and mirrors of 21st century.
So interest about this topic do more sir we re interest to know more about art.
Will do Ramiz, my friend
@@yoursocialmedialawyer Thank you sir
Thank You. Finally something that is protecting artists and human art as a whole
Its not stealing? I've seen several AI images that directly copy the work and then the people take credit from the actual artist- that is the definition of plagiarism!
AI is copying the art just like a fake artist would do.
I hope the lawsuits come soon to stop AI. this is going to hurt a lot of people
even you stop AI in the West, it will born in other countries and they will surpass the US and its idiot laws.
Been a year since I saw one of your videos in my feed. Thought maybe I got unsubbed⊠nope you just havenât posted in a year! Where you been bro?
@iancorzine this what I got this morning
Due to multiple copyright strikes associated with the videos below, your CZcams account has now been disabled:
@@ian44670 đđ
Do you have any opinions on Jeanette Braun, Lauren, and this whole debacle? Come back and explain things from your perspective as a lawyer!
at the end people who win are the LAWYERS, humanity will lose and failed artist will win.
If AI had paid for online art courses and had scraped public domain art - i.e. learned art the way artist learn -then fine. But they scrapped actual artists work (not sure where you are getting you info from) without permission or remuneration. But hey, if you use an AI app to make art, I can appropriate it and sell it myself because copyright can only be owned by a human being. So yeah, I look forward to appropriating a bunch of non-artists AI images and using them in my stories, animations and videos and there will be nothing they can do. Whoohoo!đ
Please put more videos đą
See, I would argue AI generators do store the images they have scanned, they are just stored as a different type of data, but that data as you pointed out can be used with the software to reverse and reobtain the images it had scanned. Think of it like a super fancy, compression method that keeps very little of the original data but enough that it's still reversable to some extent. Think about it like this, if I were to take someone else artwork, create a compression algorithm, can I then sell that data and make money off of it just because it isn't specifically the image, even if the person purchasing it can then use a program to reverse that process and obtain the image?
Obviously in the case of AI art generators, it's not just reversing a singular image to obtain the same image, rather it's combining with a ton of other images data in an attempt to create something new. But even so with the right kind of prompts you can get pretty close to a singular original scanned image.
The training database contains PETABYTES of images. The entire AI code os something like Midjourney runs to a few Gigs. The equivalent of LESS THAN ONE PIXEL from each of the images in the database. So even if it DID stor any part of the training images (it doesn't), there would no possible way that anything could be reconstructed form a single pixel equivalent of data. There is no 'combination' of images, the AI learns from billions of images what a chair looks like, what rain looks like, etc and it generates results corresponding to the keywords given to it with 100% new, original, non-derivative imagery.
@@WatcherintheRye
While it's rare, it's already been proven by researchers that it can reproduce near exact copies of images it has scanned. Don't believe me? Look it up, there is an article about it that was released today.
So regardless of what you think, you are wrong about this. Not even by a little, 100% wrong.
@@SilvyReacts was it the one were the AI was trained on ~160 million. About 1/37th as the smallest first publicly used model 1.4. Generated a whole 175 million images and only managed to match 109 of them, a rate of less then 1 in a million. If your pc generated an image per second you need to run it for 11-12 days before hitting your first near copy on average with these numbers, and that was on a custome SD model.
@@asdf30111
It's important to understand that the method in which they used to match the images will only locate matches if it's close enough (pretty much identical). Meaning, there is likely way more but just slightly less identical and as such were not caught.
If there are this many near exact copies, imagine how many there are if it's not exact but still recognizable that the work was used.
Plus, if a prompt can bring up an exact copy, who's to say the "original" image you generated isn't just some mish mash of two copyrighted images? How can you trust anything you generate will not infringe upon someone else's copyright?
Last but not least, this shows way more data from these images are actually being used and stored than is being claimed. The file size might be a lot smaller, but that doesn't mean it's not there in some form, and that clearly shows.
It's just like a heavily compressed image.
So you essentially claim copyright of trillions of non-existant images that are visually distinctive because it could, with lots of effort and GPU usage time, recreate an image on an old version of SD with a 1.88% chance when using the same prompts for the images as in the dataset in learned from which requires actually finding the image first and than trying to recreate it to copy it.
Instead of you know... finding it and right click saving it to copy instead of wasting weeks of GPU usage time until you get a copy. And that is the reason you think it is right to claim copyright infringement on all visually distinctive work, all non-existant pictures in the latent space meaning trillions upon trillions of artworks. Why not just take a big dump on the spirit of the copyright law if we declare trillions of non-existant pictures to be already copyrighted?
Yea you Are Shadow Banned Dude
it can only be slowed down but not stopped.
Oooooor.... they could just actually show some respect to peoples work and train the AIs with copyright free images or permissions and fees.
so by your flawed logic, an aspiring artist should "respect peoples work"..... by not being inspired by the work of others, and having absolutely no influences of any kind?
its fair use......... get over it........ only some one who has never created anything, would fail to understand how creativity works, and think that you need other peoples permission, to be creative.
Ha! Yeah, that could have happened ... maybe should have
â@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER First of all, comparing AI and human learning from images is stupid and completely different. 1. AI isnt human, do you want same rules and laws for AIs and humans?
2.Humans learn by viewing pictures and real life breaking down things to simple 3d shapes, breaking down the perspective, the lighting, the colors, the composition and understanding these concepts and why they work the way they do adding their own flare and experiences to their work. What does AI do? Scan pictures pixel perfectly and learn pixel patterns addin NOTHING outside of their data set, essentially data analyzers and pixel pattern copiers. I know its actually bit more complicated than that with introducing noise and deconstructing and reconstructing images, but still. They have 0 understanding of anything.
3. Theres a section in copyright law about fair use. You may not use copyrighted material to create something that competes or devalues the original work. I would say AI image generators do just that. This is just one example of possible illegal actions the AI creators did.
4. I have studied drawing and draw as a hobby.
5. I have absolutely nothing against AI if its trained ethically by paying for the educational material (like most human artists actually do with books, courses and schooling) or trained with copyright free material. They could have easily done that but didnt because it was a race to the top and most AI model companies wanted to make some money ignoring every ethical question and having 0 respect to thousands of peoples lifes work. Hope that cleared some thoughts of mine for you.
@@Zere616 1. ai dosnt have to be human, or even sentient......things dont have to be exatly the same toe apply the same logic to them.......... by your logic..... a hot frying pan isnt hot, because its not on fire. ........... makes sense right?
2. AI dosnt have to ""understand" art the same way a human does, to "learn" from it...... the same way you dont have to understand an artists art to learn from it, or recreated it, or dirivitves from it.............. it dosnt need some bull shit art school interertation of the art..... it just needs to now how to make it.............. the same way a sider dosnt need to know the chemistry of its web, to be able to make and use it................... things can just be made, no understanding needed.
3. that is NOT how fair use works.... competition is how pretty much all of life works, including buisness, including art. Fair use is about not "mooching" off the works of others, like a parasite.............you have to contribute....... similar to a pot luck dinner party.......... you dont get to eat the party food, if you dont bring food to the party too........ you cant just be a leech and claim other peoples work as yours.
AI meets the requierments of fair use, you can deny it, the same way you can deny the sky is blue, or water is wet...... dosnt make youre denial reality.
4. so what? ....... your drawings are irrelevant......... i make art too, and even i understand that people can imitate my style if they wanted to........ its not a problem. as long as they not claiming my work, to be theirs........
5 there is no "ethics" in training an ai........ it either learns, or it dosnt...... thats all..... nothing esle to it...
... no you dont have to pay to learn things... not for AI.... not for humans..... there are countless free sources of info, both coy written and not....... you tube is an example..... is it unethical for you to be using youtube for free? most things you learned in life, you learned for free..... and even with paid info, you could of learned it thrgou other means...... just because you think money is more important thank knowledge, dosnt mean thats how reality works.......... money is fiction..... knowledge is not.
6. Get over your self. youre not special, your never going to be special, your just as mediocre as the vast majority of people that will ever exist.
â@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER 1. The learning is completely different, not close to the same or almost the same. Same logic doesnt apply. Or ofc you can apply it but its stupid.
2. AI doesnt have to understand art the same way as a human? Thats true, and thats my argument, it isnt the same, shouldnt use same logic. Actually, i need to understand art fundamentals to get the most information from other peoples work. I mean you should know this if you draw as well? If you do a direct copy, then you dont have to understand much but you wont also learn much especially if you want to draw from imagination. But thats already unethical and illegal if you try to somehow present it as your own or sell it.
3. AI creators literally smooched off from thousands of artists lifes work. Opinion noted, lets see what the courts say.
4. I told about my drawings because you implied I had no idea about creative work. That is all. Just debunking your wild and uncalled for assumptions. Relax.
5. Are you kidding me? Theres TONS of ethical questions about AI and their use. Youre ignorant. Artists dont HAVE to pay, but most do from copyrigthed books and images used in courses and schools. The AI bros didnt. That was my point. I mean, AI creators could have used free stuff and copyright free material also, but they didnt because i suspect it was race to the top and to make fast money and trying to be the best as fast as possible.
6. I didnt learn most things for free, I went to school and got an education, my parents paid it with tax money and now im paying it with my tax money. I got some art study books, art books of actual arts etc. Youre wrong, I payed most of my stuff i learned in life.
Get over myself? Why the hostility, just trying to have a conversation, dont take it so personally xD Sheehs... Im not special and Ill never be, Im very well aware of that. Actually think im actually below mediocre. So there.
Won't be settled.
You haven't researched enough. Stability AI's software is open source for research. It is the software with the most development teams on Github by now. It has spurred more innovation than any software before it. Putting it behind a paywall defeats the purpose of it being open source.
It's purpose is demonstrably transformative on the development form alone. The research purpose will have ripple effects for decades and is the - main - purpose of the open source software. There is no software that is even comparable to how much it is being developed for. As such it isn't competing with artists but with AI generators of every kind. The generative diffusion models are just taking their first babysteps and their usage for everything in media - from art to animation to music and soon video, will be world changing.
Plaintiffs also do not provide a single artwork that the defendant supposedly infringed upon. Copyrightable is only a specific expression of an idea. Plaintiff can't sue a market disrupting software because they fear competition in general - that is not in the spirit of the copyright law. Even if they find an image that is close to a plaintiff's copyright - who actually created it? Arguing the defendant is infringing upon copyright through the mere existence of the software because of the latent images is taking things too far:
In the model the defendant provides are, for example, so many pictures of flying dogs of every kind with different clothes and different compositions that you could easily fill the world's hard drive spaces with pictures of flying dogs. The vast majority of those pictures will not have an equal in the real world that was referenced. Alleging every piece inside of defendant's model is derivative work is claiming copyright for trillions upon trillions of pictures that are not in existence yet just because defendant's model could create them through the training it received. This is a ridiculous claim and should be dismissed out of hand, this is not only not in the spirit of copyright law - it spits right into its face. Plaintiffs want essentially to claim copyright on all trillions upon trillions of non-existent images that might be created because a machine learned on their images.
As such, Stability should not settle and go through with it setting precedent, which will especially concern music models that will follow next.
This. It wouldn't make any sense a settlement.
And even if Stability AI settled and agreed with to only used "licenced works" to their next versions, there are other companies, for instance, like Lensa using SD, so artists would simply start to sue those other companies . It doesn't make any sense.
If anything, what both sides want on this case is to put this case before the court so that it issues an statement on this situation.
Ok. I hear your perspective. My point is that AI companies want to get us hooked on AI apps and so they want this suit to go away quietly before they have time tp addict us and throw up the paywall.
Nope, the only things that can be taken down are the models (checkpoints), not the technology.
Underrated fella, I'm genuine
It is said 240 000 GB of data was used to train a neural network of 5 GB in size. Training images were 512x512 pixels in size. This ratio would mean that out of every picture, on average 5 pixels were used in the final product, if we go by the theory that the network contains aspects of original work.
In a way similar AI technologies are used in modern phones to make better photos from noisy sensor data or poor illumination and also in gaming graphics cards to make faster frame rates at higher resolution. In both cases AI creates new information that wasn't there in the first place. Based on what was learned from millions of (pretty surely copyrighted) examples. Works like magic and everyone is happy. Nobody sues anybody.
One more interesting bag of worms opens as IA work cannot be copyrighted. So, a journalist takes a photo of an artistic picture. Immediately sensor data is transformed using AI. The resulting image is at least in part AI work. Then this goes into Photo Shop, where some additional AI tools are possibly used. Finally the heavily constructed photo is published on some public resource. This is then used to train some other AI and ends up in court. Now what?
Tech companies would kill if there were a compression algorithm, lossy or lossless, that could compress 240 TB of data down to 5 GB.
JFC man you need better audio
I will get it dialed
Sir Iâm so frustrated right nowđąđą
I strongly disagree with your analysis as to how these programs work. It is just thievery in a different form. When a person is directly prompting an AI with an artist name this is infringement by proxy plain and simple. The AI just takes the data that it was trained on without the artist permission and creates the art. This ridiculous idea that the AI adding noise is a joke. I can add noise in Photoshop, press a button and get my image back. It called the undo button. I deconstructed the image and then reconstructed it. The reason they add noise (deconstruction) is to see how it effects the image as it adds noise (deconstruction). This way they can add predictability to the end prompt result. The image cannot be created unless it had deconstructed the image first. Without deconstruction there is no construction. If I was using AI creators this would be one of my main points. Do I think that any of these people suing over AI copyright infringement will win? No, because all they be crushed by big companies who have lots of capital and ulterior motives and why too much money in the game. I do think that AI is revolutionary but what that revolution is remains to be seen.
> *When a person is directly prompting an AI with an artist name this is infringement by proxy plain and simple.*
That's not how something being an infringement or not works - that's not how anyone in any creative field would WANT infringement to work.
On top of each case being decided on a case by case basis, a stylistic similarity alone doesn't necessarily state anything, good, bad, or somewhere in between, about how the tech actually works or not.
Didn't David Holz (Midjourney owner) offical make a statement, several in fact, that shows that Ai does steal, does use art as a base in it's work, and is now activally suing people using it to profit off their work? (This is inresponse to the now clear open and shut case BTW) against it. In fact some things you are saying are going directly against what the Lawyers are saying, what the people in the Ai tech world are saying, and hell even what the creator of Stable and Midjourney are saying.
It's starting to look like you guys are grasping at everything you can to keep going. Reminds me a lot of NFT bros. Lol, wait are you guys Ai bros? God damn that's sad and funny all at the same time
Haha đ I know. Hey man, Iâm just figuring out the stuff as I go along too. Iâm not an AI expert or proponent. In fact, the tech scares the heck out of me. After all, AI is coming for my job too.
@@yoursocialmedialawyer As you go along? You might want to reference a tech and law expert before then so is not to spread miss information. For starters several lawyer channels have already activally stated that it's 100% copyright fraud going on. No one, not even the owners of the Ai's are disputing that.
Right now the argument is if it is fair use in many court cases but as it is going now it doesn't seem to be given the 4 points of fair use.
Also, all the artist and companies are currently refusing to settle, this is because, at least most likely, that in the event this takes off publicly just about every media site will be out of a jobs. From Journalist to Japanese animation. Disney to Digital Design. As such there has been a huge amount of push back just about everywhere with anything considered art.
And lastly, this is just part of the legal problems. Midjourney and Stable where having major problems with man legal issues above even copyright and fair use including a massive amount of people using it to make fake images for counterfitting or deep faking. People making photo realisting images of children in sexual poses, and a huge amount of miss information including lying about what Ai images can be used for.
Ammaar Reshi for example recently got into trouble for making a childrens book, Alice and Sparkle, and is now in major legal trouble. His book was taken down from amazon and I think even Midjourney is suing him for using the Ai images to make profit. This is because Ai images hold no copyright and you can NOT sell images or art or anything with no copyright/in the public domain.
You also can not gain copyright of an Ai image according to the USCO and as of Dec 21 2022 they even made a statement when fake artist Kris Kashtanova attempted to copyright Zarya of the Dawn in September of the same year, and lost it due to it being Ai generated and is now in trouble for fraud.
If this court case goes on as it likely will if the parties are unwilling to settle, and they get found guilty, then Stable, Midjourney, and any other Ai will need to actually put a stop to the illegal activity. Given how Ai generation makes images it's likely it will be shut down entirely or be forced to change rapidly into something new as failure to pay a fine and make changes to fix the problem by a certain date decided by the courts will result in a new fine equal to the original, then added again every day, similar to Osha funny enough. So if this goes though which again they want it to, it would actually totally kill Ai image generation.
On another note, cases get referenced in the future also so if this happens again this case you are referening now will be the go to for deciding future cases.
And one final thing, Stable does store images. It uses LAION 5B to store image data and use it. It's also how come there are sites and other tools, including the one you said, to reference if an image is being used to train an Ai. it's actually very easy to see this all. For more proof, Grzegorz Rutkowski, an artist for Wizards of the Coast, found that Ai was being used to commit fraud on him and his name and art was being searched, stored, and used. When treatening legal action against them the Ai company was forced to remove his work and making it impossible to make more copies of his work. This also proves that Ai does require a base image and is stealing.
But again, this is just the tip, as many like David Holz is under a lot of fire for far more than just copyright problems. Everything from fraud to theft to lying about what the apps can be used for, things he's now being forced to come clean about. Here is actually what he said in the Childrens Book Situation I mentioned before also.
Midjourney's founder, David Holz, told Insider: "Very few images made on our service are used commercially. It's almost entirely for personal use."
That should get you started on important information on this topic. And why it's becoming such big deal. If you thought this was OK, then you have been lied to. By David, By other high ranking people in these companies, so on. You were tricked, just try not to lose anything over it like NFT bros and their scam and be safe.
Neither of these things happened.
@@Topbeehler Amaar Reshi isn't in trouble, and the book is still for sale on Amazon. "you can NOT sell images or art or anything with no copyright/in the public domain" You absolutely can, how do you think Getty make their money? Or all the vintage images being sold on Shutterstock et al? "You also can not gain copyright of an Ai image" Yes, you can. If you have creative input into it (The Supreme Court has said that only "a modicum of creativity" is necessary to make a work copyrightable). Ai images are already copyrightable in the UK. Ireland, India and New Zealand 'out of the box'. LAION 5B isn't part of SD, it's a standalone database. There are no images stored in it. It's simply a DB of links to images and the keywords applied to them by the websites hosting them. This is public domain information and 100% fair use for any legal purpose.
I STRONGLY suggest you educate yourself more thoroughly and refrain from posting misleading, and in some cases openly libellous, comments on social media. You're not helping your cause by lying, even if accidentally.
Sorry that is not creating your own art. Its removing the noise to show the original image
Yep đ
What 'original image'? The LAION database links to 5 billion sources. If the AI is reproducing one of them each time it makes a image, how does it choose which one, and why can you never get a reverse image match? The original image is the one created BY the AI. It's not a copy of anything else.
Wow
Thanks Melo
I don't have to download (take) someone's art to create a subsequent piece of art that would be an infringement of the original art. All I have to do is see the art to do so. This is exactly what A.I. does when it analyzes the images on which it is trained. The fact that it never stores a copy is irrelevant. If I were sitting on a jury, I'd find for the artists.
Without actually seeing any works produced by the AI that meet the standard of copyright infringement?
One AI generator literally reproduced the "Getty Images" watermark on it's images, because it was trained on them. That is evidence of blatant infringement.
Didn't know that the "A.I" has eyes to see, and a brain to think like a human.
Hopefully you are completely wrong. Hopefully the case does go to trial and the court (rightly) finds that the using the art to train an AI model (essentially a digital "brain") is the very definition of a "transformative" work. And once it's deemed transformative...it's fair use. And we can be done with all these sue-happy artists once and for all.
How about the ai companies compensate the artists from which they use the esthetics in afirm of licence ? These artist work hard to create a style and esthetics that makes them revelant, its normal that if a computer applies that esthetic, that signature they are using what makes the image different..
You can refer to the case of the song blured lines who was prosecuted for using the style or musical esthetics of marvin gay if i remember correctly..
Art is an interpretation of reality, a distortion, the perspective of the artist.. if a certain artist is revelant because of its style, its personal way of representing reality.. and ai is it wil just kill the interest of real artists to create new styles.. it will.stop the evolution of art.. the evolution of creativity..
Everyone should be payed for their contribution.. just like a computer generated version of angelina jolie should pay royalties to angelina jolie for using their image.
Vee Soho...there is a problem with this strategy...because that's just the Tip of the iceberg. If they compensate artists, they would also have to compensente millions of people they've stolen the pictures from, including babies. And then, we would discover that they've also stolen pornography...wich allows people to create : pedopornography (I'm serious about that)...and they would be in way More trouble. I think that's why they didn't even consider it in the first place.
For example, if you tap : Little vietnamese girl 8 years old lingerie...what do you get ? (in stablediffusion)
So yeah...I think that's why they don't even want to talk about it...
@@eqmmtalk Nothing is or has been stolen from anywhere.
Should human artists pay every other artist they've ever seen work by? Same principle applies.
@@WatcherintheRye I have a simple question for you Ruby : Is people don't need to steal the style of an artist...why do so many of them tap "Greg Rutkowski" in the AI generator ? Isn't it the NAME of someone that they Use...to get what ? Candies ?
@@eqmmtalk If you've ever used an AI generator you'd know that naming an artist doesn't actually produce artwork BY that artist, or even in that artist's pure 'style'. By the same token, all art students are encouraged to explore the great movements and try their hand at painting in the style of others, Impressionists, Fauvists, Van Gogh, etc. Does it mean they're stealing the work of those artists? No.
In my opinion, there is no infringement of copyright, therefore these apps will continue.
For those who consider that AI shouldn't be treated as a human: consider that the AI, legally, is an extension of the programmer. I believe that legally, we are not talking about the doings of the AI, but if the software engineers.
I hear you and this is the current state of copyright law. Machines canât own a copyright.
Your opinions are really off...
@@slowpokejpg6 Just in case: I was not talking about ethics, just about my interpretation of how the legal system would define things and the effect that it can have on the conclusions. I am not saying that it is ethically correct, that is a whole other conversation.
They analyzed then create new one, hope you all fail trying to sue AI art....fail fail. You're suing because you want to be rich, and that's all.
AI artist: "I created this artwork with the power of AI"
Professional art master: "So you used a software or computer algorithm and a few mouse clicks to create this artwork? Looks perfect and also looks like this was stolen from somewhere"
AI artist: "But uhhh.... Its my art"
Professional art master: "Were going to do a test to see your aptitude for drawing. Here's a few traditional tools, you cannot use computers and you have less than 3 hours to complete the assignment. You will be graded based on your art skill and progress"
*AI artist 3 hours later takes drawing to pro for evaulation*
Professional art master: "Your fundementals are lacking, your light sources need work, your values are all over the place, your construction of human anatomy is much to be desired. Your perspective needs quite alot of improvement. You should study more and not rely on a cheap method as AI to make art. You get F. Go home and study more"
AI artist: "Buh buh buh but im a pro"
Professional art master: "A computer algorithm is not skill its a cheap crutch and you need to stop lying to others"
How did humans learn how to do art? And if I use an AI to create a image of my own face then I haven't stolen any buddies artwork and the smart system hasn't stolen anybody's. And by the way people need to stop using aai they're not, they're highly advanced Smart systems. Artificial intelligence would give it some kind of Cynthia. And no computer program or computer processor to date has been known to be self aware. So hopefully you can answer my question, and forgive my rant.
Humans learn art by studying images and life, usually buying books and schooling and learn to break images down to simple 3d shapes, they break down the perspective, how the lighting works, how composition leads the eye and understanding why everything looks as they do with these rules. What does AI do? Scan art pixel perfectly and learn pixel patterns. As you can see, the process is completely different with AI and human learning. AI has no understanding of concepts, its just a data collector and pixel pattern copier.
If you do your own face with an AI image generator, you havent stolen anything, but the trainers of the AI might have breached the copyright of trained images because fair use says you cant use copyrighted work, if it directly competes with the original work or devalues it, because normally you would ask an artist to do the picture of you. Just one example how AI image generators might break copyright laws.
The current art-"AI" is a bunch of databases. These things aren't persons at the moment, 'cause a real Artificial Intelligence would be capable of doing stuff on their own without our input.
self awareness requires consciousness, not intelligence
Yes, Zere, you are right, but from what I have seen Stable Diffusion does not produce images which compete commercially with human art images. Frankly, I don't know if you've used apps like Midjourney but they really cannot produce images of real people well -- I tried one of myself, and I look kind of like Danny Devito.
@@yoursocialmedialawyer Danny Devito is hot so I see no iusse.
I've no skin in the game on either side but how are AI Art generators any different to art students? Art students go around analyzing other artists' work without paying those artists to do so and then they internally integrate the results of their studies and produce new original works. Who is suing them? ...And is "the prof made me do it" an adequate defence? đ
That's the information I have too. However, other more knowledgeable people in the comments say that not all AI art apps function on the diffusion model ... I'm looking forward to their explanations of how the other types work
Difference is Were humans, we learn by studying reading and listening and looking and pure hardships as art is a skill. An ai doesn't do any of these, if an ai has a database of all the basketball players in the world and it's being put in a pair shoes like the movie like mike is that any good? Everyone is MJ now and soon Basketball will die and so will any other sport or entertainment, which is ai's number one goal cause that's where the money is at. Sooner or later it will just be them having the fun. Art will survive but the word artist will die, and if the ai sport will happen the game will live but the sport die.
@@judgeoftruth6058 I don't think AI art will put artists out of work any more than basketball players. The people who would use AI Art wouldn't pay for art anyway. It's like Landr with audio mastering - any competent mastering engineer can do better but the Landr customers were never going to pay. If anything, AI Art will reduce the incidence of people using copyrighted materials without permission.
@@oldunclemick if you mean traditional paintings and animation probably but that's just temporary. I've seen robots draw traditionally and all it takes is time
While concept designers, graphic designers, book/game cover illustrators they are in trouble. All it takes is for a game company is a art director with an ai while the junior artists and senior artist are no longer needed and I've seen this happening already a design team of 20 cut down to a two man team. As I said ai is not only going for art it's going for the whole entertainment industry.
The difference is the scale. A singular artist learning isn't going to all of a sudden harm another artists jobs since it takes a lot of time, effort, and work to become a good artist, and as long as they are not trying to outright copy or steal that other artists work, then there is very little reason to consider it a problem.
A singular AI however can scan billions of images, and produce billions of new images in an incredibly short period of time. And can put many artists out of business and using their own work to do it.
A lot of people act like it's not different, but you point me to a human that is capable of doing what AI is, and try and tell me again it's not different. It's very different.
By this logic, I can go into the louvre, steal the Mona Lisa off the wall, slap it on a photocopier and make a million copies for later use in "collages" or something, and then sneak back into the Louvre and put the Mona Lisa back.
When they clap me in irons and drag me to court for stealing the Mona Lisa, my argument is basically "I totally didn't steal the Mona Lisa because I didn't _keep_ the Mona Lisa, therefore it isn't theft!!!"
"Also would you like to buy this distorted photocopy i made for 12 bucks? Sure i made a million of them and the art world is oversaturated with them, but I'm sure that couldn't possibly be a problem. And if you complain about it you're a luddite. Money pleeeeeeease!!!"
Your example ... you still actually took the physical portrait, even if you returned it, how is that a valid analogy here though?
its open source bro, nothing is stoping this lmao
Interesting analysis. Just because you paint a picture of dogs playing poker, does that prohibit others (including AI programs) from painting pictures of dogs playing tennis? Seems like a stretch. The test should be is the art substantially different. If so, these artists should be laughed out of court.
Hey C -- really like this comment. My understanding of AI art training (albeit rudimentary) is that AI is actually "learning" from human art on the internet. It's not making subtle changes to existing images. If I went to the Louvre and looked and analyzed the Mona Lisa, but then painted a picture of my wife, but in the style of the Mona Lisa, this would not be copyright infringement -- therefore, in the Anderson case, plaintiffs would lose on summary judgment.
AI apps don't "take" art files more than we do when browsing websites, the real and only matter should be : how similar to the original is the generated output. AI apps do nothing that humans can't do, they just do it on a large scale
Well, Bobby, if that's the case, then the 3 artists in the Anderson case will lose. There is NO evidence that the AI art generator companies produced images that took away money from plaintiffs
I agree with you. People build on existing knowledge. We are inspired and taught by others. Imagine if we had to pay copy rights for every party involved? Teachers would be the richest people in the world.
A machine needs to download to do anything. The human mind doesnât exactly behave the same way a machine does, itâs entirely different.
@@minixlemonade2335 Sure! IT's better! There's a shortage of labor. Let's reallocate people doing obsolete things to what's necessary. Less painters, more nurses, teachers and plumbers.
@@TheSimArchitect
My issue with the idea of reallocating people like this without much thought is all you do is create a society full of people who are unemployed. It's not like painters can just instantly become nurses, teachers, plumbers, etc. And we are not just talking about painters, but the entire creative sector. Journalists, book authors, song writers, musicians, etc. We would be talking about job loss on an unprecedented scale.
Plus, I think the fact that machine learning isn't just a little better than humans, but by orders of magnitude better, that is a HUGE difference to consider and why it shouldn't really be claimed as the same thing. A human learning from other humans we are talking about them obtaining a very VERY small insignificant portion of that other person's work to improve on their own work. It takes years and years to improve, and the amount a singular artist can produce is unlikely to hurt anyone else's job to the point that it's not meaningful in regards to copyright. Where as a singular machine doing it, can scan billions of images, all meaningful in a short period of time and can also produce millions of new images afterward, affecting jobs across the entire world.
How different does something need to be before we consider it different? Cause from where I see it, to me this is very different compared to how humans do things.
AI isn't going anywhere. Why? Because we just can't help ourselves...
I love AI
Good. It needs to be stopped.
The easiest real world analogy is when someone traced someone else's work and erases the original lines replacing them with their own line strokes...
That's the best wording y'all get from me đ english ain't my first language đ
Basically, an A.I doesn't have the ability to create an artwork from a Completely blank slate of paper or canvas, it needs other images to put noise on... It's basically tracing multiple arts all at the same time.
Thatâs pretty right on. Next time I wonât consult ChatGPT. Iâll call you.
The easier and more accurate analogy is if you were to ask a human to draw a dragon. Since they don't exist and nobody has actually ever seen one for real, the only references any artist has to estimate what a dragon is 'supposed' to look like is the images (created by others) of dragons they've seen previously. No human is carrying around an encyclopedia of dragon images in their brain on the offchance that they might get asked to draw one, but any human CAN refer to memory and cross-pollination of different sources they've encountered previously to have an idea of what their drawing of a dragon ought to look like, they then create a brand new, original and unique drawing of a dragon. It's not a copy of anyone else's work, it's not a derivative of anybody else's work, no permission was required for the artist to notice, view and remember any part of the many reference works they've seen in their lives. Yet the only reason they know how to draw a dragon (that can be recognised as a dragon) is because other people have drawn them before. That doesn't mean the new work isn't original, or new, or unique. It doesn't mean anything has been stolen, opr any copyright has been infringed. The same is true for how AI learns, creates, and how it's output is not infringement on anything by anyone.
@@LanxPenzenpepper It doesn't 'trace' anything from anywhere. This is a complete misunderstanding of how the AI works.
@Ruby Davies That's just a thing that i found the most similar to the "putting noise on the picture and removing said noise to recreate the image"
They can never do anything without it.
Personally, I'll only consider an A.I work original if they are able to function without putting noise on other existing Original artwork...
Basically, if they can draw on a blank slate of paper or canvas, create their own concepts, create their own artstyle and consciousness.
You don't have to agree to me, that's just my personal take on this things.
at worst the lawsuits will delay AI art generation a few years. Until the companies have created their own dataset
Wow and you are a Lawyer? Please donât give advice out of subjects you are not an expert on it, canât believe this guy. People get advice from an IP lawyer, unbelievable.
This artist just wants free money
Well can we sue artist for mimicking other artists. I don't agree with ai art. But the ai is only doing what artists do. Artist look at and take things from the world as inspiration
Thou shalt NOT steal. Those that live by AI will die by AI.
Na-ah, the take of "AI making new stuff" is false.
ăThese art-programs are databases and NOT proper Artificial Intelligence (aka as in being a person). They cannot create anything on their own and won't try anything else than the stuff they were trained with. Feeding an untrained AI thousands of photographs will only allow it to make realistic-looking pictures - there won't be any other style such as a Disney-esque or classical comic depiction.
Hmmm, that's not what my research tells me. But, given your take, do you think that AI is "stealing" human art and then regurgitating it?
@@yoursocialmedialawyer It becomes stealing once there is no consent of those who originally made the pictures the "AI" got as database.
In spite of the initial impression, if you look around Social Media, there's another reason why artists are angry with the whole topic than their fear of being replaced by something that copies their style.
ăMany have explained, that they would like such programs if these databases were made to 100% with permission of those artists whose pictures were used for training. The "AI" could even become a valuable assistant for artists such as doing backgrounds for them or helping with the process of shading.
Actually, something similar already exists for musicians who cannot provide a human singing-voice due to whatever reason but still wish to feature lyrics in their songs.
ăIn case you're not familiar with Vocaloid or Synthesizer V, the voices recorded to make these programs' Voicebanks belong to people who gave their consent. (If you have time to spare, listen to some tracks featuring Solaria - this Voicebanks is for a good reason a darling of the respective fanbase.)
@@MelodyCrystel First off, the Ai doesn't HAVE a database. The AI already IS a valuable asset and tool for artists who include it in their workflow. Generally speaking, the only people who are worried about their work being 'copied' are people who nobody would ever be even slightly interested in copying. I've yet to meet a serious artist who thinks AI is anything other than a fantastic new frontier.
@@MelodyCrystel > *It becomes stealing once there is no consent of those who originally made the pictures the "AI" got as database*
If you want to risk creating a definition of "stealing" so broad that it can get applied to human learning, IMO of course,.
BAD NEWS TO YOU AND I HE SAYS. You basically admitted is ok to steal from artist. I really enjoy most of your videos but this one it's very close to home. Good day.
Nothing is being stolen from anyone by anything.
â@@WatcherintheRye I didn't state you stole anything, I wrote that you admitted it is ok to create derivative works of art based on other works of art, in your own words at MINUTE 4:00 "bad news for you and me, were able to download images to use on shirts, Etc" so why did you say bad news? bad news for you? for the people who take advantage? what about Us the artists? we have enough battles fighting Circular 9 in major studios because they want to own everything, the bottom line is that the engine needs something to grab in order to regenerate the art, so this falls under Derivative Works of Art under Copyright Law, I been in litigations over 2.5 million over my some of my art, per case, federal cases here in L.A., and had some of the larger agencies to protect me, cases that lasted years. So let's come up with an AI system that can calculate every single scenario in litigation and mediation so we can get lawyers out of business. ;) just saying, don't mean to be rude, but put yourself in our shoes. We work really hard to come up with some funky stuff and then people think they can just come to grab parts of our art and make money, hell no. Are you an IP lawyer?
@@WatcherintheRye You haven't paid much attention to anything the past year, have you
Thanks Izzy. Well, thatâs my goal to provoke thought and come up with a reasonable solution for all. Hope I didnât lose you. Looking forward to your future comments.
@@glorytoukraine5524 I've paid attention to the facts, not the hysteria and misinformation. You should probably try it.
hahahah there is no way in hell 1000 lawsuits will stop AI ai is no about art is about evolution , you canât fight evolution , difusiĂłn is just one aspect of AI , in order to prevent it you will actually to make AI unlawful âŠ
AI art is no different than an human artist being inspired by art they saw.
AI is 100% fair use, even if they use some on else art directly (but they dont)
if you have a problem with AI art, you are either a moron, or a scammer...... maybe both.
These things (StableDiffusion, Midjourney, NovelAI and AnythingV 3 as examples) are illegal as the databases weren't build with consent of the respective artists. You cannot make a song-ripoff without getting into trouble with the songwriter / singer, so why do you think it's okay to stab those who draw? A legal art-"AI" needs to be 100% made with permission.
That's such an interesting take ... AI is Fair Use ... is it? Is it even derivative of actual human art? Given my research, I would be tempted to say that AI art is defacto non-copyright infringing.
@@yoursocialmedialawyer "fair use"..... "non copy write infringing".......... these are irrelevant legal semantics that can be ignored.............. the important thing people need to understand is that AI art is perfectly fine......... legally, ethically, morally, whatever your choice of words is, AI isnt doing anything wrong. Any one who says other wise, is actively denying reality.
@@MelodyCrystel WRONG...... there isnot a single law about this......fair use is the only one that covers this subject, and AI meets the requierments of fair use.
you ever hear of parody music? some one like weird all, makes "eat it"..... a parody of michale jacksons "beat it"........... perfectly legal................... thats sorta like what the AI art is doing.
is it illegal for you to go to school? or other wise get an education? nope....... its not....and its no different for AI.
lastly, lets pretend im wrong, and that its 100% illegal............ so what? no one has any obligation to live by the fictional beliefs of others, not even if named the law............ AI art, or any one who uses AI to make art, or creating AIs for art, is in no way doing any harm, of any kind, to any person or group.....not directly, not indirectly..........
no victim, no crime, not a legal crime, not a real world crime....... NO VICTIM NO CRIME!
Wait so whatâs stopping me from drawing Mickey Mouse?
It's stealing.
The entire copyright and patents system is a joke and hinders progress. There's a need for better balance and flexibility. Unhappy creators can move on to other activities. There's a strong need for plumbers, or so I have been told. đ
Ha! Tough love from Sim. I like it.
Its a opposition between uncreative people who depend on ai to try to maje them self interesting and real creators who work on their cratf.. its the uncreative that should be plumbers !
@@yoursocialmedialawyer Thanks! đ€
@@jacek7348 It's not about effort, it's about results. We have more artists than necessary and less laborers. Sorry if reality isn't fun, but work is something you do against your will because you're being paid for it. Sometimes there's exceptions or you make things work but none of us is entitled to anything. We don't get participation or "enough effort" trophies in real life. You may not be lazy but if whatever you do may be hard but not valuable in your context. Then you better stop doing it and go do something else if you need money to pay your bills.
Right, because doing a job someone actually loves doing should be shat on because you don't think it's a "real job".
thanks for the info > very helpful! just starting a youtube channel if i ever need your services, i will reach out to you. > SizzleSal's