Is AI Art Legal? (Copyright Nightmares)
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 03. 2023
- Are machines stealing our creativity? Or is it just progress? What do you think about it? 🤖💡
#ai#aipredictions#aicopyright
Looking to get more out of ChatGPT? Get my free E-Book: myaiadvantage.com/newsletter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🤯 E-Book with 400+ ChatGPT Use Cases: myaiadvantage.com/ebook
🌱 CZcams Membership: / @aiadvantage
💬 Discord: / discord
🐦 Twitter: / theaiadvantage
📸 Instagram: / ai.advantage
💃 TikTok: / aiadvantage - Věda a technologie
I know it's futile but any attempt to wipe this evil shit from the face of the earth is noble.
But honestly this isn't the way it can affect people too
I get why artists would feel a certain kind of way but this has no legs. It's more of a conversation starter than an actual lawsuit. The AI isn't copying the art. It's copying the art _style_ .
If we seriously start trying to copyright a style of physical drawing art, it only makes sense that we start trying to copyright how people talk or act. If I'm doing a William DaFoe accent in my movie, does that mean I owe him a check?
This is just the old guard trying to stymie change since they feel their profession is on the chopping block. In reality, while many of the lesser artists will have to look at other avenues, the cream of the crop will be able to make even more money when this is all said and done
Preach it brother!!! So God damn sick of hearing these 'Artists' whine about their artwork getting stolen...
@@RealStonedApe Imagine a stand up comedian that steals jokes from others stand up comedians. You AI simps are just like that
@@untizio7125 Preach it brother!!! So God damn sick of hearing these 'AI Art Advocate' assheads whine about having to pay money for creativity...
@@untizio7125Ok but actually tho smaller artists who still use other people's artstyles are going to have a really hard time developing their own like me im still a beginner artists and i search for other people's artstyle so i can learn how to use them
Style should not be copyrighted. That's basically saying that only one person can have an anime art style. That's taking the job of mangakas. And only one person can have a semi-realistic artstyle where there is a lot of shines in it that'll take a lot of digital artists' job. So it's like a sword with two edges, one you'll get rid of AI ar but on the other hand a lot of people will lose their job
I, as a human, can look, read or hear something and copy it OR, use what I learned and generate something new. If I use what I learned and don’t copy things either exactly or very similarly, that’s fine in terms of copyright. I don’t see a difference because AI isn’t copying things. It learns from them. This is why I take issue with generalizations about AI that don’t take into account the nuances. The abilty to prompt “in the style of” is all that needs to go, not AI art or music itself. That type of prompting is where you end up with most plagiarism. Otherwise, there’s a need for the public to understand how AI learns and generates something before making judgement on it.
Style is not copyrighted.
Same with AI art.😂
It is
@@datonedumbasian4919It isn't. If it was copyrighted there wouldn't be as many artists now some of them have similar artsytles or maybe even the same
Strongly disagree. And I've been making my own art since elementary school. (Not much profit, back then, but hey.) I can understand on an emotional level why artists feel like wrongs have been done to them, but nothing has changed except speed.
People learn from other people; AI just does it faster. Do I owe the guy who drew a cartoon style first some money because I got inspiration from his style? Of course not. Should all people drawing cartoon animals have to give some of their income to Disney? No. Does everyone drawing their own Sonic fan art owe Sega a cut? Nope.
Why? Because you can't own a style.
Just because AI learns faster doesn't change the fact that new works are being created. Artists own their own works, but again: they cannot own a style. (Same for authors and musicians.)
The idea that a style legally belongs to a person isn't rooted in logic or reason at all. It's just really unfair-feeling when someone (or, now, something) uses it.
@No Espam thank you both for these comments - such a breath of fresh air! It's maddening reading the comments saying it's stolen - it's a struggle holding myself back from commenting on them. God knows those 'discussions' lead nowhere...idk, maybe there's some good that can come from replying to those comments but my mental health can't deal with it
@No Espam (Sorry this is a late follow-up.) Right, but even if they do lose, it's pretty much too late. These generative AI have already soaked up so much information that they don't need to anymore.
But say they ban Midjourney (unlikely). Adobe and others are working on systems that only learned from non-copyrighted works. There's no philosophy that could back a ruling to outlaw *those* systems.
Ai will never do art. Art is a human craft and computer only can do mix and match of bunch of artworks.
Ai dont learn like a human even the big AI experts are said this over and over, read some articles before writing this nonsense. AI learns through patterns recognition humans learn through concepts
@@untizio7125but this person is correct about the problems humans will face
I think where it draws the line is most likely the art style. Artist can already look up pictures of anybody on the internet and incorporate those things into their art. Therefore, if an AI incorporates those things based on user-input is most likely okay.
What the problem is the process of the style of art that is being copied/remixed with other people's art style. Right now I am trying to figure out what I can do about that situation, maybe I can do my own art style and start feeding my art style to stable diffusion so that hopefully, me and other people who use my art style can avoid copyright issues.
its more ridiculous to think you have a unique style than a unique image. ive seen so many simon stalenhaag copy cats that think their breaking the norm, stop it.
Do you think humans do anything else than 'remixing data'?
Obviously. Why else could I copyright something I painted but nothing I create with AI?
@@samthesomniator Law is not really a standard for whether something is true or not, it's just arbitrary rules for conduct between humans. It also doesn't change the fact that brains are incredibly complex biological data-remixers, they just are. We observe, recognize and re-apply. Recognizing patters and recombining or reconstructing patterns is how all our behavior, art and sciences evolve.
So just out of curiosity, where is the threshhold? It's a sincere question, not trying to aggravate or provoke you. If to you the answer is that it comes out of a human body, then that's completely fine, it's just that I see things differently.
If an artist takes an AI generation and uses it as a compositional inspiration for a new artwork, is that copyright-able? How about if an artist takes the image and only edits parts of it? What if an artists takes a generated image and only applies a bunch of filters?
It's all so grey, I don't think absolute answers will be of much use here.
@@k.rahimi4969 It think that comes all down to the definition what art exactly is. We might agree on the fact that there is absolutely no consciousness needed to generate meaningful and aesthetic structures. Nature via evolution is creating incredible aesthetic structures even if there might be no sentinent or conscious mind behind it. Just by trial error, mutation selection and time.
Nature is beautiful, aesthetic even meaningful. But are natural objects art?
When it comes to human creativity and art. Wouldn't you agree, that it has something to do with communication of conscious mind? That an artists shows something to transfer a certain mind or emotion to the outside human world? Just like with other symbolic forms like language, science or spiritual rituals or whatever.
So yeahr. When there is a human involved in the process using ai as a tool than it might be a part of exactly that symbolic form of communicating something. Maybe it will be considered as such by law in the future. We do not know jet how society will finally decide about it.
However. AI generated images without any human artistic intention involved seem not to be art. Such as a photograph automatically done by a CCTV can not. Or a photograph taken by a non human animal.
An AI generated images provoked into existence by someone doing a prompt. Maybe.
What is with random AI images cherrypicked by someone and declared as art? Here the process of giving it meaning would be retroactively.
Difficult. You would not consider someone declaring a certain stone he just found his artwork. Would you?
Have not made my head around that entirely.
AI generated media used as a sample or piece in a collage made by a human seems to stand as art for shure. As a human can already take objects from nature and arrange them to music or visual art and so on. That happens since the dawn of our existence.
What do you think about it?
@@samthesomniator Wow, I did not expect such a well formulated and thought out answer. Thanks for that mate.
I agree that for the moment (due to the current limits of AI and it's lack of true self-awarness), human involvement is a must in order to call it art. I appreciate that you're open to it being used as a tool by artists to facilitate their workflow and creative process.
As for the matter of human involvement in the form of prompting, I believe it's a form of art too. But I can not compare it to the creative process a human goes through to turn a canvas into beauty. While difficult and overwhelming, I believe the ideal situation would be where people who used AI for their process would admit to it and tag it as such. It could simply be called 'AI art' and be treated similarly to normal art, save for the fact where we need to recognize that an artist invests way more time, attention and emotions into their works.
That said, another difficult thing with AI art is to estimate or prove the amount of human input. As you say, somebody can just repeat the same prompt a hundred times and cherrypick the one good image it made (so picking up a random stone and calling it art). Some people use inpainting on AI generated images, or they make crude drawings on their image using paint or photoshop, then feed that to the AI to improve, then repeat and iterate that for a dozen times to tweak the image entirely to their liking.
That's a big difference of human input within what I would call AI art, where one barely requires any skill and the other one requires way more, having to pay attention to composition, colors, contrast, and nudging the AI to create those. And yet neither of those ways of making AI art come close to the creative input of non-AI art.
Also, I am of the believe that once the dust has settled, skilled and authentic artists will be valued all the more, because people will pay for exclusivity, they will pay to point at a piece in their gallery and be able to claim and prove that it is man-made.
So yeah, it's difficult and full of dilemmas. Regardless, I think AI 'art' will be here to stay. Lawmakers and politicians can only play catch-up because their processes are so slow (and with good reason, don't wanna be able to change laws at a wim, but it remains a disadvantage when dealing with tech)
@@k.rahimi4969 I think also to da degree humanity had similar discussions in the past. I once read about that the possibility to copyright photographs were once disputed. As the process of taking a picture was considered as too easy to be artistic. 😁 True story.
That was a similar cultural situation in that a lot of painters were in panic about their income over the invention of photography.
As you said, at the moment the situation ist heated up to eleven.
I think it is important to keep a sober mind about the outcome of this discourse in every direction. What means to aknowlede the reasons why copyright is not directly granted for prompting images with AI tools at the moment. But also not to consider the technology as something evil and inherently bad in the way it is used to create images by some people.
There are a lot of misunderstandings and false ideas on both side of this debate in its current state.
I am very very interested about how this whole thing goes on.
ich denke im DACH Raum wird man über Copywriting mit AI 10x nachdenken wollen, bevor man es ernsthaft anwendet.
And AI is not copyrightable, so anyone can reproduce and sell an AI image legally
Naa, it's BS.
Digital painting is just another form of artistic expression. It's no different than when oil paint artists made in ay for acrylic and watercolor painters it's just another medium. Different artists work through painting is there any good AI art is not going to replace it.
Are you saying styles should be copyrighted? My man, thats not how it should work
Why not just pay micropay each artist registered on the blockchain and included (tagged) in the prompt?
We might actually see some artists choosing not to complain about this form of automation and instead embracing it for its advantages.
Not a remix. AI is not photobashing!
Get this straight people! PLEASE! That leads to nothing when you are confronting that issue!