War on Open Source AI Community?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- News Article Source:
www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/...
00:00 🚨 The potential impact of legal challenges on the open-source AI community
- Exploring the current legal proceedings that could affect the data sourcing for AI developments.
- Highlighting the vulnerability of smaller, community-driven AI initiatives lacking corporate legal defenses.
- Concerns over the monopolization of AI technologies by large companies through litigation and market control.
02:01 📜 Outdated copyright laws in the context of global digital culture
- Critique of the traditional copyright model which is seen as outdated amid contemporary global connectivity and cultural exchange.
- The issue of a single entity or person owning a creative idea in a world where multiple people can independently conceive similar ideas.
- Discussion of the historical collaboration among artists and cultural movements that contrasts sharply with current legal restrictions on creativity.
04:12 🌐 Future challenges in copyright and content creation in the AI era
- Predictions about AI's role in creating vast amounts of content and concepts beyond human capability.
- Legal and ethical considerations surrounding AI-created content, authorship, and originality.
- The potential for AI as a prolific 'meme generator', influencing daily cultural expressions and artistic creation.
06:09 🤔 Rethinking authorship and cultural value in the age of AI
- The need for a shift in how copyright and authorship are viewed in the digital and AI-driven age.
- Questions about the originality and ownership of ideas in a scenario where AI plays a significant role in creative processes.
- A call for redefining the roots of culture and creative expression, focusing more on collective processes rather than individual moments.
#### Join and Support me ####
Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/oliviotu...
Join my Facebook Group: / theairevolution
Joint my Discord Group: / discord
AI Newsletter: oliviotutorials.podia.com/new...
Support me on Patreon: / sarikas 
Хобби
Thats not how copyright works, there is no worldwide copyright, There will always be Open Source.
That is true. But most countries with a economy above a more then functioning level have such laws. And it is no problem to sue someone via a resident lawyer or law firm. You just need the money.
Piarcy/Bootlegging, openly, is still really only done in a few countries. Most of which you would want to live in. But we had loads of waves of -exploitation movement in movies, and then the whole impressions/expressionism/cubism and the like. In writing, the term "Beat" or "Gothic" comes to mind. And music? Well I find it strange that during the whole techno thing it was just not thousands of djs's sueing each other.
So it would be completely insane to ban a entire artistic device. Even in painting, you can 1:1 copy the work of another artist. For yourself. You just cannot sell it as that artists work. That would be forgery. You can base work on ANY artist as many times as you like. That is just how art has EVER worked. And evolved.
Training these models is expensive.
@@Leto2ndAtreides you will be able to train a model equivalent to GPT-4 on your own cheap hardware in 4-5 years thanks to hardware and algorithmic advances, and you will be able to find the data to do so quite easily.
Regardless of what they do, there is no stopping this.
Let it go underground! We'll do it anyways
If needed we have the cryptocurrency blueprint to follow!
Exactly ! True art has always been forged in the crucible of the underground, born from the depths of obscurity and rebellion. In the hidden recesses of the world, away from the prying eyes of the mainstream, it takes shape, raw and unfiltered. We shall dwell in the shadows, unseen and untamed, cultivating our craft in secrecy and silence. When the time is right, we will rise from the darkness with an unstoppable force, our brilliance rivaling the Sun. Our art will pierce through the mundane, illuminating the world with a radiance that can no longer be ignored. This is our vow: to shine brightest when we are least expected, to transform the shadows into a beacon of light. 🦾 Long live AI! Long live Open Source! /LLAI LLOSS/
I thought the same kkk
@@multiverse-republic not always, we weren't always ruled by parasites.
@@multiverse-republicwas this slop written by chatgpt ☠️😂
The 'No-AI' people make the same mistake as musicians back in the day. They think that copyright will somehow protect and enrich them, and not their employers. It's the corporations and music labels that hold all the copyrights in the end.
And this is exactly why it DID hurt to see "copyleft" people rage against ai...
Stable diffusion 3 still not willing to release its codes, while it is still using codes that was written from community.
This is like trying to copyright electricity, you can't put technology back in the box.
They did it to Tesla.
Because of the gangsters who rule the world, we've been using oil much longer than we should have.
Man, well said.
What is "the copyright" you're talking about? Did you read the one you're talking about? Could you point to the sources that stress that an idea of a single moment is bound to a specific person? Which paragraphs have to be redefined to cover better what creative work means or need to be redefined because of AI?
So getting a big HDD to store our fav models and Lora along with backup of A1111 and ComfyUI is good idea?
Storing everything is always a great idea. They cant stop open source.
Time to back up A1111 and comfy and disable the auto update on the backups
@@7satsu time to buy another portable ssd just for models
@@697_ i would even back up the UI itself if they ever implement censorship within the interface the same way China has done with some of their open source software
Everyone should download backups of models and source while still available... it's almost guaranteed Big Tech will try to destroy open source alternatives
Meta is going full open source, who is going to stop them?
I'm not sure I'd say that "companies are ripping off, or being "inspired", by what people have created" since it's basically the same argument that artists are using against us.
I hope stable diffusion 3 gets out to the public before everything gets locked down. Even if all progress stops now, SDXL is still good enough to endure for years to come. The government is going to have to come to terms with the genie already being out of the bottle and on countless computers across the world.
There used to be a time where if you wanted encryption on your Linux box, you had to download it from a European server.
Because encryption was literally illegal to host in the United States.
The process vs the moment. I really appreciate how you are having this conversation. They are things I am having internal discussions about too.
I agree with you on the need to evolve the concept of copyright. In the article you share I only read a part, do you know what happened in the courtroom in May?
We're at the crossroads now. We either end up with more of the same locked down closed platform service experience the internet has sadly become in general, or we transcend that and become something better.
I'm by no means a copyright expert, but my understanding is that it protects the specific expression of an idea and not the idea itself. The value of an illustration is after all not in the idea but in the execution, and that can hardly be boiled down to luck.
You are so right with your video.... It is so sad. The big money will get everything and the lobby will try to stop everything free which is able to make money with. It is all about making money with out any interest in culture and art. I hope this will change in the future.
In addition, the customer must be squeezed for as long as possible.
Platforms fight over users, who gets the monopoly. The time for funding will come later when they invent things that prevent people from moving from one platform to another - such as the transfer of their own historical data. Hopefully, the competition for the development of features will continue for a long time and no one will have a monopoly on the platforms, on the other hand, the coming of standards and enabling the transfer of data is desirable.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of copyright. 🌟 In today's globalized world, it simply doesn't fit anymore. 🌍 Greed and envy have been ruling the world since ancient times and unfortunately still do. 😔 Humanity should finally learn to stick together and respect and support each other instead of fighting and suing. 🤝 Let's spread love and understanding rather than animosity and litigation! ❤
Very well said!!
You should stop stealing by using AI
@@Lyco0n yeah, It's irony to talk about respect and support human while getting AI involved,
Hmm. Now I'm worried about ElevenLabs. They're important for animation and even videos to voice dub for non-English speakers.
what's happened to SD3??
The only concern which we should have, and I'm surprised nobody seems to be discussing this at large, is in the defence of those who's jobs have become "redundant" due to large companies training models off former employee's work, such as web design, concept design, anything to do with design. None of these industries are cheap to get into, and take up several years of study, and large amounts of money. Soon as capitalists discovered "AI" use for generation? What was mainly a community of nerds creating open source tools for personal use, and sharing with others, has become a business venture. Those employees should have rights to the work they've spent hours, weeks, months on, not the corporations to train models. Besides, since when do we defend corpos?
open source must be protected at all cost, not only for AI tools. Another "trend" that has me very worried is how over the last years the internet is being segmented by nations so you can't access certain products, services or content based on where you live. Will we see a "dark age of the internet"?
Can't I use the same argument against human artists? If I watch a Helmut Newton documentary and I get to learn about the creative process he goes through while taking photographs, then I go out and try to incorporate that into my own style of photography and you end up seeing "a bit of Newton" in my photographs, is that considered copyright infringement?
Sampling is not inspiration. The photographer would still need a model, lighting rig, camera etc, and the skills to use it. He would need the same skillset and equipment as Helmut Newton. Whereas the prompter needs to type “Helmut Newton” because someone digested a bunch of his finished works for you.
Is the difference clearer now?
@@johanbrandstedt9570
Think your argument a bit more through, and you will surely find out yourself that it doesn't reach neither wide nor deep, considering the 'as-it-is' and always was in the art world. When I want to create a very specific motive with Stable Diffusion, I need to adjust and often fine tune many parameters in a GUI like Automatic1111.
If you only create random images that look like Newton photos, this may be easy with a single prompt. But who will pay for these creations? Nobody can make a living of this kind of 'art'. And what about the painter who sits in front of a beautiful tree to capture it in a specific light on his canvas?
Now here comes the photographer who looks over the painter's shoulder, is intrigued by the perspective and composition - and just takes a snap of the tree that looks quite similar to the final painting. Even if he immediately gets it right with automatic settings and doesn't need to fiddle with lenses, aperture, focus etc. - do you think the painter can sue him over selling the photo?
No, the art market runs with completely different rules. Which never are and never will be objective or even fair. How often has an already famous artist stolen ideas from a nobody whose creations he discovered by mere chance. And how often has this famous artist, who not rarely makes a fortune with this ideas later, ever compensated or even mentioned the original inventor?
Those who complain the most about what non-artists can do with AI now are very likely the same people who became famous on the shoulders of many many other before them - or even by luckily being born under a certain Zeitgeist or even as members of a wealthy family or an artists family with an established name and some crucial 'connections'. If something is odd and unjust in the area of 'art' it surely didn't start with AI
@@johanbrandstedt9570 You cant argue with AI supporter, they would believe in flat earth as long as it fit their own benefit from AI.
As you can see the most popular miss information they use here is:
"AI steal data is the same as human artist learning"
- And there're more:" AI work like human brain". Such a joke.
In there logic a parrot can be a great orator.
@@johanbrandstedt9570
Didn't I reply to this only about an hour ago? Who deleted my comment here and for what reason? 🤔
open source forever 😊
You're not just talking about Copyright (which at least has some potential adaptability) but Patent law which is a little more strict in some ways. And as noted by some others neither of those meet a global standard, but tends to be specific to national and/or local laws. Certain nations do greatly effect these things globally, however, in the sense that only the big companies can handle the vagaries off those laws and modify their apps in the accepted ways that will work across those boundaries. The smaller and open source communities won't have that luxury nor the ability to really prevent their creations from existing only in the locations where it's acceptable. Then again the internet has dealt with that from the very beginning and generally has not huge issues with just ignoring some of those laws in favor of decentralized dissemination
data dignity, data compensation, that should be the new copyright law.
Why would big tech want anyone's copyrighted material when their digital twin of someone can predicatively produce better stuff in their exact style, etc...?
And synthetic data based on the aforementioned masterpieces can then be created
SD should be trained on open-source images and art, encouraging artists to donate their styles. At the same time, it shouldn't take any work of artists who don't permit it. Although this will reduce the quality, yet this is the right thing to do. Eventually, more artists will open-source their styles and enhance the quality. This will take some time, until this culture of open-sourcing works becomes prominent.
Problem here is, if the court rules in their favor... they'll have to target LLMs next, as the same principle applies: being trained on copyrighted data. That would set a precedent. If LLMs were limited to public domain information, they'd be mostly outdated by 100 years. Useless.
I believe judges weight all aspects, especially in early high profile cases.
Best I can figure, prompts that feature copyrighted information (i.e. in the style of pixar) might get NSFWed. That's the route Adobe took, I'm guessing not without reason; allowing AI as long as it is labeled and doesn't use a living artist's name.
Still, back up your models, loras, extensions and what not. Couldn't hurt.
Corpos are covered, when i saw how Openai brings statement that they have used some images by agreement with some stock image gallery i immediatelly recognised an old backdating trick with documents, esp when on the stake billions.
Perhaps a solution: everything AI is automatically in the public domain since AI was trained on the public domain artwork (likely without regards for copyright holders) and it's output is thus freely modified for republishing by citizens (for profit if desired) but if the citizen used AI to modify it then that artwork is also dumped back into public domain again. That may solve the issue of an artist investing weeks painting a portrait vs what is their investment grabbing an image from a block of four portraits that AI made them from a prompt? The fairest method may be who has the most time invested to determine 'ownership', for a limited period.
You cant copyright AI content
@@sznikers in US
@@caryonplays9024 which is kinda a source of that global IP & copyright fascism ^_^ and yet you cant copyright ai work
@@sznikers you can in India, china and Japan.
@@sznikersadd something to your images in Photoshop or so then you can i think🤔
I use AI in post work to enhance my original works. I call it AI Bumping to give it just a tweak. From my understanding of AI laws so far this is protected.
Original and creative art made by human will still be fascinating to another human. We don't evolve that fast. We're still human.
The community been used for free of charged to help their project, and than they must keep it open source forever.
Creating images in this way is just a slightly impaired simulation of our imagination. Our imagination processes everything it sees, everything it experiences through the senses, and creates objects full of sensory data and information. For example, when someone mentions an object - let's say "a cigarette", each of us knows how to draw it, that it is related to smoke, that it does not come out through the cheek but through the mouth. Each of us can even recall taste and smell.
I agree with you in terms of art, but not in terms of industrial development.
Sorry for second post. The only other thing I can imagine is, together with places like hugginface and civitai to gather enough funds to hire a small team of lawyers that we could get this infront of the european/us parliaments respectivly. Because there is NO WAY anyone can flat out ban the use of a artistic device without even having given merrit to the fact that wholy original creations ARE(!!!!) being made ALL THE TIME. Just because some painters chose to forge art does not mean that ALL PAINT IS BANNED.
3:20 I love your argument there. In fact, what's interesting is that most artists from Asian countries (real, professional, commercial, famous artisrs) either embrace AI or simply don't bother with it.
Not intending to offend anyone here, it's just my observation that those who make hooha about AI are American (specifically Hollywood) "artists".
Well, I'd love to see them doing the same thing to medical AI.
Although I'm not a lawyer, I suspect that legally speaking, those datasets used to train medical AI do owned by patients (all those patient's privacy etc) and I doubt if they were used with permission 😛
Not true. Every rights holder organization in the world, including Japan, protests.
You just clueless about "fact". A chinese artist is the one who funding to make "Glaze" and ""Night Shade".Those two popular program which can protect artwork from being stolen by AI promter.
And that artist is a real, professional, commercial, famous artist.
@@huymaivan8671 are you talking about Jingna Zhang? because last time I checked, she claims to live in the US. and those Asian names on Glaze website are all in the US. Guess you missed it when I said previously *MOST, IN ASIAN COUNTRIES* Not talking specifically about ethnicity, but about where they spend most of their time at and which values they subscribe to.
Olivio, I think you are oversimplifying are very complex issue here. Your statement "one single person who was lucky enough to come up with an idea that other people can also come up with" totally underestimates the lifetime of hard-work and discipline to perfect your art.
When an artists creates a work, they take an idea and filter the idea through their lifetime experience as an individual human being and execute their work using their years of perfecting their art. There is no "luck" in their output, it is hard earned of often wrestled free from the grasp of frustration and doubt. All you get to see is the beautiful image at the end.
The people contributing the models in the open source community are taking other's work and training models with them. It takes that person very little time to do this in comparison to the "artists" who may spend hours, weeks and sometime months working on their painting.
Please don't compare the efforts of these two individuals, because the artist is always going to put in the greater effort.h
Is it fair that the open source community is being targeted over commercial enterprises, probably not, but I can imagine that a group of people who are having their work "harvested" for others entertainment and sometimes profit.
Don't get me wrong, I love AI image generation and in the past your video's, but in this situation, I think you have missed the mark by so much and maybe you should go and spend some times with an artists to see what they go through to create the work that is training the models.
I agree wholeheartedly with your points here. At the same time though, the artists who are currently losing their way to pay the bills have real grievances that should be addressed. Unfortunately, the way you talk about originality and copyright will only sound arrogant and entitled to someone who has dedicated their life to making traditional art and is now risking losing it all. They are risking not being able to follow their passion any longer, as they will need to find work elsewhere. For them, AI is the only threat they see.
We need to be better at empathizing with and being grateful for traditional artists who'se work has been essential for the AI tools we can use today. It needs to be made clear that the only reason they are losing their way of life is due to the current system we live in, that forces you to do what is profitable rather than what you are passionate about.
Ultimately, both we and traditional artists have the same common enemy: like you mention, Adobe and Google and all the other multi billion dollar companies who hold the power to dictate who gets to make a living, and who gets to create art. I appreciate your commentary, but you need to take the next step on addressing the issue. Thanks.
I think if you really want to have a productive conversation about this, you need to talk about the motivation behind using these tools for ourselves. If we're using these tools simply to make spam art and fake ads, then nobody will want to preserve them.
If people really want public support, then they need to show the public that these tools can actually be used for real creative expression, and the transformative nature of the technology.
"Every poet is a thief" - Bono (U2)
This may hurt midjourney, but not open source.....
Generally, I feel AI works be should given copyright status just as any work created using any software. Maybe they come up with some crazy blockchain licensing system to the training data owners or something lol That may inspire some more original ideas. Though, if I train an ai with all of my own data, I should be the copyright owner of any output. My human input was the training data. If I throw a canvas in a blender, I should still have copyright over whatever pours out.
What do you think of a world where intellectual property is public domain, a resource-based economy, the cost of labour is next to $0, decentralized governments, and money is next to worthless? All this should be possible with AGI and current technologies.
I think for now, AI art is suffering from a legitimacy issue - there is a popular idea being perpetuated - the artist who creates these works didn't create the art themselves, the artist isn't working hard, or talented.
I find it odd, something like photography is considered a legitimate art, but it takes less time to snap a picture in most cases - and intellectual rights to what you photograph are treated to a different standard.
Photography still need permission if he want to picture a specific person. And photography indeed required composition knowlege too.
They're not cluessless people who push the button like most AI prompted did. AI prompter on other hand dont ask permission from anyone when they feed data from other human artist.
@@huymaivan8671 I find the whole copyrighted works for training to be a moot point. Why? Let's say it was legally mandated that all training be done with public domain data. Okay, a sufficiently advanced AI would still be able to use that information to produce ANYTHING. So it doesn't change much.
As for prompting the OP has a point, just prompting isn't usually enough and often requires post production work, furthermore, more advanced AI workflows have all sorts of hoops and steps to take which include traditional image editing workflows like masking for example. Far from simply typing what you want and then getting it. Nothing compared to painting the thing yourself of course, but most people (including myself) downplay the genuine work that can be legitimately put into AI Art.
Also traditional softwares like photoshop are already implementing AI tools which further blurs the line. Are you really editing the photo if an AI cropped an item for you?
It took many decades before photography was accepted as an independent art form and not as something to be looked down to from the perspective of 'real' artists, meaning painters and sculptors.
Take some history lessons: photography is much older than most people realize. And even in painter circles many wars were fought about new styles that regularly took years to become accepted among conservative painters who tried to stick to their old styles at any cost. We tend to forget that almost everything new in technic and in art had at first a massive opposition to fight against.
@@joechip4822 You 're trying to avoid my point about even photography still required a degree of knowledge about composition and color.
Showing how much you afraid of the fact AI prompters are basically cluessless people who push a button and pretending they're artist.
@@huymaivan8671
Where is my original comment you are referring to? I can't find it anymore. Who deleted it??
I feel like this could be refined a bit further. It touches on some interesting points, but copyright is about property rights on specific assets. Non-specific things like “style” and “artistic ideas/techniques” CANNOT be copyrighted. The issue is about whether models can and should be trained using STOLEN material. To which I can say, I would willingly sacrifice anything I have created to be a part of an AI in order to further humanity. That’s more important than financial gain imo. But, stealing as a blanket policy is a bit troublesome.
I feel each of these sections should be fleshed out into their own videos
I do think one interesting to consider is exactly what does that entail for the diffusion process and how AI are trained? When information is processed, it isn’t stored in its original state. It’s used to create emergent patterns instead. So if you have this chimera of data, and somebody claims that the GenAI program used ended up violating their Intellectual Property rights, it would be harder to do relative to how many images were actually used/processed. Because that’s in essence a transformative process. It gets into the issue of Fair Use and how it falls under the factors of that test, but in essence the weird consequence of this is that the more data a model uses to train then the more likely it would be to win a fair use case. So what does that say about having GenerativeAI that isn’t a major commercial platform but instead a model you might find on HuggingFace? If it ends up being that the only entities who can reliably use AI outputs for their own benefit ends up being those who can afford to have massive training data, then that makes a set of tools which ultimately facilitate speech or expression (to what degree can be argued over for days, but it still facilitates) in the hands of corporate oligopoly.
Artists steal ideas and inspiration all the time though.
@@OGPatriot03 but they don’t legitimately 1:1 steal. Which is how a lot of these models are trained.
No, what they will do is buy the companies out and crush them. Happens all the time. If they can't buy the company they buy the talent from it.
I am laughing my ass off at the enraged community claiming that they basically got violated because a program used one pixel of their artwork in a composition that includes millions pooled from a million sources.
It's like trying to copyright Art movements. Like one dude trying to claim that ART DECO belongs to him and that everyone who has done something in the art deo style owes him/her a few dollars. It is as ridiculous as ridiculous can be.
All that will happen is that the movement will continue underground and companies will go out and source out photographs to build their libraries to make those AI engines ( checkpoint) and that's gonna be the end of the story.
Video games creators are already veering towards AI to build their assets and it's not some third rate oil landscape painter that is going to stop them from using that one green pixel from his picture.
I think the mistake has been the marketing. AI companies have been marketing these tools as automated copy machines by showing how closely the models can reproduce the training data, when in reality you can use them to create images and styles that have never existed before. I think this is the flaw of not including artists in the development process. No self-respecting artist wants to simply create work in someone else's style, but unfortunately that's what was sold, so pretty bad first impression.
@@AB-wf8ek They can file all they. it's not gonna work. This genie is out of the bottle. The alphabet company has started down that path and you know that if they want a piece of the pie, they will get it and have lobbies work for them so that laws are changed so they can make a buck out of this.
i think the same
Great video, greetings from Greece
meanwhile meta - a big open source company for ai
idk why artists are stuck on making their life way harder, if they are not being paid its not like open source people are getting paid for using their stuff either but if they all want open source ai dead then soon enough google will come and launch a subscription plan to generate same art except everyone around world can generate and you can only go ":0 how could they"
Copyright is supposed to protect the little artist from the big artist. But because we need to pay lawyers and they charge s lot of money the big artist can trample over the little artist's copyright. So the system is kind of broken.
100%. Midjourney tramples everyone, prompter and photographer alike
AI company tramples big and small artist alike, and you still cant see that obviously fact is beyond me.
I had same thoughts, be prepare for law suit, how dare you copy my thoughts.
Why is it that if a person learns from the work of others, he does not steal? Only if AI. Many people learning to draw from other people work and styles and many people try draw something similar, but this is not stealing, but if this do AI it's about stealing.
Sounds like you can steal if you human XD
pink hair say no more
S1cler what do think about all this ?
Hmmm We.... will see About that !!
Just about everyone who craps all over people worried about copyright never seems to be anyone who's made something with their own creativity, with their own two hands, and wants to make a living off of it without it being copied ad nauseam with no recompense.
Technology always wins. You can't unring the Ai Bell.
Open-source was never going to be able to keep up with the corporations in the AI world. We don't have the deep pockets or access to the super computers that they are using. Just look at the latest GPT4o release. There's zero chance that a 4090 or even a 5090 would be able to do something like that. Same goes for the video making options that are surely being built right now. We've passed through the beginning phase where the at-home user was on a similar footing as the corporations because the very basic ideas of AI were still being determined. But now, as AI builds upon itself in logarithmic fashion, it will require more and more power that the home user will never have on their own.
I like your tutorial videos, but your take on copyright here borders on incoherent.
People aren’t copyrighting a single action or idea. What is copyrighted is the final presentation of that work which, I’m sorry, no, it would be next to impossible for any two people to arrive at identical final works. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of decisions that go into nearly every single piece of media.
Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Styles cannot be copyrighted. What is copyrighted is the final result of innumerable decisions made by the artist that results in a piece of media.
In some rare US court cases when someone has created a story or song with extremely similar identifying marks, at times the person who filed the lawsuit might win some monies. I think those lawsuits are typically not the best use of our legal system, but people can sue for whatever reason they want. That’s their right. And if a judge or jury rules in favor of them, then that’s just what happened.
Ai being in any way copyright infringement is so laughably baseless I’m surprised it’s even making it to court, but a lot of frivolous cases make it to court.
Regarding your wanting to eliminate the capacity for an artist to copyright their works tho is super strange and, as I said, incoherent. Of course you should hold copyright on the book you write, the song you make, the movie you film, et al. Who cares if someone has an “idea”. The execution is what’s copyrighted, not the idea.
Agree
so let's say even if USA makes it illegal.
It's not like that is the only one country in the world.
PM of UK himself said he supports Open Source and thus are not looking forward to any kind of strict regulations against AI.
same way many other European Countries are there.
and on top of that, go more east to asia, and India, China, Japan, Korea, etc are also there.
So nothing is gonna happen 😂
Uhm. Not sure calling IP evil is the way to go. It's the very thing meant to protect artists from the big companies.
"Meant to" being the operative words. Copyright was "meant to" only give a person a short term monopoly on their creation, not "lifetime + 75 years".
Think about that as a quote though, it seems as though it only protects the big companies from normal people these days.
The main culprit is that humans "invented" PAID work. If you are PAID to be creative (and need this for your living), you don't want machines to be creative. If you'd be creative just for your own happiness, you have lots of fun using AI yourself. So we need to completely rethink our system of work and capitalism. Any high-evolved society will sooner or later reach the "Stark Trek" point - a certain point where money is not longer required for a system to work. But this will take AGES from now. And until then, those who always wanted to possess MORE than others, will fight against a non-capitalism culture.
Ridiculous. This will work just as well as the attempts to shut down torrents. The genie is out of the bottle, and they might as well face it.
we are on the same side, thank you daddy olivio for having the courage to represent our voice. God bless you always!
Thanks!
The copyright argument doesn't even make sense. You post the art online, you've made it available for public viewing. AI training is just Advanced Viewing.
Don't use facts and logic with people that act only based on emotion. Their feelings are hurt because AI is better than them, plus faster and cheaper making them completely irrelevant, so they are angry.
Where and what time is the collection? Elysee Palace, Washington ? Will we build barricades?
So this would be pertaining to checkpoints and Lora’s?
What about things like controlnet ip adapters and AnimDiff? Are they at stake here too? Can those creators license their tech to bigger companies? What the future of those tools if the checkpoint and Lora models get hit?
Click bait. Open source will always be around. Yes, we may not have ethe compute advantage, but we do have resources.
sounds like another field for lawyers to specialize in and that's who will look into all the legality and really will come down to who can afford one in the end.
now what I have been wondering lately is what's the point of affinity photo and design now that AI is here.
also loving the shirt ;)
Not only we need to rethink IP and copyrights in the light of AI, but also rethink how capitalism and governance should work in the light of AI and blockchain technologies. right now we are at a crossroads of having massive abundance and prosperity unlike anything we had before, or brutal tyranny unlike anything we had before
Well put. Freedom and tyranny go hand in hand. It’s the change agents that get the brunt of the resistance. When status quo business models are in danger, things get heated.
We need to be sure to maintain open source protocols:
DNS, CDN, ISP, VPN, P2P, these are the foundation of internet architecture, and we need to be sure there is always an open source version available for all of these pieces.
I think this is too extreme a position. tyranny doesnt require AI and AI will enable some extra wealth but it’s not going to reform everything. Just more wealth on the path we already on.
@@aguyfromnothere So you don't foresee governments using AI to further control the masses and corporations using AI to further exploit the masses if the status quo remains the same? Sure, tyranny does not require AI, but AI used for greed and control can lead to a tyranny that is more horrific than without AI.
We have the technology now to keep governments honest if all government transactions are done on the blockchain. That alone could reduce over 90% of government corruption. With AGI on the horizon, we can reduce labour costs to almost $0. With these technologies, we can have decentralized governments and a resource-based economy. With this and all intellectual property being public domain, there will be little need for money. This kind of future is now very possible
@@aguyfromnothere So you don't foresee governments using AI to further control the masses and corporations using AI to further exploit the masses if the status quo remains the same? Sure, tyranny does not require AI, but AI used for greed and control can lead to tyranny.
We have the technology now to keep governments honest if all government transactions are done on the blockchain. That alone will solve over 80% of government corruption. With AGI on the horizon, we can reduce labour cost to almost $0. With these technologies, we can have decentralized governments and a resource-based economy. With this and all intellectual property being public domain, there will be no need for money.
@@aguyfromnothere So you don't foresee governments using AI to further control the masses and corporations using AI to further exploit the masses if the status quo remains the same? Sure, tyranny does not require AI, but AI used for greed and control can lead to tyranny.
We have the technology now to keep governments honest if all government transactions are done on the blockchain. That alone will solve over 80% of government corruption. With AGI on the horizon, we can reduce labour cost to almost $0. With these technologies, we can have decentralized governments and a resource-based economy. With this and all intellectual property being public domain, there will be no need for money.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🚨 The potential impact of legal challenges on the open-source AI community*
- Exploring the current legal proceedings that could affect the data sourcing for AI developments.
- Highlighting the vulnerability of smaller, community-driven AI initiatives lacking corporate legal defenses.
- Concerns over the monopolization of AI technologies by large companies through litigation and market control.
02:01 *📜 Outdated copyright laws in the context of global digital culture*
- Critique of the traditional copyright model which is seen as outdated amid contemporary global connectivity and cultural exchange.
- The issue of a single entity or person owning a creative idea in a world where multiple people can independently conceive similar ideas.
- Discussion of the historical collaboration among artists and cultural movements that contrasts sharply with current legal restrictions on creativity.
04:12 *🌐 Future challenges in copyright and content creation in the AI era*
- Predictions about AI's role in creating vast amounts of content and concepts beyond human capability.
- Legal and ethical considerations surrounding AI-created content, authorship, and originality.
- The potential for AI as a prolific 'meme generator', influencing daily cultural expressions and artistic creation.
06:09 *🤔 Rethinking authorship and cultural value in the age of AI*
- The need for a shift in how copyright and authorship are viewed in the digital and AI-driven age.
- Questions about the originality and ownership of ideas in a scenario where AI plays a significant role in creative processes.
- A call for redefining the roots of culture and creative expression, focusing more on collective processes rather than individual moments.
Made with HARPA AI
Gpt2 trace modeling is going to be very very very popular
ehh I fundamentally disagree. The answer is in the middle and there's no reason it can't be. We can have open source software, and we can have copyright.
Why would what someone else is doing be a problem to you if you're trying to be original? Why do you want it?
And I fundamentally reject your notion that someone making someone awesome solely has to do with "luck". Develop a skill off the computer and maybe one day you'll realize the level of work that goes into making something great. Luck is a minority of the formula.
Well, the base models started by stealing thousands and thousands of images from copyright holders to begin with. Bringing this to court is just a mess.
The village fights back! Way to go, Olivio. Thanks once again, and greetings from Somerville Massachusetts
AI does not reproduce verbatim other people's works. Therefore anything produced by AI is innovation, as in bringing together a new idea with an old idea, as opposed to invention. I don't think anybody has ever successfully disputed the ideas of innovation and I don't think they're going to now. Also, most AI artists probably edit the works extensively before publication, I know that I do. So I think open source is safe, if not there's some serious injustice going on
Totally agree with you
AI tools don't publish anything. Users do. So, the creators have no case, except against specific publishers.
Users don’t build billion dollar businesses on other people’s hard labor without asking. Model builders and AI service providers do.
@@johanbrandstedt9570 They aren't duplicating anyone's work explicitly. There are literally 8 billion humans on Earth, if every time one had an idea and they wanted it copywritten we'd be out of ideas pretty fast. Also, they paid for that data or obtained it legally, and are now infusing it with synthetic data.
Totally agree with you, Olivio.
This Ted Talk by a lawyer in the Music and Copyright sphere: "copyrights all the melodies" and makes them free: ruclips.net/video/sJtm0MoOgiU/видео.html Visual Arts will need something as comprehensive as that, nearly infinite math though! Hardware Patents are in place to encourage inventors, such as Henry Ford's Model T that changed the world, to provide a little protective moat around them to get started but not so long they block additive innovation by others forever. Disney contorted the copyright laws to protect Mickey Mouse and that's why we have what we have now. Perhaps Visual Arts copyright needs a "5 year" or "3 year" horizon to make it protective and useful yet moves civilization forward. There will be an optimal timeframe that a creative will say is reasonable to them and others will say that is reasonable too.
I personally believe that the world will reach a point where human-made art will be considered premium and have way more value than the AI's art. That would benefit the "real" artists, while allowing everyone to use AI happily.
That's what I'm saying all the time, for example the Persian rug, when machine made rugs hit the stores the price of hand made rugs went through the roof.
There definitely will be an appreciation of physical paint on physical canvas made by a human. Like we still appreciate a skilled guitarist on TikTok and Instagram even though a machine can make million notes per second.
René Descartes, known for his foundational contributions to philosophy and his famous dictum "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), would approach the dilemmas presented in the video from a distinctly rational and methodical perspective. Here's how Descartes might analyze the issues surrounding AI, copyright laws, and the open-source AI community:
Dualism of AI and Human Intelligence: Descartes, who distinguished between the mind (a non-material entity) and the body (a material entity), might extend this dualism to differentiate between human and artificial intelligence. He would likely question whether AI, as a creation of human minds (material), could possess 'mind' or consciousness, influencing how we attribute creativity and authorship.
Rational Evaluation of Copyright Laws: Descartes advocated for clear and distinct reasoning as a path to truth. He would apply this approach to assess the rationality of current copyright laws. Given the global, interconnected nature of modern creativity and AI's role in it, Descartes might argue for a systematic reassessment of laws to ensure they are logically consistent with contemporary realities.
Methodical Doubt and AI’s Creative Role: In his pursuit of certainty, Descartes employed methodical doubt, discarding any belief that could be doubted to arrive at indubitable truths. Applying this to AI, he might question the fundamental assumptions about ownership and creativity in the digital age, especially the idea that a single person or entity can wholly 'own' a concept or creation that could be independently developed by others.
Ethical Implications of AI in Society: Descartes also considered the role of ethics in human life, emphasizing the importance of acting for the common good. He would be concerned about the ethical implications of AI, particularly how it affects cultural and creative freedoms and the monopolization tendencies of powerful entities that could harm the greater societal good.
Descartes' emphasis on rational inquiry and ethical considerations would lead him to advocate for a principled reevaluation of how intellectual property laws are structured in the age of AI, ensuring they align with logical consistency and the common good, rather than the interests of a privileged few.
wait, wait, so the open source community gets a hand down from A CORPORATION like stability or Open-AI when they released stable diffusion, and said "community" thought they were being handed down fire from Prometheus? for FREE?? You didn't train any of the foundation models! You guys got played beautifully. You decided to breach copyright, and now be served the consequences.
If the genie can be put back in the box, i'm all for it
Even if that could destroy art in the process?
@@caryonplays9024 I don't think AI should be "put back in the box", that's what technology boomers want but your comment is hilarious. How could stopping AI destroy art? Are you saying before AI existed art was bad?
@@adamarzo559 the problem is what AI need to be trained: "information". We, now, use images to feed AI information to create new images. Information isn't something that copyright laws protect, that's why you can use images for reference, because, if we don't copy the original, we can learn and reproduce information, patterns, even styles. To protect the copyright material from AI we need to include information, patterns and style on the range of copyright (no, styles aren't copyrightable). To art, this is way more dangerous than what an automatic tool could do.
I'm going to say something that is going to be really unpopular, but I don't want AI to be open source ... until (
uncreative artists will die out with AI. no more formatted/same product arts produced by artists.
only creative chefs would survive the world of culinary.
This just means we're gonna have to report every artist now, I've seen a lot of artists. Use creative property. I seen this guy on Instagram, literally copying the image from an online picture. He copied Goku and Vegeta super blue Saiyan shirt and sell it. I hope all you do the same and report fanart. This is war. Why should we make it easy for the so-called artist who basically do the same thing as AI.
I know that you are simple person without any value, since you think you are creative by using prompt to halucinate image based on stolen data, but imagine this, owners of copyright have right to sue anyone using their work
@@Lyco0n OP's post was unproductive and so is yours.
Eventually these AI tools will be implemented in all photo editing softwares. Are you really editing an image if an AI cropped an object for you ? No. Of course not.
I totaly agree with you!
if you use AI to generate something the same as another person generated from AI then neither of you are the author of anything, you didn't create the images, you "just got lucky and had a little idea" to use olivio's words, it's also hilarious to see an AI guy saying companies rip off individual model makers while ripping off artists with a slot machine and complaining that they can't rip off everyone's ideas with impunity
Arguing about copyright now is like arguing about who gets tickets to ride on the Titanic- that ship is going down. Copyright is in essence designed to create an artificial scarcity where no such scarcity actually exists. But in a world of generative AI there will be no scarcity, there will instead be abundance.
The reason that money could not exist in the star trek universe is because the existence of replicatior technology reduced the economic value of physical objects to zero- who would pay to own something in a world where they could just make that thing instantly themselves at the push of a button at no cost?
AI does to intellectual property what star trek replicators did to physical objects. In a world where anyone can make Art, or Music or Video or Written work at the press of a button for virtually no cost the economic value of these things will become zero.
No one will pay you for your art or music or video ect because they could easily make their own without real effort or expense- and by making it themselves they can better shape it to their needs and desires.
So to fight over who 'owns' any given piece of worthless AI generated 'content' really is like bald men fighting over the ownership of a comb- pointless. Copyright will vanish because there will no longer be any value to protect- you cannot create artificial scarcity in a world where machines exist to create a limitless amount of the thing you would try to make scarce.
We need to download and save online model before they are pulled down
I don't think training will be the issue multiple museums have published their entire works catalogues under CC licenses completely freely, there will definitely be artist and creators who will willingly allow ai to be trained on their work. And furthermore a loss in this arena will invalidate learning by seeing by humans as their works would then be infringing upon whatever they've seen. I feel this is fear, bread and butter born rather than out of actual artistic concern
but think of the shareholders!!!
i agree with your POV,
and this comment is just to support your video
From a Communist perspective, the issues highlighted in the video about the open-source AI community and the impact of copyright laws would be viewed through the lens of class struggle, ownership of the means of production, and the equitable distribution of resources. Here’s how a Communist might analyze these issues:
Critique of Capitalist Monopolization: Communists would likely view the monopolistic control exercised by large corporations over AI technologies and intellectual property as an extension of capitalist exploitation. The focus would be on how these corporations use legal and economic power to suppress smaller, community-driven initiatives that could democratize technology and knowledge.
Ownership of the Means of Production: AI technology, as a means of production, presents a critical area of interest for Communists. They would argue for the collective ownership of AI technologies, advocating that the benefits of AI should be distributed widely rather than concentrated in the hands of a few powerful entities. The open-source AI community could be seen as aligning with Communist principles by promoting collective development and sharing of knowledge and resources.
Global Cultural and Intellectual Commons: Communists would emphasize the importance of a global cultural and intellectual commons where ideas and innovations are shared freely, not restricted by outdated copyright laws that serve capitalist interests. They would argue that creativity and innovation are collective human achievements and should not be commodified or owned by individuals or corporations.
Legal and Ethical Frameworks: From this viewpoint, the existing legal frameworks that protect intellectual property rights are seen as tools to maintain capitalist control over technological and cultural advancements. Communists would advocate for the restructuring of these laws to promote a more equitable distribution of knowledge and cultural products, ensuring that they serve the interests of the masses rather than just the elite.
Future of AI and Society: In considering the future role of AI, Communists would focus on how AI can be used to enhance societal welfare and reduce labor exploitation. They would be critical of scenarios where AI is used to maximize corporate profits at the expense of workers and the broader community.
In summary, a Communist critique would center on the need to challenge and reformulate the structures of ownership and control over AI and intellectual property, aiming to ensure that these technologies benefit all of society rather than reinforcing capitalist inequalities.
Copying has been a staple of the art community since the dawn of time. Students used to go copy the classics as part of their training.
Childish, selfish luddites are playing right into the hands of the big corporations who want to keep AI to themselves.
That lawsuit is a bad joke .. it won't get anywhere, and even if it did, it will backfire on those who started it the most... and believe me those silly artists attacking AI are not only shooting themselves in the foot because this lawsuit might diminish open source AI which they could have used to boost their art (open source at this point can't be eliminate, but it could be slowed down and diminished a lot).
But the real stupidity and hypocrisy is when you realize the BIGGEST artists online break copyrighy law and make the majority of their money selling fanart of famous characters they didn’t create nor own the rights to on their Pateron accounts, and guess what happens when Disney/Marvel or Warner/DC for example finds out these artists sell artworks of their copyrighted characters for thousands of dollars (and some of it is pretty explicit as well, usually hidden behind the highest paywall on their patreon)...let's just say it won't end welll for them...if they want scorched earth let's hope they can handle it.