It should not matter if we can define exactly how AI does it, what matters is that the system actively searches for works by specific artists. these artists should be compensated.
Allegations that artificial intelligence systems "steal" copyrighted material during training are very misleading. The machine learning algorithms used extract statistical patterns from data - they do not replicate or appropriate creative expression in any way. Similarly, the outputs generated by Al are not inherently infringing on copyrights. While influenced by its training, outputs are transformative and represent original expression produced at a user's prompt. Al systems lack intentionality or capacity to autonomously infringe protections. Claims that Al is "theft" anthropomorphize the technology, ascribing human behaviors that do not apply. Both training and generation represent transformative computational processes, not simple duplication of existing works.
Interesting that the guy wanting legal copyright of an AI generated image is saying the AI and the human can’t be separated, but doesn’t have a problem separating the OG artists the AI trained from. That’s quite the double standard, one that seeks to exploit others for self gain.
If you read Shakespeare, Coleridge, Wordsworth before writing your whatever... If you took a piece from the newspaper.. you learnt the language and thought process in this manner. Each individual's learning graph and creative depth is different. In AI, the input of the creator uses his education and learning process and creative thinking.. and it can be very taxing to make an AI respond intelligently to your inputs. It takes many corrections to even get near what you want and it does not stay consistent. And the AI is at the same time learning from your inputs. If you symbolise a horse for a certain situation, the AI returns you with a horse in a similar situation. So actually you are creating your own style in the process of your creativity. There are a hundred or so art forms AI will create hundreds of art forms. That is evolution that cannot be stopped. And each individual creation is an achievement of a style that is unique to the creator who uses AI . Labour is not art for sure. Th original creative input of the thinker who uses AI as his tool must be recognised and be copyrightable. Many are looking for opportunities to make money by claiming what cannot be proved . Copyright to AI must be given. If any authority considers what I have observed.
I agree with what you have said, but in terms of laws, which are made for the benefit of humans, and then jurisprudentially when we talk about rights and duties, where does AI fall there if given copyright?
Dilemma Ethereal Cosent and compensation Unprecedented class action law suit Held accountable for what they have done Stable diffusion is a complex collage tool Lawsuit Violate her right Clear cut answers Infringment Guild submitted letters Undersighned call your attention Split half the royalities Assert that The question remains undecided Prompted the ai
So if artists use a pen as a tool, wouldn't it be only 90% human generated? Because without the pen, the image couldn't be drawn in the first place? Or what's with artists that use a saw to build a sculpture from wood, or a digital artist that uses photoshop or an iPad to draw and make collages. In the end it is a fine line to tell at what point a tool isn't just a tool anymore. AI Art currently isn't possible without human intervention, especially if you have a specific composition, subject or style in mind it can take hours of fine tuning the image just 100% human thought into which options of the AI Tool to use and how to model the prompt in a way to achieve the goal...
The author is the computer that did it. "But it was trained using this copyright art reeeeee!!!" Yea and so did real artists. They practice with, and emulate, other existing artists
@-AnonLab2 Eh IMO "stole an idea" is still an idea (heh no wordplay intended) that rubs me strangely - ideas are supposed to be raw building blocks, nobody can reasonably own in a manner a car or house.
It should not matter if we can define exactly how AI does it, what matters is that the system actively searches for works by specific artists. these artists should be compensated.
> *actively searches for works*
what do you mean?
you can't copyright a style. they should be compensated if copyright infringement occurs, with ai or otherwise.
Allegations that artificial intelligence systems "steal" copyrighted material during training are very misleading.
The machine learning algorithms used extract statistical patterns from data - they do not replicate or appropriate creative expression in any way.
Similarly, the outputs generated by Al are not inherently infringing on copyrights. While influenced by its training, outputs are transformative and represent original expression produced at a user's prompt. Al systems lack intentionality or capacity to autonomously infringe protections.
Claims that Al is "theft" anthropomorphize the technology, ascribing human behaviors that do not apply.
Both training and generation represent transformative computational processes, not simple duplication of existing works.
Interesting that the guy wanting legal copyright of an AI generated image is saying the AI and the human can’t be separated, but doesn’t have a problem separating the OG artists the AI trained from. That’s quite the double standard, one that seeks to exploit others for self gain.
If you read Shakespeare, Coleridge, Wordsworth before writing your whatever... If you took a piece from the newspaper.. you learnt the language and thought process in this manner. Each individual's learning graph and creative depth is different. In AI, the input of the creator uses his education and learning process and creative thinking.. and it can be very taxing to make an AI respond intelligently to your inputs. It takes many corrections to even get near what you want and it does not stay consistent. And the AI is at the same time learning from your inputs. If you symbolise a horse for a certain situation, the AI returns you with a horse in a similar situation. So actually you are creating your own style in the process of your creativity. There are a hundred or so art forms AI will create hundreds of art forms. That is evolution that cannot be stopped. And each individual creation is an achievement of a style that is unique to the creator who uses AI . Labour is not art for sure. Th original creative input of the thinker who uses AI as his tool must be recognised and be copyrightable. Many are looking for opportunities to make money by claiming what cannot be proved . Copyright to AI must be given. If any authority considers what I have observed.
I agree with what you have said, but in terms of laws, which are made for the benefit of humans, and then jurisprudentially when we talk about rights and duties, where does AI fall there if given copyright?
Very impressive compilation and I found very objective journalism..thank you
Dilemma
Ethereal
Cosent and compensation
Unprecedented class action law suit
Held accountable for what they have done
Stable diffusion is a complex collage tool
Lawsuit
Violate her right
Clear cut answers
Infringment
Guild submitted letters
Undersighned call your attention
Split half the royalities
Assert that
The question remains undecided
Prompted the ai
Love this show informative
Do all people that unknowingly inspire an artist’s work get compensated?
The law should read: Absolutely no copyrights shall be issued for any work submitted that is not 100% human generated. End of story.
So if artists use a pen as a tool, wouldn't it be only 90% human generated? Because without the pen, the image couldn't be drawn in the first place? Or what's with artists that use a saw to build a sculpture from wood, or a digital artist that uses photoshop or an iPad to draw and make collages. In the end it is a fine line to tell at what point a tool isn't just a tool anymore. AI Art currently isn't possible without human intervention, especially if you have a specific composition, subject or style in mind it can take hours of fine tuning the image just 100% human thought into which options of the AI Tool to use and how to model the prompt in a way to achieve the goal...
I'm not sorry, that's idiotic, and would outright kill creativity.
The author is the computer that did it. "But it was trained using this copyright art reeeeee!!!" Yea and so did real artists. They practice with, and emulate, other existing artists
@-AnonLab2 Eh IMO "stole an idea" is still an idea (heh no wordplay intended) that rubs me strangely - ideas are supposed to be raw building blocks, nobody can reasonably own in a manner a car or house.
best video
We Artists are very Creative beings. BUT many times VERY NAIVE AS WELL. ANYTHING ON THE WEB IS UP FOR GRABS. 🤷🏻♂️
But the do "compete" and in "the style of..."under the 76 statue... AI itself is property, so anything it generates is the property of is owner.
Wonderful video thanks for sharing with us 🍀💛🌈🏡🍀🥰 welcome ♥🌹👍🌹💕👍🌹🌹have a good day 🌹🌹
All copyright is fascism. All of it.