this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
221 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37739 readers
500 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What kind of argument is that supposed to be? We've stolen his art before so it's fine? Dickheads. This whole AI thing is already sketchy enough, at least respect the artists that explicitly want their art to be excluded.
His art was not "stolen." That's not an accurate word to describe this process with.
It's not so much that "it was done before so it's fine now" as "it's a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows" that can be used to justify it. As well as the view that there was nothing wrong with doing it the first time, so what's wrong with doing it a second time?
Yes, it was.
One human artist can, over a life time, learn from a few artists to inform their style.
These AI setups are telling ALL the art from ALL the artists and using them as part of a for profit business.
There is no ethical stance for letting billion dollar tech firms hoover up all the art ever created to the try and remix it for profit.
No, it wasn't. Theft is a well-defined word. When you steal something you take it away from them so that they don't have it any more.
It wasn't even a case of copyright violation, because no copies of any of Rutkowski's art were made. The model does not contain a copy of any of the training data (with an asterisk for the case of overfitting, which is very rare and which trainers do their best to avoid). The art it produces in Rutkowski's style is also not a copyright violation because you can't copyright a style.
So how about the open-source models? Or in this specific instance, the guy who made a LoRA for mimicking Rutkowski's style, since he did it free of charge and released it for anyone to use?
Yes copies were made. The files were downloaded, one way or another (even as a hash, or whatever digital asset they claim to translate them into) then fed to their machines.
If I go into a Ford plant, take pictures of their equipment, then use those to make my own machines, it's still IP theft, even if I didn't walk out with the machine.
Make all the excuses you want, you're supporting the theft of other people's life's work then trying to claim it's ethical.
They were put on the Internet for that very purpose. When you visit a website and view an image there a copy of it is made in your computer's memory. If that's a copyright violation then everyone's equally boned. When you click this link you're doing exactly the same thing.
By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?
Downloading to view != downloading to fuel my business.
No, and that's such a ridiculous leap of logic that I can't come up with anything else to say except no. Just no. What gave you that idea?
Because this thread was about the companies taking art feeding it into their machine a D claiming not to have stolen it.
Then you compared that to clicking a link.
Yes, because it's comparable to clicking a link.
You said:
And that's the logic I can't follow. Who's downloading and selling Rutkowski's work? Who's claiming credit for it? None of that is being done in the first place, let alone being claimed to be "ok."
No, but you can download Rutkovski's art, learn from it how to paint in his exact style and create art in that style.
Which is exactly what the image generation AIs do. They're perhaps just a bit too good at it, certainly way better than an average human.
Which makes it complicated and morally questionable depending on how exactly you arrive at the model and what you do with it, but you can't definitively say it's copyright infringement.
You keep comparing what one person, given MONTHS or YEARS of their life could do with one artists work to a machine doing NOT THE SAME THING can do with thousands of artists work.
The machine is not learning their style, it's taking pieces of the work and dropping it in with other people's work then trying to blend it into a cohesive whole.
The analogy fails all over the place.
And I don't care about copyright, I'm not an artist or an IP lawyer, or whatever. I can just look at a company stealing the labor of an entire industry and see it as bad.
The speed doesn't factor into it. Modern machines can stamp out metal parts vastly faster than blacksmiths with a hammer and anvil can, are those machines doing something wrong?
The machine didn't take the blacksmiths work product and flood the market with copies.
The machine wasn't fed 10,000 blacksmith made hammers then told to, sorta, copy those.
Justify this all you want, throw all the bad analogies at it you want, it's still bad.
Again, if this wasn't bad, the companies would have asked for permission. They didn't.
That's not the aspect you were arguing about in the comment I'm responding to. You said:
And that's what I'm talking about here. The speed with which the machine does its work is immaterial.
Though frankly, if the machine stamping out parts had somehow "learned" how to do it by looking at thousands of existing parts, that would be fine too. So I don't see any problem here.
Here is where a rhethorical sleight of hand is used by AI proponents.
It's displayed for people's appreciation. AI is not people, it is a tool. It's not entitled to the same rights as people, and the model it creates based on artists works is itself a derivative work.
Even among AI proponents, few believe that the AI itself is an autonomous being who ought to have rights over their own artworks, least of all the AI creators.
I use tools such as web browsers to view art. AI is a tool too. There's no sleight of hand, AI doesn't have to be an "autonomous being." Training is just a mechanism for analyzing art. If I wrote a program that analyzed pictures to determine what the predominant colour in them was that'd be much the same, there'd be no problem with me running it on every image I came across on a public gallery.
For disclosure I am a former member of the American Photographic Artists/Advertising Photographers of America, and I have works registered at the United States Copyright Office.
When we put works in our online portfolio, send mailers or physical copies of our portfolios we're doing it as promotional works. There is no usage license attached to it. If loaded into memory for personal viewing, that's fine since its not a commercial application nor violating the intent of that specific release: viewing for promotion.
Let's break down your example to help you understand what is actually going on. When we upload our works to third party galleries there is often a clause in the terms of service which states the artist uploading to the site grants a usage license for distribution and displaying of the image. Let's look at Section 17 of ArtStation's Terms of Service:
This is in conjunction with Section 16's opening line:
So when I click your link, I'm not engaging in a copyright violation. I'm making use of ArtStation's/Epic's license to distribute the original artist's works. When I save images from ArtStation that license does not transfer to me. Meaning if I were to repurpose that work it could be a copyright violation depending on the usage the artist agrees to. Established law states that I hold onto the rights of my work and any usage depends on what I explicitly state and agree to; emphasis on explicitly because the law will respect my terms and compensation first, and your intentions second. For example, if a magazine uses my images for several months without a license, I can document the usage time frame, send them an invoice, and begin negotiating because their legal team will realize that without a license they have no footing.
I know this seems strange given how the internet freely transformed works for decades without repercussions. But as you know from sites like YouTube copyright holders are not a fan of people repurposing their works without a mutually agreed upon terms in the form of a license. If you remember the old show Mystery Science Theater 3000, they operated in the proper form: get license, transform work, commercialize. In the case of ArtStation, the site agrees to provide free hosting in compensation for the artist providing a license to distribute the work without terms for monetization unless agreed upon through ArtStation's marketplace. At every step, the artist's rights to their work is respected and compensated when the law is applied.
If all this makes sense and we look back at AI art, well...
Training an AI doesn't "repurpose" that work, though. The AI learns concepts from it and then the work is discarded. No copyrighted part of the work remains in the AI's model. All that verbiage doesn't really apply to what's being done with the images when an AI trains on them, they are no longer being "used" for anything at all after training is done. Just like when a human artist looks at some reference images and then creates his own original work based on what he's learned from them.
Copies that were freely shared for the purpose of letting anyone look at them.
Do you think it's copyright infringement to go to a website?
Typically, ephemeral copies that aren't kept for a substantial period of time aren't considered copyright violations, otherwise viewing a website would be a copyright violation for every image appearing on that site.
Downloading a freely published image to run an algorithm on it and then deleting it without distribution is basically the canonical example of ephemeral.
Its what you do with the copies thats the problem, not the physical act of copying.
So humans are slow and inefficient, what's new?
First the machines replaced hand weavers, then ice sellers went bust, all the calculators got sacked, now it's time for the artists.
We stand on the shoulders of generations of unethical stances.
"other people were bad so I should be bad to."
Cool.
Yes, which is why we should try to do better.
I don't like when people say "AI just traces/photobashes art." Because that simply isn't what happens.
But I do very much wish there was some sort of opt-out process, but ultimately any attempt at that just wouldn't work
People that say that have never used AI art generation apps and are only regurgitating what they hear from other people who are doing the same. The amount of arm chair AI denialists is astronomical.
pirating photoshop is a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows. that doesn't make it legal or condoned by adobe
I don't know what this has to do with anything. Nothing was "pirated", either.
Not at the point of generation, but at the point of training it was. One of the sticking points of AI for artists is that their developers didn't even bother to seek permission. They simply said it was too much work and crawled artists' galleries.
Even publicly displayed art can only be used for certain previously-established purposes. By default you can't use them for derivative works.
i'm not making a moral comment on anything, including piracy. i'm saying "but it's part of my established workflow" is not an excuse for something morally wrong.
only click here if you understand analogy and hyperbole
if i say "i can't write without kicking a few babies first", it's not an excuse to keep kicking babies. i just have to stop writing, or maybe find another workflow
The difference is that kicking babies is illegal whereas training and running an AI is not. Kind of a big difference.
no one's art is being "stolen". you're mistaken.
That's true, but only in the sense that theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different things.
Generating stuff from ML training datasets that included works without permissive licenses is copyright infringement though, just as much as simply copying and pasting parts of those works in would be. The legal definition of a derivative work doesn't care about the techological details.
(For me, the most important consequence of this sort of argument is that everything produced by Github Copilot must be GPL.)
That's incorrect in my opinion. AI learns patterns from its training data. So do humans, by the way. It's not copy-pasting parts of image or code.
At the heart of copyright law is the intent. If an artist makes something, someone can't just come along and copy it and resell it. The intent is so that artists can make a living for their innovation.
AI training on copyrighted images and then reproducing works derived from those images in order to compete with those images in the same style breaks the intent of copyright law. Equally, it does not matter if a picture is original. If you take an artist's picture and recreate it with pixel art, there have already been cases where copyright infringement settlements have been made in favor of the original artist. Despite the original picture not being used at all, just studied. Mile's David Kind Of Bloop cover art.
You're correct in your description of what a derivative work is, but this part is mistaken:
The intent is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" so that, in the long run, the Public Domain is enriched with more works than would otherwise exist if no incentive were given. Allowing artists to make a living is nothing more than a means to that end.
It promotes progress by giving people the ability to make the works. If they can't make a living off of making the works then they aren't going to do it as a job. Thus yes, the intent is so that artists can make a living off of their work so that more artists have the ability to make the art. It's really that simple. The intent is so that more people can do it. It's not a means to the end, it's the entire point of it. Otherwise, you'd just have hobbyists contributing.
I like what you're saying so I'm not trying to be argumentative, but to be clear copyright protections don't simply protect those who make a living from their productions. You are protected by them regardless of whether you intend to make any money off your work and that protection is automatic. Just to expand upon what @grue was saying.
By the same token, a human can easily be deemed to have infringed copyright even without cutting and pasting, if the result is excessively inspired by some other existing work.
AI doesn't "learn" anything, it's not even intelligent. If you show a human artwork of a person they'll be able to recognize that they're looking at a human, how their limbs and expression works, what they're wearing, the materials, how gravity should affect it all, etc. AI doesn't and can't know any of that, it just predicts how things should look based on images that have been put in it's database. It's a fancy Xerox.
It's actually not copyright infringement at all.
Edit: and even if it was, copyright infringement is a moral right, it's a good thing. copyright is theft.
It's likely copyright infringement but that's for the courts to decide, not you or me. Additionally, "copyright infringement is a moral right" seems fairly wrong. Copyright laws currently are too steep and I can agree with that but if I make a piece of art like a book, video game, or movie, do I not deserve to protect it in order to get money? I'd argue that because we live in a capitalistic society so, yes, I deserve to get paid for the work I did. If we lived in a better society that met the basic needs (or even complex needs) of every human then I can see copyright laws being useless.
At the end of the day, the artists just want to be able to afford to eat, play games, and have shelter. Why in the world is that a bad thing in our current society? You can't remove copyright law without first removing capitalism.
No. And it's not just me saying that; the folks who wrote the Copyright Clause (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson) would disagree with you, too.
The natural state of a creative work is for it to be part of a Public Domain. Ideas are fundamentally different from property in the sense that property's value comes from its exclusive use by its owner, wheras an idea's value comes from spreading it, i.e., giving it away to others.
Here's how Jefferson described it:
Thus we see the basis for the rationale given in the Copyright Clause itself: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," which is very different from creating some kind of entitlement to creators because they "deserve" it.
The true basis for copyright law in the United States is as a utilitarian incentive to encourage the creation of more works - a bounty for creating. Ownership of property is a natural right which the Constitution pledges to protect (see also the 4th and 5th Amendments), but the temporary monopoly called copyright is merely a privilege granted at the pleasure of Congress. Essentially, it's a lease from the Public Domain, for the benefit of the Public. It is not an entitlement; what the creator of the work "deserves" doesn't enter into it.
And if the copyright holder abuses his privilege such that the Public no longer benefits enough to be worth it, it's perfectly just and reasonable for the privilege to be revoked.
This is a bizarre, backwards argument. First of all, a government-granted monopoly is the antethesis of the "free market" upon which capitalism is supposedly based. Second, granting of monopolies is hardly the only way to accomplish either goal of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts" or of helping creators make a living!
... You realize the reason it promotes progress is because it allows the creators to get paid for it, right? It's not "they deserve it" it's "they need to eat and thus they aren't going to do it unless they make money." Which is exactly my argument.
It's a silly way to put that since the "privilege granted" is given in to Congress in the Constitution.
Overall though, you are referencing a 300-year-old document like it means something. The point comes down to people needing to eat in a capitalistic society.
Capitalism isn't really based on a free market and never has been in practice.
Sure but first enact those changes then try to change or break copyright. Don't take away the only current way for artists to make money then say "Well, the system should be different." You are causing people to starve at that point.
Aside from all the artists whose work was fed into the AI learning models without their permission. That art has been stolen, and is still being stolen. In this case very explicitly, because they outright removed his work, and then put it back when nobody was looking.