Without enforcing copyright rules on AI, it may mean the end of copyright entirely.
I share a lot of images under CC-BY-SA-NC and share code under the GPL. If someone can train a model off my work and disregard the terms under which I have shared it, copyright is my only enforcement mechanism.
This is a beautiful world, that can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
Ditto for LLMs. Obviously GPT-4 is the best game in town, but I have several LLMs and the code required to use them installed on several machines. Training new data for them can close the gap quite well at the expense of becoming less general.
We can’t regulate our way out of this one. That window closed a while ago.
You can make it illegal if you like, but you’ll never be able to enforce it. And other countries are not obligated to follow suit, and will have significant competitive advantages as a result.
The boundaries of the law are rarely set at what you think you can get away with, but are usually set on some other principle and in between that line and the point where you exist there is plenty of room for prosecution. The jails contain lots of people who thought they 'could get away with it'. Don't be one of those.
Do you feel lucky? What if a specific version of Stable Diffusion is found to be infringing and there's a way to back-attribute an image to it?
Also find it laughable that a lot of the most vocal artists against it make their money drawing characters they don't own anyway.
Approaching this as a designer so obviously these tools will impact me but as long as I can run them on my own hardware without paying tax to Adobe/OpenAI I can at least benefit.
It'll be like how many financial instruments are banned to retail consumers, but are used by the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful.
AI isn't going away, we need open models that everyone can use.
wanna work for Getty and Disney? good... but having your IP ripped out of your own blog feels like being raped, by open-source software or not
That's most likely an irrational feeling. "Adobe AI" will most likely work just as well without including your IP in their dataset, and be able to output something in your style with the right prompt (and other knobs we'll see in the future) without ever having seen your IP.
Potentially you could even run some kind of CLIP on your image and then feed that into "Adobe AI". And I really see no reason to think something like that would ever be considered copyright infringement.
People have the idea that their IP is very meaningfully influencing these AIs, while in reality their artstyles aren't that unique.
and i do not think "i am too insignificant to make an impactful change in society" ... if everyone think(ed) like the quote, life probably would be worse?
If you don't want people to see and learn from your art, maybe don't make it public?
the purpose of producing art is for people to see it
not for some megacorp to ingest it on a huge scale to then make the entire concept of art redundant
when it becomes a realistic possibility that a single human can ingest every work ever created, and then output a derived work in a second to thousands of people at a time: I'll let you know
And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI.
Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes
> And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI.
No because a single image of Darth Vader alone won't work. You need a pretrained base model, trained with millions of images. Only then you can feed such base model a single image and get something decent.
So, nobody has contested them yet. I smell a class-action lawsuit for them from the original makers of their clipart library.
The base model can be trained on open source images. Or people may use adobe's software for that. From just a few images of Darth you can make basically anything, so yes it's quite doable already.
It seems to me there is no way to put this cat back in the bag ever again.
In the case of Darth Vader, there is probably a trademark involved as well, but the vast majority of photos , celebs etc don't have that.
Anyways, use of Darth Vader in any work would be a derivative work.
Patents. Copyrights. Franchising?
Artists are now experiencing the joy of getting beaten in the market by someone else selling the product they created. It was not allowed to stand in other industries.
Copyright is a necessary evil. Disney may well be the savior of artists in the age of AI. There is no incentive to produce anything original if someone else can just gank it and drown you in volume.
The difference is that the open systems will be for personal use and the closed models by companies using it for profit. And the reason Adobe and others would be used in for profit settings is because they pay the artists. Which is what's intended by the lawsuits?
I suppose you could argue the beneficiaries are the shareholders of Disney, etc rather than its artists. At the same time, maybe this ends with open source systems that artists can host themselves.
These AIs do not need to learn from your work in order to function, they just need to learn from some work. All that extending copyright in this manner would do is create a bunch of unnecessary busywork and slow the progress of technological development. You're not going to get paid $5 for letting a proprietary AI train on your drawing, blog post, or GitHub repo when they could get the same benefit from paying someone else $0.05 to find a public domain image, blog post, or repo elsewhere.
Basically, the amount of value your individual work contributes to generative AI is minuscule, but the amount of effort the entire industry would need to expend in order to compensate you for that value is massive. Unless stifling progress is your explicit goal, it's not worth it.
AI art isn't going away, and it better be open instead of in full control of just 2 or 3 companies.