Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bjt23 t1_izaghtp wrote

Reply to comment by blueSGL in What do you think of all the recent very vocal detractors of AI generated art? by razorbeamz

That's the thing, all art pre 20th century is public domain, plus a good portion of modern art is Creative Commons. So like, anyone including AI can use parts of those works.

Heck even with copyrighted works, transformative works are allowed in many places. Sorry luddites, I think you're boned on this one (and thank goodness, the alternative is awful).

23

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_izayfk4 wrote

Copyright is a long outdated concept.

AI art is just an immovable object that makes that fact obvious.

20

bjt23 t1_izayqrw wrote

Copyright in its current form is ridiculous. It may be necessary in some limited form until we reach post scarcity. Agreed we should see it abolished this century though.

9

NightmareOmega t1_izcpb8e wrote

Copyright is alive and well. Copyright protects many of the worlds largest businesses. Much of the code behind these AI is in fact under copyright. What is being made obvious here is that there are two sets of laws at play. Copyright for the rich and mega corporations. Nonconsensual open source for individuals and creatives.

4

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_izd6ikk wrote

I can see where you got that, but I see the problem being that copyright is fundamentally incompatible with the information age.

3

Concheria t1_izbc4hz wrote

I think even if you had a dataset that'd only Creative Commons and public domain arts, you'd still have a lot of people whining. Because arguing that this is only about the dataset is disingenuous. This isn't only about the dataset. This is about the threat of automation and the extreme disruption of a status quo where artists are necessary for the production of large-scale media.

I honestly want to see datasets that are entirely Creative Commons, and a Stable Diffusion based on them. I personally suspect that not a lot would change. (Regardless, this is a moot point because training is now at the point where randos with a subscription to Google colab can easily create their own checkpoints. If you don't believe me, let me point you to the Furry diffusion server on Discord.)

Some online artists are really mad at the idea itself that people can "press a button and get a piece of art", and are trying to discredit the idea of "prompt-engineering" as a form of art. Even in videos like Steven Zapata's "End Of Art", he suggests that this should be a tool for traditional artists. The idea of individuals using this to create their own pieces (And worse, sell them!) is intolerable because it's inherently the intrusion of non-artists playing in the field of art.

7