I have seen a lot of articles and social media pushes to stop AI image creation because it can be trained to the style of a specific artist. It's constantly about how the poor artist won't be able to make mo ey because the AI can do their art for them.
I doubt this. Artists have multiple styles and are more well known for the story within their pictures. If I hired an artist who could repeat that style and do something similar then it's ok?
This makes no sense. Instead, I bet it's a big business trying to protect itself. Disney has a full department that decides on styles for art and presentations. Genie must look this way in all pictures and all artists must repeat it perfectly. Only Disney can sell products with this genie or anything close to it.
If I had AI make Genie doing something and then printed that out, there is very little Disney could do to stop it. This is the music industry vs Napster all over again.
Part of their argument that does hold up that it is theft is that those who are feeding the AI with data to pull from are not paying for the rights to their art to be used commercially. Which many of these ai companies are now valued ridiculously high by taking data that may not be open sourced. Just because an artist posts a picture on the internet does not mean anyone can legally make prints of it and sell it, or use it in their software without first purchasing the rights to it.
So the AI's input data isn't royaltied...
How many "human" artists pay for a billion pictures of hands they see in every frame of every movie they watch, every painting they see, every likeness payment for remembering how someone looks for a reference?
People on the internet think it's some sort of secret club instead of a public space in computer format, and that is the cause of so many misunderstandings.
If you want your art to be kept safe and secure, don't release it on a website where a fucking child can right click and save it to their SSD within ten seconds.
Heck, don't release it on computer format because, ya know, snipping tool exists in any case.
If you leave something in the middle of the street and the next day it's no longer there, its not 100% your fault, but its certainly PARTLY your fault.
Right click save as but just looking at it isn’t wrong. Demanding that you can just use someone’s work for your own profit is. You can right click save as the Nike logo. Good luck selling t shirts with it on it.
That's more a problem if big companies existing and abusing lawyers, more than it's a problem of copyright 'theft'.
"Oh no, someone put a picture of Rei Ayanami on a shirt and sold a few copies, stop the presses!"
Every day major companies steal more ideas than any individual ever could, yet I don't see articles and retards ranting about them day in day out.
AI is just exposing how retarded everything already is, not adding more to the pile.
It'll be the same as Google Books though. They won't put ads on the download page for the model and the courts will say it's not for profit, completely ignoring any indirect profit even from hosting it let alone using it, so it's 100% totally honest fair use.
And just skip the pages that mention how many of the silicon valley investors are part of the mob.
It’s not fair use though you can’t take someone’s artwork, integrate it into your software regardless if it faces the end user or not, and then use it for profit. It’s no different than putting a pop song in your YouTube video. Sure the end product may be the video, but you don’t have a right to use the song without permission, which is usually granted in exchange for a sum of money and a very strict contract being signed.
You shouldn't be able to, but that's exactly what Google did with their book scanning and the courts said "but Google are the good guys so it's ok this time".
I mean, if I was working on something right now, if I published to Youtube it wouldn't be eligible for monetization because I don't have enough subscribers. Youtube says certain content is against guidelines for monetization - essentially - if you get an id claim or a warning that its ineligible. Yet the ads still run on the video. You're not getting the money on your own original work but Jimmy Fallon and the media mafia can post all sorts of "violent content" that might be "sensitive for viewers" and they split the ad revenue. You don't have 1000 subscribers? Youtube still runs ads and makes money off of your intellectual property, but you don't get a cut. So your hard work doesn't earn shit. Even if you gain monetization...you still make a pittance on it.
45 percent for fucking hosting.