Guy, when you enter a prompt into a Convolutional Neural Network, you can't point to the work that it is coping; because it isn't copying a single work, or even a couple. The NN is relying on the complex interactions of neurons to identify patterns within its output and to adjust those to make them better match a gestalt of that training.
You know this. You tried to correct my original response to point this out to me.
When you duplicate an image with a Xerox machine, or even a person visually copying an artwork by looking at it, you can point to the piece being copied. "There it is, that is the original."
Duplication is prohibited under copywrite law; but style isn't. Drawing Spongebob Squarepants in the style of Vincent Van Gough is a creative, transformational work even if you can recognize both the character and the style.
There may be issues about selling or distributing that work, because Spongebob is covered by trademark etc., but there is no question about the transformative and artistic nature of the piece. Juxtaposing the vapid childrens' character and one of the most famous Dutch painters is, in itself, an artistic statement.
No, you cannot copyright an art style. While you can copyright specific, original works of art, such as paintings, drawings, or sculptures, copyright law does not protect styles or general ideas.
I get that you fucking hate Neural Network generated art. I understand, but you are just making shit up to win arguments. You are demonstrably wrong, which is worse because you know you are wrong, and you don't give a fuck.
Every day we make fun of Neo-Marxist fuckheads for making up their own facts, and here you are doing it to win an internet slap fight.
Even if you manage to declare victory by utterly distorting terms (a leftist tactic) you will have convinced no one of your point of view.
There are really, really good reasons to distrust Convolutional Neural Networks and Large Language Models. I've given a few very good ones in other posts in this topic. "lol; they are just Xerox machines!' isn't one.
Oh, and BTW, I've never given a 30 year prediction. That was someone else.
You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.
but you are just making shit up to win arguments.
I'm not trying to win anything. That's what you're doing. And you're doing a very bad job of it. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring the inconvenient parts of my argument.
Every day we make fun of Neo-Marxist fuckheads for making up their own facts, and here you are doing it to win an internet slap fight.
Get off the cross. I disagree with you. Learn to cope. Instead of inventing retarded narratives to soothe yourself just give up. There is nothing to win here, sport, and disagreement is acceptable. Look at how hard you strain to simply avoid this obvious detente.
You're either not serious or you are unwell. Either way I don't plan to continue provoking your absurd diatribes.
"lol; they are just Xerox machines!' isn't one.
That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you. Well, makes you look like the winner, I guess.
You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.
You keep saying that, yet you don't give any indication of why you think that I am wrong.
Having coauthored a 4th year Software Engineering dissertation in which we compiled and trained a Convolutional Neural Network, I am fairly confident of my understanding of the subject. If I am wrong and there are no neurons or no complex interactions, I'd love to know. Please, I welcome your detailed critique.
That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you.
What did you say? Oh, it is right here!
This thing can only copy.
The essence of your argument is: Neural Networks can only copy and not create anything original. It follows that what they do is an infringement of copyright, because you can recognize the style that is being aped.
I think my summation of your argument is succinct.
You know guy, for all your butthurt and bluster you have yet to provide any countervailing facts. You have done a bunch of quibbling over definitions, to your own benefit, but you haven't actually presented any alternatives beyond "I said so".
Now you've devolved to insults.
I guess we both know that your position isn't actually based on reason, huh?
Guy, when you enter a prompt into a Convolutional Neural Network, you can't point to the work that it is coping; because it isn't copying a single work, or even a couple. The NN is relying on the complex interactions of neurons to identify patterns within its output and to adjust those to make them better match a gestalt of that training.
You know this. You tried to correct my original response to point this out to me.
When you duplicate an image with a Xerox machine, or even a person visually copying an artwork by looking at it, you can point to the piece being copied. "There it is, that is the original."
Duplication is prohibited under copywrite law; but style isn't. Drawing Spongebob Squarepants in the style of Vincent Van Gough is a creative, transformational work even if you can recognize both the character and the style.
There may be issues about selling or distributing that work, because Spongebob is covered by trademark etc., but there is no question about the transformative and artistic nature of the piece. Juxtaposing the vapid childrens' character and one of the most famous Dutch painters is, in itself, an artistic statement.
From https://www.clrn.org/can-you-copyright-an-art-style/
I get that you fucking hate Neural Network generated art. I understand, but you are just making shit up to win arguments. You are demonstrably wrong, which is worse because you know you are wrong, and you don't give a fuck.
Every day we make fun of Neo-Marxist fuckheads for making up their own facts, and here you are doing it to win an internet slap fight.
Even if you manage to declare victory by utterly distorting terms (a leftist tactic) you will have convinced no one of your point of view.
There are really, really good reasons to distrust Convolutional Neural Networks and Large Language Models. I've given a few very good ones in other posts in this topic. "lol; they are just Xerox machines!' isn't one.
Oh, and BTW, I've never given a 30 year prediction. That was someone else.
You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.
I'm not trying to win anything. That's what you're doing. And you're doing a very bad job of it. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring the inconvenient parts of my argument.
Get off the cross. I disagree with you. Learn to cope. Instead of inventing retarded narratives to soothe yourself just give up. There is nothing to win here, sport, and disagreement is acceptable. Look at how hard you strain to simply avoid this obvious detente.
You're either not serious or you are unwell. Either way I don't plan to continue provoking your absurd diatribes.
That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you. Well, makes you look like the winner, I guess.
You keep saying that, yet you don't give any indication of why you think that I am wrong.
Having coauthored a 4th year Software Engineering dissertation in which we compiled and trained a Convolutional Neural Network, I am fairly confident of my understanding of the subject. If I am wrong and there are no neurons or no complex interactions, I'd love to know. Please, I welcome your detailed critique.
What did you say? Oh, it is right here!
The essence of your argument is: Neural Networks can only copy and not create anything original. It follows that what they do is an infringement of copyright, because you can recognize the style that is being aped.
I think my summation of your argument is succinct.
You know guy, for all your butthurt and bluster you have yet to provide any countervailing facts. You have done a bunch of quibbling over definitions, to your own benefit, but you haven't actually presented any alternatives beyond "I said so".
Now you've devolved to insults.
I guess we both know that your position isn't actually based on reason, huh?
Have a great day.