None of this will ever get anywhere. And if it ever does, then way more people are going to be affected than you think.
For a start, no-one has ever managed to prove that an AI physically samples the original artworks people use in their prompts. Not on a commercially-available model, at least. The Afghan Girl "gotcha" was done using close lookalikes without any further forensic analysis (because the pixels would still be completely different, since that's not the way AI works).
The Andy Warhol case went nowhere and at best dictated that AI work can't be copyrighted.
The chimp selfie case dictated that an animal has ownership rights if it manages take a picture with photography equipment you otherwise own. An AI is not an animal.
If an artstyle can be copyrighted, then that's immediately millions of pieces of hand-drawn fan art that would now be illegal, and if anyone made money from them, they would owe the original rights holders.
There is absolutely nothing Ghibli can do unless it uses a commercially-available, non-tampered with AI model and can prove it's using original Ghibli art in the art it produces. And people have tried for the last 3 years.
The Professor test had someone request a picture of a specific professor and got a picture that looked like her About Me picture. Likely the only image of her to access.
Did it look like an existing picture? Or was it a duplicate of an existing picture?
Because the first one has every individual pixel being different from the source. The second one is a reproduction, which is clearly covered by copyright law.
I will bet a significant sum it was the first one.
Next you will request a picture of Ronald McDonald and then be surprised that the Neural Network draws a trademarked clown?
The spirit behind Nightshade is malicious, but it isn't causing much harm. It's like if someone poured gasoline into the water supply of Flint, Michigan. The water ALREADY can be lit on fire, right out of the tap, their actions have done no further harm to the Flint inhabitants, but the hatred for the innocent and sickly behind the act should still be admonished.
None of this will ever get anywhere. And if it ever does, then way more people are going to be affected than you think.
For a start, no-one has ever managed to prove that an AI physically samples the original artworks people use in their prompts. Not on a commercially-available model, at least. The Afghan Girl "gotcha" was done using close lookalikes without any further forensic analysis (because the pixels would still be completely different, since that's not the way AI works).
The Andy Warhol case went nowhere and at best dictated that AI work can't be copyrighted.
The chimp selfie case dictated that an animal has ownership rights if it manages take a picture with photography equipment you otherwise own. An AI is not an animal.
If an artstyle can be copyrighted, then that's immediately millions of pieces of hand-drawn fan art that would now be illegal, and if anyone made money from them, they would owe the original rights holders.
There is absolutely nothing Ghibli can do unless it uses a commercially-available, non-tampered with AI model and can prove it's using original Ghibli art in the art it produces. And people have tried for the last 3 years.
Why is that even a problem? Every single artist uses preexisiting art for inspiration or to straight up copy things from. Every last one of them.
It should only be a problem for whoever trained the model, not the consumer who used the software.
Is there really a difference? Models get trained with existing art. So do artists.
Are you then supposed to make a licensing deal with the chimp...?
What about the college professor test?
How does fucking your student and then being crowned Canadian PM by the WEF relate to this case?
That's an NPC test.
The Professor test had someone request a picture of a specific professor and got a picture that looked like her About Me picture. Likely the only image of her to access.
Did it look like an existing picture? Or was it a duplicate of an existing picture?
Because the first one has every individual pixel being different from the source. The second one is a reproduction, which is clearly covered by copyright law.
I will bet a significant sum it was the first one.
Next you will request a picture of Ronald McDonald and then be surprised that the Neural Network draws a trademarked clown?
if AI doesn't physically sample original works then why AI users freak out over Nightshade?
No ML user or researcher is worried about Nightshade because Nightshade was just grifters scamming retartists.
Most don't.
The spirit behind Nightshade is malicious, but it isn't causing much harm. It's like if someone poured gasoline into the water supply of Flint, Michigan. The water ALREADY can be lit on fire, right out of the tap, their actions have done no further harm to the Flint inhabitants, but the hatred for the innocent and sickly behind the act should still be admonished.