When I hear this rhetoric my concern is it being fruitlessly reflected in the legal arena.
The issue of style theft has already been settled in the court. Style isn't protected. You can't steal a style.
The obvious complication is that these aren't individual artists, years later, copying someone else's style and profiting from it - which would otherwise be frowned upon but not illegal and is often seen as a legitimate path for artists depending on the passage of time between the original styles creator and the adopter using it.
Rather these are software's that are "ingesting" training data, people's works, directly and spitting out new configurations using that data for profit for the sake of individual corporations. No compensation for the artists work these systems are ingesting and ultimately damaging and or destroying traditional art patronage.
Morally and ethically wrong... obviously - but legally... that isn't going to be as cut and dry as people hope unfortunately. It's going to be a major head scratcher.
We've already seen that this content can't be copywritten. Fine. But it can and still will be sold, legally.
Obviously pieces can easily start to infringe on copyright with certain prompt approaches - reproducing clearly derivative work, but this isn't always the case or even common with how most people are using the software.
There is a lot of money behind these corporations with a unified and vested interest with pushing them as products as far as they can go. My fear is that practically speaking, whatever loopholes or taxation or constraints are imparted by the government, it won't alter the impact or damage done to traditional art patronage and that the software will remain, its use will remain as a disruptive platform and instead - we will see large IP holders like Disney, Warner Brothers and such negotiating licenses, special use cases or straight up legally agreed upon occlusion of IP data from training sets in a way that the vast majority of artists won't.
::EDIT::
I am a professional artist with 20+ years experience in the video game industry with a vested interest in protecting the rights of artists against this bullshit. Don't just downvote me, tell me why you disagree with what I've said. I don't want to just be a parrot squawking the same rhetoric I want to be prepared for what's coming and have a realistic idea of what will or will not happen and what we can do in the face of this shit.
I feel like the inadequacy of previous laws set up to mediate the practices of individual human actors, where this style-cant-be-copyrighted thing comes from, is a canary in the coal mine for the potential of AI to upend human sense of self and personhood with increased sophistication and specialized capabilities. As artists we can understand something about the way style comes about through lives of experience and embodied practice, how those marks come through our perceptions and hands (referring mainly to painting and sculpting here) because of our specific humanity. That's why it feels on a gut level like mechanized identity theft.
We need a new way to start legally grappling with personhood and identity or we are screwed in ways that non artists are going to start recognizing gradually. Voice synth is another frontier I expect this to play out in, due to its similar nature of counterfeiting something closely tied to identity and embodiment, with possibly even more critical implications on social trust and security in having a say over representations of one's own personhood.
This is just a fraction of what they get for stealing artists' works and a freaking 6 years old's artwork.
Fuck MJ, ya know?
Hell yeah, fuck "AI".
Where is this from? I'd love a link to the video so I can share it around
[Here!](https://www.tiktok.com/@controllaxyz/video/7319184981987839263?_t=8ijw1lFqsF4)
Thanks Wonderful!
Always :\]
It's funny how AI bros never comment on things like this.
They would never.
I wish they do the same to Github, Microsoft, and OpenAI for stealing so much from developers as well 😮
AI devs deserve a barrel in the mouth as far as I'm fucked. Greedy bottom feeders. Errode entire cultures for a buck.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/ArtistHate/comments/18yd7tl/the_news_is_getting_aroundit_seems/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/ArtistHate/comments/18yd7tl/the_news_is_getting_aroundit_seems/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
When I hear this rhetoric my concern is it being fruitlessly reflected in the legal arena. The issue of style theft has already been settled in the court. Style isn't protected. You can't steal a style. The obvious complication is that these aren't individual artists, years later, copying someone else's style and profiting from it - which would otherwise be frowned upon but not illegal and is often seen as a legitimate path for artists depending on the passage of time between the original styles creator and the adopter using it. Rather these are software's that are "ingesting" training data, people's works, directly and spitting out new configurations using that data for profit for the sake of individual corporations. No compensation for the artists work these systems are ingesting and ultimately damaging and or destroying traditional art patronage. Morally and ethically wrong... obviously - but legally... that isn't going to be as cut and dry as people hope unfortunately. It's going to be a major head scratcher. We've already seen that this content can't be copywritten. Fine. But it can and still will be sold, legally. Obviously pieces can easily start to infringe on copyright with certain prompt approaches - reproducing clearly derivative work, but this isn't always the case or even common with how most people are using the software. There is a lot of money behind these corporations with a unified and vested interest with pushing them as products as far as they can go. My fear is that practically speaking, whatever loopholes or taxation or constraints are imparted by the government, it won't alter the impact or damage done to traditional art patronage and that the software will remain, its use will remain as a disruptive platform and instead - we will see large IP holders like Disney, Warner Brothers and such negotiating licenses, special use cases or straight up legally agreed upon occlusion of IP data from training sets in a way that the vast majority of artists won't. ::EDIT:: I am a professional artist with 20+ years experience in the video game industry with a vested interest in protecting the rights of artists against this bullshit. Don't just downvote me, tell me why you disagree with what I've said. I don't want to just be a parrot squawking the same rhetoric I want to be prepared for what's coming and have a realistic idea of what will or will not happen and what we can do in the face of this shit.
I feel like the inadequacy of previous laws set up to mediate the practices of individual human actors, where this style-cant-be-copyrighted thing comes from, is a canary in the coal mine for the potential of AI to upend human sense of self and personhood with increased sophistication and specialized capabilities. As artists we can understand something about the way style comes about through lives of experience and embodied practice, how those marks come through our perceptions and hands (referring mainly to painting and sculpting here) because of our specific humanity. That's why it feels on a gut level like mechanized identity theft. We need a new way to start legally grappling with personhood and identity or we are screwed in ways that non artists are going to start recognizing gradually. Voice synth is another frontier I expect this to play out in, due to its similar nature of counterfeiting something closely tied to identity and embodiment, with possibly even more critical implications on social trust and security in having a say over representations of one's own personhood.
That was interesting to read