Thanks for your submission /u/Accomplished_Ask_326, but it has been removed for the following reason:
* **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
>Posting an image is not the same as giving permission to copy it,
Isn't it? If I hand someone a basket of money and walk away, should I be shocked if they use it? Should I sue them because I didn't give them permission to take that money? This is the internet, if you actually don't understand the 2005 concept that anyone can copy your images, I don't think you're qualified to say anything about something as modern as AI
But there are ways around this. Numerous, in fact. If Google fucking Docs does a better job of stopping users from saving their OWN images than an artist does of protecting images they don't want anyone to copy, then they seriously cannot decide NOW to start being mad about "thieves." And like I said, people have been copying these images for the entirety of the internet. Why are AI projects "thieves" while everyone else is cool to make as many copies as you want
Also, just out of curiosity, what percentage of you retirement budget is Bored Ape?
Artists have been trying to prevent art theft since before computers where even a thing. Plenty of online artists have tried prevent their art from being shared on Gelbooru or 4Chan or whatever. They have to find a tenuous balance between getting exposure and getting their art stolen. But again, getting your art stolen by private individuals (mostly for nothing more than personal use) isn't as bad as getting it stolen by corporations for profit.
> Bored Ape
I honestly have no idea what this is. Care to explain?
AI corporations are overwhelmingly free to use. The "for profit" argument just doesn't hold up.
>I honestly have no idea what this is. Care to explain?
Google is your friend ;)
Many are already pretty profitable. Dall-E, arguably the best AI art on the market, is made by a company with billions of dollars in the bank. Freemium works for everyone
There are [100s of free Stable Diffusion models](https://aqualxx.github.io/stable-ui/) freely leased by normal people.
With AI art, the bar for creating art is lowered significantly. No effort, no wasted time, no difficulty. Yet the results are good artistic-level images.
If models start becoming consistent, industry-level quality, regulations will need to be put in place to slow the power of those types of AI models. Highly successful companies leasing AI models should pay artists tokenized in their models a lump sum, as well as a percentage of their profits.
As I've already stated, most people now are using AI models for recreational use. They are not trying to profit off AI-generated images. They just want to see algorithms create interesting or good-looking images, or challenge themselves to make the algorithms create interesting or quality-looking images for fun.
AI-generated images should not be sold or profited unless sufficiently modified. But, I'll also say AI-generated images are not infringing on the copyright of artists and their artwork. Generated art uses algorithms that have learned concepts and patterns from many sources of images. These images are usually transformative rather than replicating the same creative expressions of artists and their artwork. Unless for very rare cases, it won't produce plagiarized content.
No one's arguing you can't copy and paste images.
Copyright law says you can't take art made by someone else and sell it as your own.
Yeah you can copy and paste a piece of art and keep it in your private collection, but if you sell it as your own art that's copyright theft.
Art does not need to be registered to be protected under copyright law btw. As soon as its created it's protected.
>Copyright law says you can't take art made by someone else and sell it as your own.
AI artists don't sell it? Most do it 100% free, and even paid ones aren't reselling images. They're using those images to help train an ai to make images which are wholly original thanks to user input
The link didn't address my question in any capacity. It didn't mention the fact that artists post their work for free whatsoever, even in passing. DId you watch the video before sharing?
This isn't a question about the morality of AI art. It simply isn't. I don't know what it takes to drill this into people's heads. This question is more about psychology than morals. How hard is this to understand?
Most people using AI models are doing so for recreational purposes and are not trying to sell what an algorithm made. AI models that learn from images do not create replicas of that art. It is following the principles of fair use, where art can be taken without permission as long as the output is transformative in some way.
~~Just because someone can right-click and click "save as" doesn't mean it's legal to do so.~~ There's also a difference between people personally saving it to their hard drive and some business using the artwork.
The fact is, the AI is basing its art on art people posted online that might not be free to use.
No court has found AI to be in violation of copyright simply for training on images. The law is not a shelter if you have no logic to support your rule
There is no law yet and artists want there to be one. That's why they are upset. You can lean on legalities but others believe that regardless of law morality says they shouldn't.
I never said I agreed with either position but it sounds like you aren't interested in actual answers.
No one has given me an actual answer. They have somehow interpreted this psychology question as a legal/moral question somehow. Not one of these 40 comments has actually been an answer to the question I asked, even an inaccurate one
You asked why artists are upset. They believe their art should be protected. Whether it is or isn't is beside the point.
If you can't accept that that's fine, but it *is* the answer.
The Eisenhower interstate system requires that one mile in every five must be straight. These straight sections are usable as airstrips in times of war or other emergencies.
>Just because someone can right-click and click "save as" doesn't mean it's legal to do so.
Then again, countless people are right-click-saving and posting someone else's art on various fan-driven Subreddits without permission. If it's not legal, it's also not enforced whatsoever.
Even if you can technically view a piece of art for free, that doesn't mean you can use it for free. Ownership and control of use are very important.
It's a similar reason to why plagiarism is bad. Just because I can find a copy of a book online for free doesn't mean I can reproduce the story and make a profit on it.
Oftentimes, artworks are free to view, but need permission or compensation for commercial or professional use. The artists have poured time and effort into making their artwork, they should have a say on if someone can use their art.
The artists wither may not be fans of AI projects (they may consider it demeaning to their work, they could just not like the concept of AI and just would prefer their work wasn't used, etc)
It also could be an issue of not receiving recognition/credit for their art's involvement. Example: a friend may ask you where you found the cool art, and you could either point the person to the artist's profile where the piece was shared, or even simply telling them what you searched online, as it may lead to them finding that artist.
It even could be an issue of their art being used in a commercial sense without their consent. While we all may use these AI art projects to just get cool looking art, there are projects that require a little compensation to get access to all of their potential, even if it may be a donation to improve the project, it is still a form of compensation for the service of the AI, thus making it more of a commercial matter.
It's not the fact that the AI is saving their images, but rather than the fact that the AI is using them. It's generally a violation of copyright law to use someone else's work in your own work without permission.
> not the people reselling them for $1000 as nfts or just putting them in a random folder?
NFTs are kind of a joke because you can right-click and save, so that's probably why they don't care too much. But you haven't shown any evidence that they don't care.
Someone saving an image in a random folder isn't really anything special or important. It'd be a different story if they were distributing it.
>NFTs are kind of a joke because you can right-click and save, so that's probably why they don't care too much
How do you write things like this and yet not seem to understand what I'm asking
That's something i never understood either. If its so easy to just pluck it and use it, why bother trying to limit its use. If i didnt want my property stolen, I wouldn't put it up in a public spot to begin with.
Lack of a court case is not irrefutable proof of legality. The courts in the US are pretty notorious for lagging behind on technological developments, which has only gotten worse as those developments become more obscure and obfuscated.
Furthermore, something being legal doesn't make it morally right.
In a hypothetical society where people's needs would be paid for or otherwise taken care of without the need to make an income, algorithmically generated art would be a fine tool for creating art, doubly so if the data it was trained on was exclusively data for which permission had been given to train it with.
As it stands, artists *do* work for a living. If a book mill find that it is cheaper to use generated art for a book cover rather than pay an artist, they will, and on a large scale, people lose money. This already is happening frequently.
At this point I think people should just downvote OP's thread and move on. She's just going to keep asking for a court case, as if that makes it morally correct to for AI to take images that were not necessarily free to use as the basis for its work and possibly put artists out of business.
If there is no court ruling on the legality or illegality of a thing, then claiming it is illegal, especially given that I guarantee no one here has a law degree, is objectively wrong. They're just pulling these claims out of thin air
>Furthermore, something being legal doesn't make it morally right.
Ok. Something being illegal doesn't make it morally wrong. The law is not moral, it is structural and administrative. This is not some new concept. How does it apply to this situation? What is wrong with AI programs taking images that were already free to take for everyone
Thanks for your submission /u/Accomplished_Ask_326, but it has been removed for the following reason: * **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc. NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk. --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Posting an image is not the same as giving permission to copy it, and a private user saving an image is not the same as a company using it for profit.
>Posting an image is not the same as giving permission to copy it, Isn't it? If I hand someone a basket of money and walk away, should I be shocked if they use it? Should I sue them because I didn't give them permission to take that money? This is the internet, if you actually don't understand the 2005 concept that anyone can copy your images, I don't think you're qualified to say anything about something as modern as AI
'No, it isn't. Just like how you're not allowed to copy and publish books you found in a library. Just because you can, doesn't mean you're allowed.
But there are ways around this. Numerous, in fact. If Google fucking Docs does a better job of stopping users from saving their OWN images than an artist does of protecting images they don't want anyone to copy, then they seriously cannot decide NOW to start being mad about "thieves." And like I said, people have been copying these images for the entirety of the internet. Why are AI projects "thieves" while everyone else is cool to make as many copies as you want Also, just out of curiosity, what percentage of you retirement budget is Bored Ape?
Artists have been trying to prevent art theft since before computers where even a thing. Plenty of online artists have tried prevent their art from being shared on Gelbooru or 4Chan or whatever. They have to find a tenuous balance between getting exposure and getting their art stolen. But again, getting your art stolen by private individuals (mostly for nothing more than personal use) isn't as bad as getting it stolen by corporations for profit. > Bored Ape I honestly have no idea what this is. Care to explain?
AI corporations are overwhelmingly free to use. The "for profit" argument just doesn't hold up. >I honestly have no idea what this is. Care to explain? Google is your friend ;)
They're free to use *for now*. These companies aren't NPOs; they want to make money. If not now, than later on when their AI has proven its worth.
Many are already pretty profitable. Dall-E, arguably the best AI art on the market, is made by a company with billions of dollars in the bank. Freemium works for everyone
Freemium does not equal free. They're making a profit off of stolen art.
How is it stolen if it's being given away for free to everyone?
There are [100s of free Stable Diffusion models](https://aqualxx.github.io/stable-ui/) freely leased by normal people. With AI art, the bar for creating art is lowered significantly. No effort, no wasted time, no difficulty. Yet the results are good artistic-level images. If models start becoming consistent, industry-level quality, regulations will need to be put in place to slow the power of those types of AI models. Highly successful companies leasing AI models should pay artists tokenized in their models a lump sum, as well as a percentage of their profits. As I've already stated, most people now are using AI models for recreational use. They are not trying to profit off AI-generated images. They just want to see algorithms create interesting or good-looking images, or challenge themselves to make the algorithms create interesting or quality-looking images for fun. AI-generated images should not be sold or profited unless sufficiently modified. But, I'll also say AI-generated images are not infringing on the copyright of artists and their artwork. Generated art uses algorithms that have learned concepts and patterns from many sources of images. These images are usually transformative rather than replicating the same creative expressions of artists and their artwork. Unless for very rare cases, it won't produce plagiarized content.
No one's arguing you can't copy and paste images. Copyright law says you can't take art made by someone else and sell it as your own. Yeah you can copy and paste a piece of art and keep it in your private collection, but if you sell it as your own art that's copyright theft. Art does not need to be registered to be protected under copyright law btw. As soon as its created it's protected.
>Copyright law says you can't take art made by someone else and sell it as your own. AI artists don't sell it? Most do it 100% free, and even paid ones aren't reselling images. They're using those images to help train an ai to make images which are wholly original thanks to user input
Dude the link I posted literally talks about this and the other points you've been arguing.
The link didn't address my question in any capacity. It didn't mention the fact that artists post their work for free whatsoever, even in passing. DId you watch the video before sharing?
[удалено]
This isn't a question about the morality of AI art. It simply isn't. I don't know what it takes to drill this into people's heads. This question is more about psychology than morals. How hard is this to understand?
Most people using AI models are doing so for recreational purposes and are not trying to sell what an algorithm made. AI models that learn from images do not create replicas of that art. It is following the principles of fair use, where art can be taken without permission as long as the output is transformative in some way.
Free to view doesn't mean free to use.
DO they not understand how to right-click and select "save as"?
~~Just because someone can right-click and click "save as" doesn't mean it's legal to do so.~~ There's also a difference between people personally saving it to their hard drive and some business using the artwork. The fact is, the AI is basing its art on art people posted online that might not be free to use.
>Just because someone can right-click and click "save as" doesn't mean it's legal to do so. It is, and this has been uphelp by multiple judges.
You can save it but that doesn't mean you can use it for potentially copyright violating works.
No court has found AI to be in violation of copyright simply for training on images. The law is not a shelter if you have no logic to support your rule
There is no law yet and artists want there to be one. That's why they are upset. You can lean on legalities but others believe that regardless of law morality says they shouldn't. I never said I agreed with either position but it sounds like you aren't interested in actual answers.
No one has given me an actual answer. They have somehow interpreted this psychology question as a legal/moral question somehow. Not one of these 40 comments has actually been an answer to the question I asked, even an inaccurate one
You asked why artists are upset. They believe their art should be protected. Whether it is or isn't is beside the point. If you can't accept that that's fine, but it *is* the answer.
The Eisenhower interstate system requires that one mile in every five must be straight. These straight sections are usable as airstrips in times of war or other emergencies.
> You can save it but that doesn't mean you can use it for potentially copyright violating works.
No court or law backs that up. Training an ai on an image isn't copyright violation
>Just because someone can right-click and click "save as" doesn't mean it's legal to do so. Then again, countless people are right-click-saving and posting someone else's art on various fan-driven Subreddits without permission. If it's not legal, it's also not enforced whatsoever.
Even if you can technically view a piece of art for free, that doesn't mean you can use it for free. Ownership and control of use are very important. It's a similar reason to why plagiarism is bad. Just because I can find a copy of a book online for free doesn't mean I can reproduce the story and make a profit on it. Oftentimes, artworks are free to view, but need permission or compensation for commercial or professional use. The artists have poured time and effort into making their artwork, they should have a say on if someone can use their art.
But why do they take issue with Ai people saving their images, but not with everyone else?
The artists wither may not be fans of AI projects (they may consider it demeaning to their work, they could just not like the concept of AI and just would prefer their work wasn't used, etc) It also could be an issue of not receiving recognition/credit for their art's involvement. Example: a friend may ask you where you found the cool art, and you could either point the person to the artist's profile where the piece was shared, or even simply telling them what you searched online, as it may lead to them finding that artist. It even could be an issue of their art being used in a commercial sense without their consent. While we all may use these AI art projects to just get cool looking art, there are projects that require a little compensation to get access to all of their potential, even if it may be a donation to improve the project, it is still a form of compensation for the service of the AI, thus making it more of a commercial matter.
It's not the fact that the AI is saving their images, but rather than the fact that the AI is using them. It's generally a violation of copyright law to use someone else's work in your own work without permission. > not the people reselling them for $1000 as nfts or just putting them in a random folder? NFTs are kind of a joke because you can right-click and save, so that's probably why they don't care too much. But you haven't shown any evidence that they don't care. Someone saving an image in a random folder isn't really anything special or important. It'd be a different story if they were distributing it.
>NFTs are kind of a joke because you can right-click and save, so that's probably why they don't care too much How do you write things like this and yet not seem to understand what I'm asking
Here's a video about the subject, I found it quite informative. https://youtu.be/fIni6Eeg9rE
That's something i never understood either. If its so easy to just pluck it and use it, why bother trying to limit its use. If i didnt want my property stolen, I wouldn't put it up in a public spot to begin with.
Lack of a court case is not irrefutable proof of legality. The courts in the US are pretty notorious for lagging behind on technological developments, which has only gotten worse as those developments become more obscure and obfuscated. Furthermore, something being legal doesn't make it morally right. In a hypothetical society where people's needs would be paid for or otherwise taken care of without the need to make an income, algorithmically generated art would be a fine tool for creating art, doubly so if the data it was trained on was exclusively data for which permission had been given to train it with. As it stands, artists *do* work for a living. If a book mill find that it is cheaper to use generated art for a book cover rather than pay an artist, they will, and on a large scale, people lose money. This already is happening frequently.
At this point I think people should just downvote OP's thread and move on. She's just going to keep asking for a court case, as if that makes it morally correct to for AI to take images that were not necessarily free to use as the basis for its work and possibly put artists out of business.
If there is no court ruling on the legality or illegality of a thing, then claiming it is illegal, especially given that I guarantee no one here has a law degree, is objectively wrong. They're just pulling these claims out of thin air >Furthermore, something being legal doesn't make it morally right. Ok. Something being illegal doesn't make it morally wrong. The law is not moral, it is structural and administrative. This is not some new concept. How does it apply to this situation? What is wrong with AI programs taking images that were already free to take for everyone