Artists. Midjourney and the big AI companies are making massive bank off our work, they should have paid royalties or not scraped all our work....sharing the profits would have meant millions of artists supporting AI, rather than seeing it as a commercial cash-grab, an enclosure act. They did that badly, and will likely suffer - or indeed have no artists to copy from, as they give up.
Wholesale Ted Sarah ? you said that program is not available in your area. Did you try using a VPN ? a VPN makes your IP address look, like it's in another country when it's on.
I can see both sides of the coin. On one hand it is generating images based on copyrighted imagery, on another, artists are allowed to look at works of art and use that as an influence when producing their own art, which is basically all the AI is doing. I am undecided on how it should go legally.
I'm glad I revisited your RU-vid videos today. I've just been told my services aren't needed anymore at a big POD company I worked for. So now I'm looking at how I can use my behind the scenes knowledge to become the customer/creator/merchant, not the worker. Now I'm spoiled with this amazing information too! Thank you.
Adobe’s AI uses adobe stock and their other adobe licensed images to train their AI. The artists and photographers are compensated for such use. That’s ethical AI. It should be the standard.
I'd be interested too! These were researchers, being paid to spend their time doing this, and so unlike a layperson, they had a LOT more time to sit there prompting Stable Diffusion to get what they want, lol. For an average joe, it would be better to just right click an image, copy it, and then use it, if their goal was to copy a picture...
Storing the data points of the work so that the work can be reproduce, is in fact storing the work within the program. Everything can be represented digitally with data points including an individuals voice. In order to represent an individuals voice, advanced tech would start out with recordings of that individuals voice. The tech would then convert the necessary bits and pieces of the recordings, the vowels sounds, consonants, vocal inflections etc, and the various sounds of the individual speaking into data points. Those data points and not the recordings would then be utilized to recreate the individuals voice. The reason to do this is speed. A computer can access data points much faster than it can open an audio file and play the needed snippet of a recording. Whether audio or an image, the same method would be used.
Love your content! I'm not against AI art, but I do think the artists have a valid argument. If any of these programs had not had access to the work of thousands if not millions of artists, could they have created the art that they do? No. What is needed is an ethical AI art company that pays artists and allows the user to find out which artists' work influenced the final image. Payment and advertising.
There was another major piece of AI art news recently: whereas The United States, and I think The EU, not sure about Australia, or anywhere else, has ruled that A.I. generated art cannot be copyrighted by the person who prompted it, China has ruled the opposite. Chinese courts said the act of prompting, editing and dialing in the prompt, selecting the model, selecting Loras and adjusting their influence, etc. all constitute creative effort and therefore the final image can be copyrighted by ther person who generated it. I liken it to going out into a field and taking photos of clouds. Those photographer owns the copyright to those images. Same is true for an artist who uses paint or ink splatters to create abstract or expressionist art.
They can sue all they want. It's the old dataset that nobody uses anymore. Literally nobody. They now train on alternative datasets. And we can train our own AI data with our own artwork with as few as 8 images now. Not 8million.
I think this is going to open, and I'm sure it actually has already, a whole new niche of attorneys to deal with these exact lawsuits. I took a day seminar from an attorney and he specialized in cloth pattern copyrights.
What an interesting specialization! I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall of that seminar, haha. A lot of cloth patterns have many similarities.
@@WholesaleTed He did mostly clothing. Burberry was one of his biggest clients. The seminar was on copyrights, trademarks and registrations. It was quite the seminar jammed into just 2 hours. It could have been double that time because there is so much to know.
For example how can they sue a machine for making an image of a celebrity because it use a photo as a reference, thousands of artist use photos in the same way ,, are they suing fan art too ? AI is here and it not going anywhere its an equalizer
@rltreasure Wrong, you don't need lots of talent even with a AI. Because it doesn't do things perfect. You always have to fix the eyes or the hands a head too big Not only do you need talentYou better know photoshop too.
"are they suing fan art too ?" No. The only time there might be an issue is if said fan starts selling t-shirts and other stuff using that artists name and likeness without the artists consent to do so.
they cant be concidered if they dont look like the original. and with that statement, it just reinforces the copyright laws that already exist. if you make a perfect mona lisa with ai, then try to sell it with out permission, then obviously the law stands. but if you use ai, and your image has a likeliness of lisa, then so what! its not her, your words made it, all the butthurt artist can just be quiet. or better yet! instead of being butthurt, maybe just use your talents in ai... i dont get the pushback really, the is the evolution of art... "let go or be dragged" is a popular Zen proverb
A student may study under Van Gogh and so hold all the information of how to paint exactly like Van Gogh. But unless he is copying his pictures straight up or signing them Van Gogh… I say he’s good to go. Mastering a style is what fuels many artists.
It may fuel them, but if they don't develop a style that's truly their own, then, no matter how many works they do, if their works all look as if done by someone else they cannot be considered 'real' artists. Van Gogh developed his famous style all by himself, not by copying. That's how all real artists do it and want to do it. They don't want to spend their time creating works that look like imitations. I can see how certain people, loaded with technique but low on imagination might make a living by forging, and could no doubt make a killing doing VG-like paintings for people who have always wanted one but could never afford one. 'Artists' who fulfill their desires, no matter how good, are just forgers. Highly skilled forgers who openly admit it maybe, but still forgers.
Styles themselves as gatekeeping for artistic endeavor. What a corner you paint yourself into. Tell me, do you really respect the man more who takes graffiti as a genre and synthesizes it with brass sculpture to make a new sort of internal tattoo within a few weeks, or the man who devotes himself to the craft of forgery for his entire life? Frankly, a forger is quite the artist. Some forgeries require such innovation to get past analysis, that it can easily be considered an art unto itself *on top of* the requisite mastery to accomplish the pure stylistic feat of laying the medium. I say if the guy figures out how to make his tempera gesso crackle and yellow as if it's 400 years old and he just laid it out yesterday, he gets to sit in the "artist" room. To lock artistry behind ethics, morality, bah. You must be getting old, sir. I can catch a whiff of what you must have been once, but now it seems stale. Don't go crushing the sedulous.
real artist? If someone can replicate a van gogh they are an artist. a real one. The difference is in the skill; how skilled is an artist? Someone who creates regardless is an artist.@@jonathanstewart351
I'm not a visual artist, but I am a musician. As a musician, I will perform a piece written by somebody else. I will also parody music. I will also emulate the style, or take a piece in a completely different direction. Creative works based on the work of others gone before me. If this lawsuit succeeds, it could have an impact on how we make music... and there's been enough of that already.
Yes but what you describe is a human creative endeavour. The same process applies to the visual arts. We all have influences - either conscious or subsconscious. Midjourney is a machine - a global fishing trawler, dredging up every single visual creation viewable on the internet, crushing it, digesting it, feeding it through a super efficient filter (NOT an algorithm), to finally extrude it on demand for cash. All in seconds and before your eyes. Its very addictive. Midjourney is an epic collection of servers storing super efficient coded 'snatches' of every single image on the internet - more or less. Its surprising how few lines code then access this incomprehensible pool of data and filter it into a recognizable image. Its brutal, its systematic and its *not* fair use. The AI companies like to pretend that their tech is just like a solitary artist working to democratize art. It isn't - its a corporation machine consuming an entire industry for profit - nothing more, nothing less. When any organization says they want to 'democratize' we should look very carefully at what they are actually doing and their real motives. Peace and best wishes!
Well without the input of the artists work these would be very different results. So since their art is needed to make it work, and their art was used as input without their consent, i would side with the artists.
This data argument is interesting. Data isn't a topic I used to see on this discussion. But there is two points I quetion here. 1st: does someone have the copyright the data of their images? 2nd: when you agree with the ToS of a social media with a clause that says you consent your data to research and development of new tools, that wouldn't dismiss the case imediaty? Because LAIONB was created using this clause to collect data.
So every single artist draws on inspiration from other artists whether they admit it or not, very little is new in the art world. Is Ai just simplifying this process. I mean I’m a photographer and I can go out and shoot a subject in xx photographers style, then go home and edit and post process in xx other photographers style along with using various programs and tools to manipulate and create art all based on other artists work. I’m not breaking copyright, I’m not stealing. Is Ai just a modern version of this 🤷 There’s been similar copyright lawsuits around photography that seem very similar to this AI lawsuit and no one was in breach of copyright. I’m gonna say no one’s in breach of copyright in this case. Will be interesting to see if I’m right
thank you. I was just thinking about that. Plus, I always wanted to climb some hills and find big trees and take photos Ansel Adams style. Lol. The thing is unless AI gets better and really creative, all that we see now appears fake and unnatural. There’s something in AI art that looks like a plastic wine cup that mimicked crystal champagne glasses: yes, it is a cup and yes it can contain champagne but it’s ugly. AI art looks dull, repetitive and not inspiring. But in this world of capitalism and mass production, does the end customer really care? There was a similar discussion about film photography and digital photography when digital just started. Everyone was saying that digital was not as good. AI art is going to evolve and take over the markets because it’s cheap and easy to use.
Yes, and if they are substantially identical, but not totally, that's a 'derivative work', which requires consent of the original artist. (who might agree, for a royalty). Remember, 'ideas' the underlying idea isn't copyrightable, it's the actual artwork itself. You couldn't copyright 'moon', but you could copyright your artwork of a moon.
Amazing video!👍👏 I just began my comic book collection and found Toon Haven. They have an incredible range of digital comics for every genre, including the hard to find ones. Lifetime updates too!
IF YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER,YOU COULD OR CAN BE "SARAH",YOU REALLY GET INTO THINGS,I CAN SEE THAT YOU READ A LOT AND INVESTIGATE PRETTY WELL,,VERY VERY SMART PERSON YOU ARE,THANKS FOR THE VIDEO!!👍👍👍👍
How many artists have been inspired by other artists who's works they have seen and style they have copied? Isn't that then considered copyright based on the artists lawsuit? The lawsuit is ridiculous really.
Definitely the artists! Storing the data is essentially copying. The image is the data in a visual form. It still baffles me that people who use generative AI without ever have made a creative work in their lives before, justify themselves constantly and don’t see this as stealing. I’m not against generative AI if you use your own images. Unless you’re using your own real created images to train AI to make new images you are lurching of the work of real artists. The reason artists are constantly filling new lawsuits should make you think about the morality of what you’re doing. So good for them! I support their hard work! It might take a while but they are going to win in the end. Europe is already installing laws for AI including infringement of copyright. In the end we need real creative works to inspire us. Not this fake and ugly AI junk that’s only there to make money. It’s capitalism at its worst.
Legally, no one owns AI art, it cannot be copyrighted. Their Terms of Use may say that they own it, but all they can do is ban you from using the program. All AI art is public art.
Ahhhh, I think you might be right. There is a MS Paint app in the Mac store which was what I originally found while researching this video, but I didn't check who published it. I think you can get access to it, but not officially, my mistake!
I am a writer by trade and some of my work has been consumed by AI. People pay a lot of money, a LOT of money, to use genAI and those companies MAKE a lot of money. I used to be a software engineer, so I know how hard it can be to make complex programs. I never worked on LLM but I did do a lot of predictive modeling and algorithms for data scientists. Not saying that AI companies shouldn't get paid, but that the artists, writers, etc, who had their work consumed without their consent or knowledge should be compensated. I would HAPPILY give all of my work to an AI company to train their models IF I got appropriately compensated. Don't ask me how much is appropriate, I haven't figured that out yet.
I'm using an automated print on demand solution. Unethical : copying a named artists style. Ethical : blending two or more artists styles, by taking elements of both styles - which is more or less what any inspired human artist does. We are all a blend of styles we have learned and adopted elements of.
Late random thoughts on the legal issue. As a writer and not an graphic artist, my perspective is a bit different. Let's suppose I wrote a novel and AI used not my story but my characters . My understanding is this is not allowed by current law without my permission. (I'm referencing "fan fiction" here.) So AI cannot simply put my characters in difference scenarios. Isn't this legal battle similar? An artist creates a character and AI "reimagines" this character in a different way. That doesn't say AI cannot learn from other art but it should not be able to simply revise someone's work either. In this respect, I'll mostly side with the artists here. Sarah, earlier in the video you talk about how some programs can duplicate the uploaded work almost identically. I should think this is exactly wrong. Better would be if the AI could remake an image as "their own". Next question - when does an image become something new rather than a mere copy of the original?
So if artists practiced an art style by using other artists images as a reference they are storing the "mathematical data" of that art style in their brain 🧠 😱
With MS Paint and Cocreator - can anyone say how the credits refresh? I used 1 yesterday and it did not reset back to 50 today. I don't know if I have to use all 50 in order for it to refresh or if I use all 50 that's it?
Hey Emma, you never know who you'll see on RU-vid. Isn't it amazing that 2 people who live almost on the opposite sides of the world from each other not only watch the same video but comment on it too. (I just added a comment re Runway.) And my Captain Hudson is watching it all from his perch on my computer.
If I paint a picture inspired by another artist, is it a violation of copyright? Certainly not! So why can't I do the same with artificial intelligence? Surely, I can't create something (with AI or without) and sign the work with another artist's name, but that's a different story. In my opinion, this legal case makes no sense at all.
The examples shown in the lawsuit that show how images could be encoded and then recalled I do not believe represent the reality of what's going on. If you limit the training data for a new model to a small set of sample photos you could force the tool to do something like this, but what these samples show is merely that if you lean over far enough you can break it and make it do this. It doesn't prove that this is how Stable Diffusion was actually trained, or that the released versions actually do this. They do not mention exactly how they got Stable Diffusion to produce these replicas, and that's a huge red flag. The prosecution is hiding something that could potentially end their case.
I'd be asking them "Did you use a prompt, or just use img2img? IF you didn't just use img2img with a low diffusion rate, but use a prompt, can you give us the prompt (and whatever other parameters can be customized). IMO, if one wants to make an argument that it does OR doesn't infringe, they need to do it honestly - and that there have been cases of people trying to claim img2img uses are examples of prompt to image generations is an example of dishonesty that we've already seen.
I get it, Artists who make a living creating art are worried that they can lose revenue to a machine. They feel threatened. But Suppose someone went to school for many years and trained to be a very good and highly skilled artist, so good that he or she could mimic any artist in the world. This artist decides to paint a painting that looks exactly like it was painted by Wayne Thiebaud for example and decides to sell prints on Etsy. Is that artist breaking the law? As long as the artist does not sign Wayne Thiebaud’s name to the work or claim it was painted by him the artist is fully within his rights to profit from the sale of the prints. But if the artist claims, the print to be by Wayne Thiebaud then the artist has broken the law. But now the question is who do you sue? The way this lawsuit is structured you could hold the makers of the paint, brushes, and canvas the artist used in the creation of the work partially responsible and even the school and teachers who trained the artist to be so skilled. The lawsuit claims that though the AI does not store any artwork from artists it stores the data points used to reproduce the art, To which one can claim that many art schools do possess original artworks from great artists which students can freely study to improve their skills. So are the art schools responsible for a forger's work.?
Yes, any AI feeding upon somebody's copyrighted material is still 100% copyright theft and should be addressed properly in laws regarding AI in the future. AI should not be allowed to use copyrighted material without permission or without paying fees to the original creator.
> *copyright theft* IMO is such a weird phrase - since infringing it (or even being alleged to have infringed upon it) doesn't sieze the copyright from anyone. Not a statement on your specific points, just a long standing bother this phrase always held in my mind.
@@rltreasure Correct - anything eligible is considered copyrighted upon being put in a tangible medium (in the US at least - IIRC a few other countries do this too, don't recall off the top of my head which if any though). That's why people looking at the training material thing from a strict "is it copyrighted" lens IMO is (inadvertantly) being problematic - if we look at it as "using materials under copyright is problematic," you'd be lumpin in works where the author explicitly gave permission, OR put the work under a creative commons license that'd allow for training, since those are still copyrighted materials.
I would like your book but I don’t see a link for it . And I’ve watched a lot of videos on print and demand and your are the most informative. So plz reach out to me because I think I would benefit from your help!!
Originally, everybody said the same thing about photoshop, Initially people thought modern art was terrible and not art at all, same with art made from metal, etc. Art is constantly evolving. In addition, all artist are inspired by other works of art and the artists they aspire to become. This is just another tool, imho.
Yes, you can legally monetize videos made with ai, but youtube themselves have rules around it that restrict what they are willing to monetize. I might be wrong, but I think if a video is 100% made with ai, that they won't monetize it.
Copyright comes down to the end product. If your AI generated video looks sufficiently like a copyright video then it's a copyright violation. What the fight is also about is whether your AI generated video can be copyrighted. In other words, if you post an AI generated video, can someone reupload it and monetize it as well? And for now, the answer is yes. AI generated art is not copyright protected so if someone finds out something you did was AI, they are free to copy and monetize it all they want. They can take your AI generated image, put it on a t-shirt, make millions of dollars because they have a larger audience than you, and owe you nothing.
The use of copyrighted images to train machine learning algorithms is fair use. Full stop. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand machine learning, or doesn't understand copyright.
I believe no mattters the lawsuit results are 3 important points to make, 1) even if we want to recognize it or not we know the developers of AI tools STOLE millions of images to feed the AI with out consent of the creators, that is a FACT. 2) AI tools evolved fast and are really good but not sufficient enough yet to replace human generated art to can keep growing, at this point all companies are avoiding to hire AI artists and AI images for 2 reasons, the first is what I mentioned in point 1 and the second that is not only recognizable but also repetitive, that made it useless for big projects unless like e you run it locally and you create your own model with images that you created yourself and add to the equation control net and dig very deep into the topic, but still is not sufficient enough to replace other work pipelines, for example in my case that I create comics and animation, I can create with full control a 3d animation that looks like is 2D, my skills and my employees skills are sufficient enough to get the job done and when we create those 3D models at that point we can animate them with the 3d software or feed the AI? will take to us more work and time to feed the AI at a point to get a sufficient result then will be much more efficient for us to just animate the 3d models with a 3d software, what make the Ai only good for concepting and storm ideas about the designs of our 3d models but is far from being a useful part of our work flow, only help us generate quick itherations of a concept made by an artist that by all means are not sufficient enough to be used as a finish design and only helps for storm ideas before we decide in which direction we want the final design go and after we get an idea our concept artists can polish it and get for use what we need to start the 3d modeling process, but the major part of times our concept artist can develop better designs that the AI then is no point for us to hire an AI artist because I will still need my concept artist what make me think is more useful for me in such scenario hire more concept artists instead of invest in AI. 3) Dinal point. Taking apart the morality issues about AI, judging how useful and how efficient can be used, I will say even with the great advances is still not sufficient to be used professionally and to replace Human artists in many fields, then WHO uses AI? only small independent entrepreneurs and small companies, because the lack of skills to make things themselves or because the cost to produce the final product, but because AI tools are being more and more accessible to ALL, people is starting to play with it and experiment with it bny themselves, is how if we go to POD services and let's say I want a new T-Shirt all sites are right now over poluted with designs made with AI and my search results will be thousands of items that I will not review all of them, then here is the HUGE back fire, how long for those POD to incorporate Ai tools that allows me to crate my own T-Shirt in a couple of minutes? what will happen with all the new entrepreneurs trying to make a living or money from it? mark my words, in less that 2 years all POD services will incorporate their own AI tools taking out the middle man in the actual process and the funny thing is that you all are helping them to feed and train the AI, is like you all are killing yourselves. One thing that I realized and is why I keep doing what I do for living is that are things that never die in time, the golden time of Disney animated movies, the movies of Studio Ghibnli, Frans Frazetta, Jim Lee, and many other awesome artist including the masters of the past, no matter how many itherations Ai makes the "Mona Lisa" will remain in history; then I used a different approach, I just use the technology available to emulate that artistic style and after the giants success of the league of legends netflix series ARCANE, we keep working in creating that kind of shows because the audience like them, Netflix becomes the new flag ship of American animation, Castelvania, Son of Zeus, DOTA, Blue eyes Samurai, that is what we are doing now in America with the help of artists world wide, and all those shows were made with 3D and more and more studios are joining this wave of creativity, I do not deny we will use AI when reach sufficient enough advance to can make the process easier and faster, but taking in account Chat GPT political BIAS for sure I will keep and even hire more HUMAN writers when the times come, and belive it or not, I can recognize in a blink AI generations that is why I am an animation studio owner and the experience I gain in decades helps me out to recognize instantly what is a good product and what is trash, I am tired and annoyed by people summiting stories and portfolios that they didn't made, when we are working in a new show we make a meeting and our artist are good enough to give us visuals ON THE FLY, our writers can discus with us the plot in real time and we all work together to make something good, I will say at this moment AI is just a TREND, very soon people will get tired of see the same images again and again and everywhere, people is already getting tired of it, and unique high quality products that are different and special are the ones that brings success, right now YES is a great idea to try to catch as much easy money as you can, but as I said, soon PODs will incorporate their own Ai tools and will take out the middle man, low quality comics and animations will die and the human creativity will remain as the constant in the equation, why Amazon KDP and the POD big companies will keep thousands of spam products poluting their platforms? when those companies have their own AI tools????? for how long KDP will keep accepting AI generated content? we already saw KDP restrictions on children and coloring books and all sort of low content books, then all this is forcing authorities to put in place regulations about AI usage and soon or later things will go back to normal and Ai will not remain as a trend as it is right now. Is a temporary small scale business. The only benefits from it are the developers of those tools that work in subscription model or a tokens generation model, you are working for them, helping them develop their models, funding them and when they will not need you they will simply kick you out of the equation, that is how business works. they are not only stealing the content to feed the AI they are also funding the development with your money and even getting rich. Do you believe those developers have any morality? as they stole from everybody to feed the Ai showing ZERO remorce or morality, do you really believe they care of YOU?
Using that logic, artists that take inspiration from other artists must have their memories of ALL OTHER art COMPLETELY wiped from their brains, otherwise they are INFRINGING ON COPYRIGHT LAWS. ALL of the products you sell must NEVER draw upon ANY information or brain matter that utilizes OTHER intellectual property, PERIOD. Violation of this law will result in fines, jail time, and mandatory brain wipes/induced amnesia.
Sorry for pasting my previous comment here too... but I somehow missed this video until now. I'm really nervous for all those people posting AI work for sale on marketplaces like Etsy. Copyright is no joke and the law will catchup with the tech.. just as it is finally with crypto. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Ai became the next huge scandal in the tech space... I give it 18-24 months.. maybe 3 years. The legal gears turn slooowly. Anyway, here's my comment... Using AI art is a massive copyright risk. The AI companies are being taken to court for data scraping and basically ripping off artists. They are using visual artists to test the legal water... they could have picked on the Music industry but the big studios have mighty lawyers, so they dare not go anywhere near Spotify etc for their training data. Instead they picked on individual artists who love creating and spent years mastering their craft. Only for robots to rip their work and re-hash it in seconds - thousands and thousands of times. There will be a landmark case and the fall-out has the potential to be huge financially. The legal process will take time - but do you really want to end up on the list of people who profited from stolen work? Ignorance will be no defense when the lawyers come knocking. Check the TOS of Midjourney etc. Note how they try to tread a fine line on liability - they keep a careful record of who generates what... so its all traceable to cover their backs. Please, please, just avoid the future heartbreak and financial consequences. AI is inevitable in some form - but not in the way Midjourney etc are stealing data for commercial use. See Adam Duff (Lucid Pixel) here on RU-vid for some very detailed and informative videos on AI including the Senate hearing from last July (not a legal case). Besides the legal issues, AI art is also very formulaic. -It still creates poor quality 'frankenstein' images, both when you look closely at details and also composition. Resist the temptation to go with fast food - its 'fake' to anyone with human taste.
now midjourney creator admitted to using copyrighted images to train the software, the point of them getting the art is to use to make varations so the artist should be compensated
Great video as always. My take on copyright lawsuits is that the human mind records, borrows component information from, and emulates all visual and audit information we encounter. Similarly, AI records these inputs in its own intelligent way and does exactly the same: uses what it learned to create something unique but inherently inspired by existing works and the universe itself. So for these artists to have a rightful claim, I think they'd have to prove that they've created artwork so unique and otherworldly that it drew on absolutely nothing for inspiration. Otherwise, everything they've ever viewed or heard in their entire lives that their brains remember, is copyright infringement.
Using an artist's name as a prompt for AI art raises a clear ethical issue: consent. It's like copying their style without permission, potentially infringing on their artistic identity and IP. Proving exact copying might be a little tought, but this lawsuit is something different. For the first time, specific artists are directly challenging the practice, potentially forcing a shift in the AI art world, which needs to happen.
The human mind is flawed, we dont remember everything as a computer does. So we come up with our own ideas and fill in the blanks. An "AI" isnt making things up itself, because it is in fact not smart. It is not intelligent. It does what you tell it to do and it takes information and puts it together by pattern recognition. If you take a couple of pieces of music or writing and put them together you dont get something new and original. That you can make ai do art in a perticulat style is kinda telling that it does not do anything itself, it just copies something that is on the internet, and blends it together.
“Is storing the data used to create an image the same as storing the image itself?” Absolutely, positively, 100% yes! That’s exactly what .jpg, .bmp, .tiff and every other image storage file is: data needed to recreate the image. A .jpg file does not “store the image itself”, it stores numbers that can be used to recreate the image. And .svg stoes formulas used to recreate an image. So the answer to that question is objectively “YES”. You’d have to phrase the question differently to add nuance to it - but as currently phrased, any “opinion” that it’s “not the same” is just plain wrong.
But that's not what this video said it is storing and that is not what the lawsuit alleged it was storing 🙏 instead, it is alleged to be storing how to reverse engineer images using the diffusion method, which is VERY different to storing the actual image data itself. What it is alleged that they do, is they take a training image, and then add noise to it backwards, as-per the diffusion method. The AI then memorizes the process it used to go backwards, so that in theory it could recreate that image again if it wanted to, using the diffusion method. That is similar to an artist learning to draw Mickey Mouse & memorizing the shapes that they used and the strokes that they used, to draw him. That way, should they ever want to draw Mickey Mouse again, they could. So actually storing the image data, versus storing/memorizing the data on how to recreate an image using the diffusion method, are two very different things 🙏
@@WholesaleTed Without watching the video again to reconfirm what I heard, I’ll just use what you said in your reply. You said “Storing/memorizing the data on how to recreate the image using the diffusion method” - but if you just drop the “using the diffusion method”, you are left with a statement that also describes how SVG files store an image. They don’t store data about individual pixels, they store formulas that when executed, result in data that can recreate the original image. So if they simplify the question that much - I think they’ll lose. They need to be able to prove that it is much more like what you suggested - “teaching a new artist how to draw” than simply saying “it doesn’t store the image directly” because many image file formats can state that they don’t “store the image directly” yet it’s well known that they are intended to recreate the original image faithfully. I didn’t read the 90-some pages you did, my comments are only based on what I think I heard you say in the video. Also - I am not very artistic at all so I very much hope that the lawsuit is dismissed since I am entirely reliant on Dall-E 3 and MidJourney for the images I need for my website and product designs.
If I was judging this lawsuit I would probably require the artists to file on a case-by-case basis to determine if individual images meet the requirement. Then if there are enough of them a judge could submit a cease and desist order to stop the AI company from continuing.
clearly you are not one of the people that have been robbed... not everything in the world must be free. I hope you get to experience this soon, see how it is to be robbed...
The biggest part of the AI vs art is who gets the money. If we buy the app and make the art through it, artist lose. If the art community wasnt so corrupt that you could sell a ducktape banana for more worth than the banana and ducktape. If the artist could co comparable art theyd be ok. If they invested more time to their craft instead of looking for a payout theyd be ok.
@@saulgoodman2018 it's the opportunities they lose. Why pay an artist to create a logo for your company when AI can do it? It's the entire ai fight... Sad part is that AI is so dumb its results aren't close to what they want.
I know that most people here are going to feel bad and side with the artists and I can understand that. It's certainly a grey area but I'm not sure how much of an argument is really being made here. The New York Times is trying a similar lawsuit against Microsoft and frankly the rationale is also pretty weak. The images that they are considering to be "deep fakes" are clearly just similar images whereby anyone easily figure out what the real image actually was using third party resources or possibly even without them. A deep fake for copyright purposes has to be almost identical to the point where for commercial purposes no one could really tell the difference not that people might use them for similar purposes. You have to prove that people would actually confuse the two in the same commercial application. Ultimately it's up to a jury but this is kinda like the Ed Sheeran song trial whereby someone is arguing that someone has infringed on something because it's too similar. The problem is that something being similar is not copyright infringement, it has to be similar enough where there's almost no commercial difference. In the case of the world of digital imagery there is so much stuff already out there that's human created with a huge level of similarity anyways that the commercial argument is not really that strong to begin with. In other words, the actually commercial implications are relevant here. Think about it like this. If someone creates a logo for a food product that's so similar to the Pepsi logo that people think Pepsi is now selling that food product. That's a huge issue and easily shows you what the legal standard is. Now imagine a digital artist creates an image and AI creates a similar image. While average people may not be able to tell at first glance what is created by human or by AI, it's not really the same thing is it? Because unless they are identical there really isn't the same commercial application unless you can prove that people would confuse the image the AI created with the image the digital image create by the artist and make their purchasing decision based on that thereby harming the artist. That's super hard to prove in this situation. Also in the first situation, you wouldn't sue the company that made the logo, you would use the company that's using it commercially. In this situation does it really make sense to sue an AI tool company because something similar to what you have created got made. I reality these people only really have a case against companies that are using images similar to theirs because at least there they can show some economic harm. Again I'm not really sure how easy that is going to be to even prove in court. I also very much doubt that the highest courts in this country are going to think that data on how to create an image constitutes copyright infringement. Lets remember that the Supreme Court recently sided with Google (only the two most conservative justices disagreed) after they stole critical code from Oracle. I find it very unlikely to think that these AI tool are going to be treated any differently.
I think the artist should make similar art to Midjourney art now and see if it files a lawsuit against them. What i saw was similar but not the same so I'm siding with the AI companies. I think these artist should be using these services instead of suing them.
If the purpose of the artist is to correct these AI image generators against ethical practices, then I support the artist. But if the artist wants these AI generators shut down, the all I can say it "nobody can stop technological progress."
Speaking as an artist, yes I just want the ethical practices corrected and for us to be compensated from all these images that have come off the back of our skills and work that took us many years and most of our lives to master. I don't really have a problem with sites like Adobe who are compensating us for the use of our images (which has already happened to me). Just make it fair to us.
Given that AI generated images are not eligible for copyright protection, any person is free to make direct copies of a popular image and sell them without repercussions and there is nothing the "original creator" can do about it. There is no financial incentive to use AI to generate anything. Any business which permits employees to use AI has managers who should be fired for incompetence and sued for gross negligence and dereliction of fiduciary duties.
The comments here are really balanced here and thoughtful. Probably the best I've seen on any channel on this topic. I get the appeal of hyping the headlines of "THIS" AI news could change everything but every lawsuit against AI keeps losing for a reason. An image can be copyrighted. A style can not. If style could copyrighted, all the videos on how to make cookies just like this famous bakery or how to get the guitar sound of Jimi Hendrix would be shut down. Even the judge said the idea of all AI being theft because it trained on publicly available images is grasping at straws. If someone has actually stolen something, that's theft. But the idea of "could produce" an image is not the same as "producing an image." Where's the website selling "almost versions" of famous artists for cheap? Who is saying don't buy this genuine artist when you can get Stable Diffusion for less? I don't know a single individual making AI art who doesn't love art and wish other artists the best. I've had the time of my life learning more and beyond just prompts but about aspect ratio and types of lighting and different colors and contrasts. I could care less if I can sell it. Again, if there's a specific violation and someone has stolen an image and posted it as their own, they should point it out and if it's an exact copy, that's theft and it will be taken down. "Sorta kinda" looks like it? No. That's not theft. AI image creation is already apart of every major platform from Google to Adobe to Microsoft to Amazon for various purposes. There's going to be more AI art and it will evolve just like everything else. There were artists who lost their jobs when Adobe Photoshop came out. More lost jobs when Wacom tabets came out. Canva probably put a lot of graphic designers out of business. But Adobe also helped bring forth all kinds of new artists and create new jobs. I wish everyone could do things exactly as they want to but we're all in the same boat and trying to create beautiful things with the skills and tools that fit us. Having your art trashed in every era is a rite of passage. There is always an old guard with an Us Vs. Them letting in one or two new people as spectacles. There's always a friendly air of condescension and pity for those new wayward artists who just don't know any better. Getting hoodwinked by that new AI fad! 1962: Did you hear Andy Warhol is actually painting over pictures and calling it art? We "experts" know the "real" art is (insert favorite here). If AI art seems to be an oxymoron to you, you join a storied group of those who feared what's next. Every new sea change in tech has people panicking. It's normal. Keep in mind a lot of the jobs artists have today were made possible because of tablets and easier web interfaces. In the beginning of all tech, licensing gets worked out. That's what happened with music when sampling came out. That's what happened with music when DJ's played festivals and people complained that all the DJ had to do was push a button. Their playlists got licensed. But obviously, it's so much more than pushing a button. That's why there are music festivals everywhere. There will always be cheap clients. And there will always be new tech that chips away at someone's specialty. Go visit some pro AI art channels and you'll see people who are excited to create. This is their first step into the art world. It's important to discern between people with bad intentions and good ones. Ahh.. but we're still in the "AI Art isn't real art era" aren't we? Can you imagine going back in time to 1962 saying Andy Warhol's Shot Sage Blue Marilyn is going to be worth $195 million? This is what all art is up against. Pick an era. Someone is saying "but this new art is sacrilege! It's not even art!" No one ever sees the irony of them saying it. Warhol got sued for "stealing" a photo and painting over it. He settled out of court. Would any major museum reject his art today? In the early 1800's, If you wanted a portrait you went to an artist who would paint one. Then the camera came out. Lots of artists trashed photographers. Then it became an art form. Then film came out. Some dismissed it as a novelty. Then it became an art form. Then digital video came out and the filmmakers said only my 70mm print will do. Some said no one who uses digital video is a "real" auteur. Then it became the standard. Then RU-vid came out and everyone was making videos and literally creating their own channel. Like this one. So here are all these people using formerly "fake" tech for their own benefit while being the arbiters of what is real and who is a fraud. Go look up how many people are using AI art. 15 million users at one of them. Somewhere in that group of people are future art forms. And at some point in the future, they'll be doing the same thing you are. No matter how superior you may feel and no matter how right you may think you are, never trash someone trying to make art. If you don't want the art you make trashed, show it with your example. It's ok to be scared and yes - stop anyone trying to take from you. But when they're "all" trying to take from you, none of it is "real" art and you somehow think you can see into the hearts of 15 million people, I would rethink my approach. If you make art there will always be someone who loves what you do and there will always be challenges to make money with it. Waiting for AI users to get tired and mocking them doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Thanks for listening. I wish everyone here success however they define it. A video worth watching for you: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X9RYuvPCQUA.html
I didn't include a link to Titan in the description. It also isn't really available publicly, you need access to Amazon's AWS platform, which usually, you'd only bother getting if you were a business that needed their other services.
@@WholesaleTed oh OK. I thought in your video it said you were going to link to somebody else’s video on the topic. I don’t mind setting up Amazon web services if the pricing is cheaper than Dall-E. I have done it many times. I did a Google search and the pricing is not very clear.
I'm with midjourney on this one for sure. It's another artist tool. It's the users/sellers who need to be careful of copywrite laws. With this newest digital explosion, I think more information needs to be available on image copywrite laws, imop. I can take any art history book from my university years and "re-paint" nearly any image in there... do I? No, because it's illegal. I think if people are using ANY form of artist tools, it's on them to be responsible for their own resulting products. I'm trying to stay objective here and not rant, but seriously there are literally hundreds of ways to copy other images, midjourney, photoshop, Dalle etc should be celebrated for their ingenuity, not vilified. I think it all comes down to the fear... is a "machine" better than a human?❤
How is it illegal to copy old artworks that are in the public domain? That makes no sense. Artists are legally allowed to use other artists work as influence in their own art -- that is in fact almost the entirety of what "art" is. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
@RavenMobile then you have an interesting way of looking at it. What I mean is if I copy a Van Goh and sell it as an original, that's illegal, clearly. That's what this lawsuit is about! These artists are saying their work is being illegally copied by AI. Does that make more sense?
@@dblack4346 Counterfeiting and referencing public domain artworks / images are two different things. Copying a famous classic painting in public domain pretending its made by the original artist = Illegal. Copying a famous classic painting in public domain but mentioning that you made it yourself = legal.
❤G'day ! Someone , I know may be emigrating to New Zealand . Apparently , folks hoping to settle there need a Sponsor . ❤😊 I am just putting away some shopping. It may take, most of the day ! ❤
The fault lies with someone using a tool to produce an infringing image and then selling it. This ridiculous argument that non-artists shouldn't be allowed to easily create visual products because the robot perceived historical data is really greedy. Generally speaking, I don't think anyone wants to "copy a specific artist," and that part of the argument is incredibly disingenuous. In fact, the program would be just as good if it only used photos, but then it wouldn't be able to generate images with brush strokes. Never at any point was there any effort to actually "copy an artist" except by specific fraudsters who are condemned by basically everyone. The reaction from the art community is actually "fear" and "greed", nothing more.
"Generally speaking, I don't think anyone wants to "copy a specific artist," " - they do though. All those Greg R prompts. If the technology had just filtered living artists and people out, none of this would have happened. And yes, my artwork is in LAION5B. I am not a 'big selling artist' but they copied my stuff, my unsold work...so others could profit off of it. That's what's galling. If they'd asked or said 'if we have access to your images you get a lifetime access to AI' I would have possibly said yes, as I also use AI. But I never use living artist prompts, and avoid the presets that do.
Humans have been using other artists work as “inspiration” since the dawn of humanity. That’s all AI is doing now, the difference is just that AI is allowing anyone unscrupulous people included to create without the years of practice that used to be required. Since humans overreact/over compensate first always here we are with an almost endless series of lawsuits trying to hold back a tool, because some feel threatened by that tool
Artificial intelligence, like most artists, learns from examples of the work of other people, the previous generation. Even those who filed this complaint. 😂😂😂
I think they took SD and overtrained specific pictures, then prompted it and voila...they have an overtrained baked in image. its a fake, and not a fake picture as in copywrite, but a fake problem. I hope they are found tampering and sued for libel or something. This needs to be put to bed.
@@jesss9747 Basically you can take an image and train the AI on that picture over and over until its basically burned into the lora model. But this is even more slimy than that given its actually an image to image and not something randomly created.
In a sense, everything is in image data, not an actual image. Open jpg in notepad, and there's only data. Why does it make a difference if it's a jpg compression or some ai algorithm when an artists image was used? It's just a different way to store an image
When the lawsuits finally come to a conclusion most of the Artists on that name list will either starve to death or declare bankruptcy, most of these investor backed Ai companies come with some heavy caliber lawyers and before they invest $billions, most of them have asked on the white paper "what about copyright issues?" they have already have a solution. If anyone have ever asked a Billionaire for investment they would know its not easy for them to fork over that money.
It is interesting because a lot of the big companies AI art generators didn't get included in this lawsuit. Midjourney is tiny compared to OpenAI & DALL-E yet they are being sued, not them. So you take OpenAI & their DALL-E AI Art generator. Despite being now the most popular AI art generator in the world (I think - I'd have to double check!) it's not included in the lawsuit, and so any results from this, wouldn't affect them.
I think it's a lie to say AI can't reference it sources. It's what computers are best at, memory. It's a scam, as AI should be able to, or be required by law to reference it's sources.
An image has to be *very close* to a particular original image created by the original artist in order to be considered a copyright violation. It can't just convincingly reproduce their style, or the general composition, colors and subject of an image. I mean, if you create enough examples and cherrypick your images to get the ones most like the artist's original image, perhaps eventually you'll get something close enough to be considered a fake that violates copyright. But that strikes me as cheating. How many images would you have to have Midjourney or Stable Diffusion create in order to get something that close, since each image is basically a random creation? If you have to get the AI image generator to produce 100,000 or a million images to get one close enough, I think you can say those are just generated by chance, and don't actually violate copyright. If you only have to have it produce 100 or 1,000 images to get there, then perhaps you have a case? I'm a hobbyist illustrator, and have sold some work and done commissions, but I've never had the business acumen or dedication to make a living at it. I understand artists feeling uncertain about the future, and feeling that their livelihoods may be threatened by new technology, but I think their lawsuits suggest that they really don't understand how the technology works, and they're just kind of acting like reactionary Luddites. They should stop with all these ignorant lawsuits and learn to use the new tools in order to improve their workflows, or maybe help some of these tech companies develop the tools and understand the market of artists and creators who will be using them.
I think that any identifiable content should be excluded from AI "library" and any generation that includes naming the artist, denied. There should still be enough imagery for generation purposes that can be found online and in public domain. You may no longer be able to generate images using prompts like "copy style" , but I do find that part sketchy anyway.
> *There should still be enough imagery for generation purposes that can be found online and in public domain.* Setting the bar at the work having to be PD... wouldn't that exclude people volunteering their works explicitly, or implicitly through the use of creative commons licenses that'd allow for training?
Midjourney. You are the coolest, smartest, funniest, and cutest content producer in this space. my exclamation point key and the whole numbers row on my keyboard doesn't work, but the warranty replacement is on the way.
That's like getting sued by someone just cause you copied their art style and only because they found out your brain stored the information.... preposterous
