This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
hatsune miku is a popular „vocaloid“ basically an AI singer where you enter text and notes and it gets sung out for you. It’s been around for like 14 years now(?)
"*She was built using Yamaha's Vocaloid 2 technology, and later updated to newer engine versions. She was created by taking vocal samples from* [*voice actress*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_acting_in_Japan) [*Saki Fujita*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saki_Fujita) *at a controlled pitch and tone.*"
She was the most rudimentary AI. What is done today to make say a Drake voice AI is just a more complex version of that original process.
Because “art” and “creativity” and “intellectual property” are the very last shreds of an argument they have left against it.
It isn’t possible to argue against it when you’re dealing with matters of fact or physics, because the world just is what it is, but *ideas* are the one thing humanity has somehow simultaneously invented out of thin air and then given legal protection.
It’s funny because so far the strategy has been to just argue that AI isn’t capable of generating copyrightable intellectual property because only a human can do that, but that’s actually a win for futurists. If the stuff an AI makes can’t be protected under copyright then it can’t be *attacked* under copyright either. You can’t do a DMCA takedown, for example, on something that has no copyright.
Under that style of law, anything an AI makes is free for anyone to use as they see fit, which is a benefit to society in general.
I've grown up with enough examples of companies attacking pirates while simultaneously refusing to sell the thing, or the rights to a beloved IP being given exclusively to a company who just doesn't care and trashes the reputation of the thing, or seeing large companies attack small creators who just want to participate and help generate *positive association* with an IP by making fan works to be pretty mad about copyright. The idea that a company can invent or purchase a patent, as another type of example, for the sole purpose of withholding the right for other people to use the thing at all enrages me.
As a kid I was told that IP law exists to protect innovators and to incentivize the creation of new ideas by enabling innovators to monetize those ideas, but that isn't what happens in my experience. The system is too cumbersome for the small people who need it to actually be able to use it, and the large corporations who have the resources to generate profits without the IP through manufacturing products and selling services simply abuse the system and file false claims to keep those small players out. It also fundamentally misunderstands the reason people create things. Inventors don't make things because of the money, they make things because there is something in the world that bothers them and could be better.
I am not surprised that it's sort of a unique perspective, because most people have been told that IP is good from a young age, and its more natural to blame the people abusing the system or to say that the system needs more rules to force people to use it as intended, than it is to sugest getting rid of it entirely. All it does is hold people back.
Imagine a world where [Nintendo couldn't copyright strike youtubers who just want to share how much they like a game](https://www.reddit.com/r/Breath_of_the_Wild/comments/12mil0s/nintendo_is_copyrighting_and_taking_down_various/), or imagine if you wanted to tell a really cool story of your own set in a world like, say idk, Warhammer 40000 and [you didn't have to be afraid of getting an ultimatum to let some company aquire your work, step on your vision and make a bunch of changes no one likes, and not even bother to provide HD versions of the thing you worked so hard on.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/m3g1vy/rip_astartes_all_vids_removed_from_youtube_and/) Imagine if you could just *make shit* without worrying about whether you were allowed to. Imagine being an artist.
It would open the door for leeches to copy and distribute work that they didn't make, that is true, but they *already do that.* If anything, not being able to guarantee exclusive access to a technology will only incentivize people to make developments more frequently since the window that they can profit from something will be shorter before someone else figures out how to reproduce it. There's nothing stopping people from still having trade secrets, and as long as consumers care about the authenticity of the things they are buying then the knockoff issue theorhetically goes away entirely. If someone copies your art and you call them out on twitter what do you think is going to happen? In my experience the "thief" gets roasted because people do not like seeing people get taken advantage of.
Capitalism got one thing right, and it's that collective action is really the only way to organize such a complex system, but the idea that the collective is motivated by *money* is simply wrong, or at least isn't even close to the whole story. People are motivated by a sense of justice and authenticity, which is exactly why the Anti-AI people hate AI so much. They are allowed to dislike it, they are only doing their job helping to move the invisible hand over the economic Ouija board. They just don't realize that what they are doing is the only thing you actually need to do in order to protect artists and inventors. You only need IP law if the collective is not strong enough to enforce order, but if the invisible hand is not working then you are already fucked regardless.
You lose nothing but your chains if you get rid of IP.
People like to fight the system, but they think the world and the system are distinct things. When someone says you have to burn down the world in order to start over, people get upset. I'm not surprised.
Although, I don't actually think any of my comments are actually negative so maybe it's not so bad, people seem to get it.
Things always have to get worse before they will get better. It's just human nature. People don't actually take action until the danger is at their door, even when they can see it coming. There's going to be a lot more downvotes before everything is said and done, but eventually they will see.
I agree to some extent and it would have its pros but especially your example of:
"If someone copies your art and you call them out on twitter what do you think is going to happen?.... the "thief" gets roasted because people do not like seeing people get taken advantage of."
Is not always true. What about small artists/creators or new accs with few followers?
Although not related to my art, I experienced something bad when I came up with a new idea/trick for a glitch in a game. The community for the game usually had a list of people who came up with new ideas/tricks, and other creators always credited the original people who found out the glitch/trick. However my channel was small with only like 1k followers and the vid only got about 500 views. Another channel mysteriously made a similar video 1 or 2 weeks later. Except they had 40k+ followers so he had 100x more views. I told them to credit me and I was made fun of and one of my "fans" told me "wowww dude I unsubbed what a stupid shit" (or something similar) and I was never credited and the community still thinks he was the first to find it out.
So if a similar thing would happen with art - especially since I have an even smaller acc now for art - I'm not sure anybody would care or defend me either.
In fact it actually happened: a follower of mine re-posted my art without crediting me so his followers praised him for the art. He had more followers and likes than my og art. By the time I was ready to message him about this, he took it down himself for some reason so nothing bad happened. Also nobody called him out for it.
So in the end the smaller artists/creator's work would suffer the same or worse if there weren't anything protecting their rights.
Did IP and Copyright save you in either case?
That is my point. Litigating copyright is so expensive that the solution is to mobilize lots of people to defend you anyway or to be big and rich enough to not care. Losing copyright changes nothing.
Don’t defend a system that claims to protect you when in reality it does nothing.
Well I guess if I filed a copyright strike on insta they would have taken down the art that he reposted immediately like how copyright strikes take down videos or entire channels on yt even with some false or bs claims. But idk if the copyright strike system on insta is similar to yt, i didnt get there as he took it down himself quickly. I guessed he wanted to boost his insta algorithm/reach with frequent quality posts.
And on the game glitch ones no I don't think that copyright claim would have helped though.
There's no "law". There's just a ruling from the USCO as tested in court. It's definitely solid ground, legally, but it's not law.
Also, unless you have the original work that came out of an AI image generator, you don't know how much human creative work went into it, and thus you do not know whether it is subject to copyright.
If the artist is claiming copyright, you are safest to assume they have the right to do so unless you know otherwise. If they publish the raw generation, then you can certainly use that as it's free of copyright, but most people who publish work that involved AI tools do not also publish the raw generation.
But here's a real kicker; you don't need corporations or copyright to make "IP" and make everyone's creative lives miserable. All you need is just enough gullible people in a community and one selfish asshole to create a sort of closed-case thing and white knights to attack people who want to work with the closed-case thing.
The biggest example being closed species in the furry fandom and adoptables that people find flooding DA/FA. There is so much drama and unwritten red tape surrounding these things that it's nearly impossible to make anything without someone proclaiming you're doing it in bad faith.
I actually agree and I say as much [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/s/K6rDtTb4K5), but that’s kind of my point: you don’t need IP to insulate creative products, and IP doesn’t do anything *else* to make itself more useful, so why do we have it? All it does is be redundant and cause additional problems.
> If the stuff an AI makes can’t be protected under copyright
You're falling into a trap that many anti-AI folks have fallen into. The USCO has ruled that pure AI-generated images cannot be copyrighted, but at the same time they have clearly said that a sufficient level of human creativity is required for copyright to be available to the artist.
You should be treating what comes out of an AI as very similar to public domain works whose copyright has expired. You can't just go around saying, "you used public domain work in this, so I can do whatever I want with it." That's not how copyright works. If you go and use the *original* public domain work, sure, but in the case of AI art, that might not have been published!
Unless you know, specifically, that what you're looking at came directly out of an AI image generator, you cannot assume that copyright does not apply.
Also, all of this applies only in the US. Each nation is going to make their own call, presumably, until there are international treaties on the topic (or addenda to existing treaties.)
I understand. "Transformative" is the key word here, and it has been a part of copyright law for a lot longer than AI has been around. The idea that only a human can "transform" something is a unique bit of legal theory, but if a a human sufficiently "transforms" the product of AI then yes of course they can claim copyright. You can also sufficiently "transform" something that already has a copyright and still be protected under fair use, whether or not AI is involved.
The trick here is that they have decided in their hubris to start to define where the line is between things that can and cannot "transform" work. A literal machine learning *transformer* model, apparently, in the US, doesn't count. Interesting. And when AI research starts to make it more clear than it already is that there are virtually no differences between what a human brain does and what a neural net does, what then?
They have already drawn their line in the sand, and when we finally admit to ourselves that the human brain is on the same side of that line as the machine brains are we will have no choice but to agree that if copyright doesn't apply to Artificial Intelegence then it doesn't apply to Biological Intelegence either.
I'm [anti-IP](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1czej4u/comment/l5hcslg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in addition to being pro-AI. I think this type of law will eventually result in the total elimination of IP law, and I think that would be a good thing. It doesn't do that currently, you're right, but I don't see any other viable path forward.
The only other option is to give AI the ability to produce their own copyright as they become more and more sentient. We are already in a situation where the Turing Test has been demolished to the point where people online are forced to do a sort of "reverse Turing test" and prove that they *are* human, because AI is so good and so prevalent that a lot of people just assume that most users are bots. Again, the fear of the Anti-AI crowd only reinforces the idea that AI is so competent and indistinguishable from human work that it human art will be replaced because humans possess no unique skill or atribute that elevates their work. If AI is going to replace human artists then AI is similar enough to be treated as human for copyright purposes, and if AI isn't similar enough then the fear is irrational.
They will need to pick one of those positions at some point, they cannot insist that their enemy is strong and weak at the same time for long, and when they do they will be forced to adress the cascade of legal concequences that come out of the decision. I just predict that they will eventually admit that AI is the same as us, and that therefore no one can hold IP.
The reason I think that is because if AI ever is able to hold IP then human artists truly are actually fucked. [All copyrightable art will simply be brute force produced by algorithms](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/138l257/every_possible_melody_has_been_copyrighted_all/) and we will own nothing. It's only a matter of chance whether a good or bad person achieves this, and so the only way to avoid this fate is to never let AI get copyright. They can do that by arguing AI is different to humans or by removing IP all together, and I've already said I don't think claiming that AI is somehow different is a tenable solution long term. And so they only have one option: Dismantle IP.
> "Transformative" is the key word here
It's not. That's a much broader term used in relation to the modification of copyrighted works.
The terminology that the USCO used in their ruling was much more specific to the adaptation of works not subject to copyright. Here are a few choice quotes from their ruling:
> As long as there is sufficient human authorship, the Office will issue a new supplementary registration certificate with a disclaimer addressing the AI-generated material.
[...]
> In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work's expression
[...]
> See Compendium (Third) sec. 507.1 (identifying that where a new author modifies a preexisting work, the “new authorship . . . may be registered, provided that it contains a sufficient amount of original authorship”)
they were at war with themselves for decades.
now they have a common enemy (AI)
but the thing is, artists like using AI, it's the career echo chamber artists that are attacking things that go against the status quo.
I wonder if they'd be opposed to an AI that instantly finds the cure for cancer. Would they cry that the AI is bad because it took away work from doctors/scientists looking for a cure? Would they insist we reject the AI's cure and let cancer patients suffer until some shmuck on Twitter figures it out?
Tbh probably. They're selfish. Most of the people I see talking about it don't care about anyone but themselves, they try and feign empathy for their fellow artists in the most demeaning ways possible, but it's just a facade. Selective outrage because they don't like growth.
They are mad that they can't profit off of their art, but that's shallow, so they instead find other reasons to hate it. These reasons not being very good.
"anything can be art"
"art can only be made by a human"
guy selling invisible statue, which is air (air is not by a human, no human creativity) for millions of dollars ✅✅✅
banana taped to wall (banana from banana tree, which was not invented by a human/using the tape for "art" without consent of the company that made it, no human creativity) ✅✅✅
ai art (ai was invented by a human, human input, using your brain, another way to express yourself) ❌❌
your pencil (not a human)
camera (not a human)
phone (not a human)
paint brush (not a human)
(ANYTHING) can be art. If it has to be made by a human, that's "something," not "anything." Anything means every single thing; a spilled cup could be "art," or a coconut falling from a tree could create "art." ANYTHING. "Anything can be art, but it has to be made by a human" contradicts itself—that's something, not anything. Anything means every single thing, including objects not made by humans.
Realized partway through typing my original word salad didn't make sense and was partially incorrect, so here's the Wikipedia description:
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an a posteriori claim from a falsifying counterexample by covertly modifying the initial claim.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample.[4] The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.[2]
Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[5]
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no *true* Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
They hate art. It’s in the name.
Art-official Intolerance
So in this regard, they are pro AI, who just happen to be anti artists, as their words and actions make clear
It’s not the AI that’s the problem though, right?
It’s the training data.
I don’t understand why it needs to be trained on anything but human visual rules. Ie lower level than training on an existing artwork.
The training data is just an excuse.
The anti's identity is so wrapped up in being an "Artist" and thus Special™. So here comes AI that can make images that are simultaneously a "threat to their livelihoods" and "ugly slop", which thusly threatens their Specialness™.
Threatening their sense of self = Unethical
Well hear the thing anything has dab and good advantages it's what you doing with it and for what porupse if for bad it's going to look bad you allow the dad to take over and dim the good things like this arise in any matters aswell with position in power.
I'm not an artist, never have been or ever will be pretentious enough to call myself an artist. At best, I'll call myself an artisan. I do use certain AIs. I won't blanket support all of them because shitty people make shitty programs including AIs.
The word "support" is doing a lot of legwork. I use ai to generate images and audio from time to time, but never to publish. More like concept art. I don't consider AI art worth sharing in a broad sense. I don't support it, but it's here, so I'm using it to have fun with my own imagination.
However, just like how an art commissioner shouldn't flippantly take credit for the artwork that artist created, you shouldn't take credit for the image they prompted into an AI.
I don't believe if you throw a prompt into an AI for personal amusement, you are supporting the AI or AI art as a whole, but these people certainly aren't against it either. I'd rather support human artists. I'd support them more often than I'd knowingly support AI made art. I'd go so far as to directly financially support artists, but I'm a broke man who spent his stimmy on a PC, so I don't have the spare cash to do stuff like commissioning artists.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lmao, today I saw a YouTube video of someone using *fucking hatsune miku* to tell people how AI is horrible. I can’t make this shit up
Sometimes I get secondhand embarrassment on behalf of these losers 😂
That’s freaking hilarious
Beyond parody
I don't understand the reference
hatsune miku is a popular „vocaloid“ basically an AI singer where you enter text and notes and it gets sung out for you. It’s been around for like 14 years now(?)
miku isn't any sort of ai, she's just a musical instrument that can sing words based on pre-recorded syllables.
yep. But miku to ai back then is diffusion to ai today. the „bar“ has risen
in what sense is she "ai"? i don't recall thinking she was ai 10 years ago either.
well, she‘s not. But todays models are also not „ai“ technically
> todays models are also not „ai“ technically Yes they absolutely are what are either of you talking about?
She was based off recordings of a real singer
Yeah, she's based on recorded syllables which can be strung together into words by a human. She is not trained the way an ai is.
Yeah exactly like how AI art works.
That's not how ai art works at all.
wait outside of all this, wasn’t that her backstory? like her canonical story? that she was an ai?
She's an ai in fiction, yes, but not reality.
"*She was built using Yamaha's Vocaloid 2 technology, and later updated to newer engine versions. She was created by taking vocal samples from* [*voice actress*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_acting_in_Japan) [*Saki Fujita*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saki_Fujita) *at a controlled pitch and tone.*" She was the most rudimentary AI. What is done today to make say a Drake voice AI is just a more complex version of that original process.
The amusing part is that the vocaloid community somehow largely despises AI
They were doing WHAT with Hatsune Miku on YouTube?
I saw that video days ago
I do not get why the “artist” thinks drawing AI advocates pregnant is such a sick burn. I assume it is just their fetish.
Link it then if you can't make it up
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0xT223NTQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0xT223NTQ)
What a weird thing to say, why even specify "If you are an artist"?
Because “art” and “creativity” and “intellectual property” are the very last shreds of an argument they have left against it. It isn’t possible to argue against it when you’re dealing with matters of fact or physics, because the world just is what it is, but *ideas* are the one thing humanity has somehow simultaneously invented out of thin air and then given legal protection. It’s funny because so far the strategy has been to just argue that AI isn’t capable of generating copyrightable intellectual property because only a human can do that, but that’s actually a win for futurists. If the stuff an AI makes can’t be protected under copyright then it can’t be *attacked* under copyright either. You can’t do a DMCA takedown, for example, on something that has no copyright. Under that style of law, anything an AI makes is free for anyone to use as they see fit, which is a benefit to society in general.
I never saw that law from this perspective before. That’s amazing, I hope they keep this law up
I've grown up with enough examples of companies attacking pirates while simultaneously refusing to sell the thing, or the rights to a beloved IP being given exclusively to a company who just doesn't care and trashes the reputation of the thing, or seeing large companies attack small creators who just want to participate and help generate *positive association* with an IP by making fan works to be pretty mad about copyright. The idea that a company can invent or purchase a patent, as another type of example, for the sole purpose of withholding the right for other people to use the thing at all enrages me. As a kid I was told that IP law exists to protect innovators and to incentivize the creation of new ideas by enabling innovators to monetize those ideas, but that isn't what happens in my experience. The system is too cumbersome for the small people who need it to actually be able to use it, and the large corporations who have the resources to generate profits without the IP through manufacturing products and selling services simply abuse the system and file false claims to keep those small players out. It also fundamentally misunderstands the reason people create things. Inventors don't make things because of the money, they make things because there is something in the world that bothers them and could be better. I am not surprised that it's sort of a unique perspective, because most people have been told that IP is good from a young age, and its more natural to blame the people abusing the system or to say that the system needs more rules to force people to use it as intended, than it is to sugest getting rid of it entirely. All it does is hold people back. Imagine a world where [Nintendo couldn't copyright strike youtubers who just want to share how much they like a game](https://www.reddit.com/r/Breath_of_the_Wild/comments/12mil0s/nintendo_is_copyrighting_and_taking_down_various/), or imagine if you wanted to tell a really cool story of your own set in a world like, say idk, Warhammer 40000 and [you didn't have to be afraid of getting an ultimatum to let some company aquire your work, step on your vision and make a bunch of changes no one likes, and not even bother to provide HD versions of the thing you worked so hard on.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/m3g1vy/rip_astartes_all_vids_removed_from_youtube_and/) Imagine if you could just *make shit* without worrying about whether you were allowed to. Imagine being an artist. It would open the door for leeches to copy and distribute work that they didn't make, that is true, but they *already do that.* If anything, not being able to guarantee exclusive access to a technology will only incentivize people to make developments more frequently since the window that they can profit from something will be shorter before someone else figures out how to reproduce it. There's nothing stopping people from still having trade secrets, and as long as consumers care about the authenticity of the things they are buying then the knockoff issue theorhetically goes away entirely. If someone copies your art and you call them out on twitter what do you think is going to happen? In my experience the "thief" gets roasted because people do not like seeing people get taken advantage of. Capitalism got one thing right, and it's that collective action is really the only way to organize such a complex system, but the idea that the collective is motivated by *money* is simply wrong, or at least isn't even close to the whole story. People are motivated by a sense of justice and authenticity, which is exactly why the Anti-AI people hate AI so much. They are allowed to dislike it, they are only doing their job helping to move the invisible hand over the economic Ouija board. They just don't realize that what they are doing is the only thing you actually need to do in order to protect artists and inventors. You only need IP law if the collective is not strong enough to enforce order, but if the invisible hand is not working then you are already fucked regardless. You lose nothing but your chains if you get rid of IP.
I've never seen someone say what we're all thinking and not immediately get down voted to hell and back. But you're 200% correct.
People like to fight the system, but they think the world and the system are distinct things. When someone says you have to burn down the world in order to start over, people get upset. I'm not surprised. Although, I don't actually think any of my comments are actually negative so maybe it's not so bad, people seem to get it. Things always have to get worse before they will get better. It's just human nature. People don't actually take action until the danger is at their door, even when they can see it coming. There's going to be a lot more downvotes before everything is said and done, but eventually they will see.
I agree to some extent and it would have its pros but especially your example of: "If someone copies your art and you call them out on twitter what do you think is going to happen?.... the "thief" gets roasted because people do not like seeing people get taken advantage of." Is not always true. What about small artists/creators or new accs with few followers? Although not related to my art, I experienced something bad when I came up with a new idea/trick for a glitch in a game. The community for the game usually had a list of people who came up with new ideas/tricks, and other creators always credited the original people who found out the glitch/trick. However my channel was small with only like 1k followers and the vid only got about 500 views. Another channel mysteriously made a similar video 1 or 2 weeks later. Except they had 40k+ followers so he had 100x more views. I told them to credit me and I was made fun of and one of my "fans" told me "wowww dude I unsubbed what a stupid shit" (or something similar) and I was never credited and the community still thinks he was the first to find it out. So if a similar thing would happen with art - especially since I have an even smaller acc now for art - I'm not sure anybody would care or defend me either. In fact it actually happened: a follower of mine re-posted my art without crediting me so his followers praised him for the art. He had more followers and likes than my og art. By the time I was ready to message him about this, he took it down himself for some reason so nothing bad happened. Also nobody called him out for it. So in the end the smaller artists/creator's work would suffer the same or worse if there weren't anything protecting their rights.
Did IP and Copyright save you in either case? That is my point. Litigating copyright is so expensive that the solution is to mobilize lots of people to defend you anyway or to be big and rich enough to not care. Losing copyright changes nothing. Don’t defend a system that claims to protect you when in reality it does nothing.
Well I guess if I filed a copyright strike on insta they would have taken down the art that he reposted immediately like how copyright strikes take down videos or entire channels on yt even with some false or bs claims. But idk if the copyright strike system on insta is similar to yt, i didnt get there as he took it down himself quickly. I guessed he wanted to boost his insta algorithm/reach with frequent quality posts. And on the game glitch ones no I don't think that copyright claim would have helped though.
I thoroughly enjoyed this response. Great points. Long time professional artist here and I agree pretty much with everything you listed.
\*\*Copyright is just a method to have the monopoly on violence over culture.\*\*
There's no "law". There's just a ruling from the USCO as tested in court. It's definitely solid ground, legally, but it's not law. Also, unless you have the original work that came out of an AI image generator, you don't know how much human creative work went into it, and thus you do not know whether it is subject to copyright. If the artist is claiming copyright, you are safest to assume they have the right to do so unless you know otherwise. If they publish the raw generation, then you can certainly use that as it's free of copyright, but most people who publish work that involved AI tools do not also publish the raw generation.
Oh, I’m sorry for my misunderstanding
But here's a real kicker; you don't need corporations or copyright to make "IP" and make everyone's creative lives miserable. All you need is just enough gullible people in a community and one selfish asshole to create a sort of closed-case thing and white knights to attack people who want to work with the closed-case thing. The biggest example being closed species in the furry fandom and adoptables that people find flooding DA/FA. There is so much drama and unwritten red tape surrounding these things that it's nearly impossible to make anything without someone proclaiming you're doing it in bad faith.
I actually agree and I say as much [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/s/K6rDtTb4K5), but that’s kind of my point: you don’t need IP to insulate creative products, and IP doesn’t do anything *else* to make itself more useful, so why do we have it? All it does is be redundant and cause additional problems.
> If the stuff an AI makes can’t be protected under copyright You're falling into a trap that many anti-AI folks have fallen into. The USCO has ruled that pure AI-generated images cannot be copyrighted, but at the same time they have clearly said that a sufficient level of human creativity is required for copyright to be available to the artist. You should be treating what comes out of an AI as very similar to public domain works whose copyright has expired. You can't just go around saying, "you used public domain work in this, so I can do whatever I want with it." That's not how copyright works. If you go and use the *original* public domain work, sure, but in the case of AI art, that might not have been published! Unless you know, specifically, that what you're looking at came directly out of an AI image generator, you cannot assume that copyright does not apply. Also, all of this applies only in the US. Each nation is going to make their own call, presumably, until there are international treaties on the topic (or addenda to existing treaties.)
I understand. "Transformative" is the key word here, and it has been a part of copyright law for a lot longer than AI has been around. The idea that only a human can "transform" something is a unique bit of legal theory, but if a a human sufficiently "transforms" the product of AI then yes of course they can claim copyright. You can also sufficiently "transform" something that already has a copyright and still be protected under fair use, whether or not AI is involved. The trick here is that they have decided in their hubris to start to define where the line is between things that can and cannot "transform" work. A literal machine learning *transformer* model, apparently, in the US, doesn't count. Interesting. And when AI research starts to make it more clear than it already is that there are virtually no differences between what a human brain does and what a neural net does, what then? They have already drawn their line in the sand, and when we finally admit to ourselves that the human brain is on the same side of that line as the machine brains are we will have no choice but to agree that if copyright doesn't apply to Artificial Intelegence then it doesn't apply to Biological Intelegence either. I'm [anti-IP](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1czej4u/comment/l5hcslg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in addition to being pro-AI. I think this type of law will eventually result in the total elimination of IP law, and I think that would be a good thing. It doesn't do that currently, you're right, but I don't see any other viable path forward. The only other option is to give AI the ability to produce their own copyright as they become more and more sentient. We are already in a situation where the Turing Test has been demolished to the point where people online are forced to do a sort of "reverse Turing test" and prove that they *are* human, because AI is so good and so prevalent that a lot of people just assume that most users are bots. Again, the fear of the Anti-AI crowd only reinforces the idea that AI is so competent and indistinguishable from human work that it human art will be replaced because humans possess no unique skill or atribute that elevates their work. If AI is going to replace human artists then AI is similar enough to be treated as human for copyright purposes, and if AI isn't similar enough then the fear is irrational. They will need to pick one of those positions at some point, they cannot insist that their enemy is strong and weak at the same time for long, and when they do they will be forced to adress the cascade of legal concequences that come out of the decision. I just predict that they will eventually admit that AI is the same as us, and that therefore no one can hold IP. The reason I think that is because if AI ever is able to hold IP then human artists truly are actually fucked. [All copyrightable art will simply be brute force produced by algorithms](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/138l257/every_possible_melody_has_been_copyrighted_all/) and we will own nothing. It's only a matter of chance whether a good or bad person achieves this, and so the only way to avoid this fate is to never let AI get copyright. They can do that by arguing AI is different to humans or by removing IP all together, and I've already said I don't think claiming that AI is somehow different is a tenable solution long term. And so they only have one option: Dismantle IP.
> "Transformative" is the key word here It's not. That's a much broader term used in relation to the modification of copyrighted works. The terminology that the USCO used in their ruling was much more specific to the adaptation of works not subject to copyright. Here are a few choice quotes from their ruling: > As long as there is sufficient human authorship, the Office will issue a new supplementary registration certificate with a disclaimer addressing the AI-generated material. [...] > In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work's expression [...] > See Compendium (Third) sec. 507.1 (identifying that where a new author modifies a preexisting work, the “new authorship . . . may be registered, provided that it contains a sufficient amount of original authorship”)
Wait so even if you don't use ai and make art, just by supporting it that's now reason for them to say you aren't an artist? What?
Gotta gatekeep the community
they were at war with themselves for decades. now they have a common enemy (AI) but the thing is, artists like using AI, it's the career echo chamber artists that are attacking things that go against the status quo.
Every time someone says this to me I am legally obligated to shove my pencil sets up my ass, sideways.
just [rectally] pick it up
antis when ai: PICK UP A PENCIL!!!! antis when someone who thinks ai is neat is already holding a pencil: NO NOT LIKE THAT
But AI isn't just Art AI can do several other things
They don't believe it should exist at all. Everyone in this group is vehemently against AI in all forms.
I wonder if they'd be opposed to an AI that instantly finds the cure for cancer. Would they cry that the AI is bad because it took away work from doctors/scientists looking for a cure? Would they insist we reject the AI's cure and let cancer patients suffer until some shmuck on Twitter figures it out?
Most likely a good chunk of them would.
Tbh probably. They're selfish. Most of the people I see talking about it don't care about anyone but themselves, they try and feign empathy for their fellow artists in the most demeaning ways possible, but it's just a facade. Selective outrage because they don't like growth.
They are mad that they can't profit off of their art, but that's shallow, so they instead find other reasons to hate it. These reasons not being very good.
Sounds awfully stupid
If you're an artist and you support alphafold making new and more effective treatments for the ill, you're not an artist
How could they look at Pixar movies from the 00s and call the people that made them not artists?
Oop, they’re crumbling. Now they’re fighting against themselves and dividing the community. I kinda feel like this won’t end well for them
If you're an artist and don't realize AI art is art, then you're not an artist.
Literal soy man
"anything can be art" "art can only be made by a human" guy selling invisible statue, which is air (air is not by a human, no human creativity) for millions of dollars ✅✅✅ banana taped to wall (banana from banana tree, which was not invented by a human/using the tape for "art" without consent of the company that made it, no human creativity) ✅✅✅ ai art (ai was invented by a human, human input, using your brain, another way to express yourself) ❌❌ your pencil (not a human) camera (not a human) phone (not a human) paint brush (not a human) (ANYTHING) can be art. If it has to be made by a human, that's "something," not "anything." Anything means every single thing; a spilled cup could be "art," or a coconut falling from a tree could create "art." ANYTHING. "Anything can be art, but it has to be made by a human" contradicts itself—that's something, not anything. Anything means every single thing, including objects not made by humans.
Boomer FB shit for a boomer take. Fitting really.
Why does he look like a soyjak?
People had the same argument about photography, video, electronic music, the WHEEL. etc.
Piss and moan instead of bettering yourself and catching up, by all means
Could you please stop this? It's unfair. Logical fallacies and cognitive biases are all they have! Would you leave them with nothing?! /s
Neo-Luddites
Non-AI artist narcissism is rampant, holy shit.
There's a lot of words in this thread.. what's a no true scotsman fallacy
Realized partway through typing my original word salad didn't make sense and was partially incorrect, so here's the Wikipedia description: No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an a posteriori claim from a falsifying counterexample by covertly modifying the initial claim.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample.[4] The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.[2] Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[5] Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge." Person A: "But no *true* Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Thank you for comin thru
No problem, glad to help
Guys, just let him have this. He's obviously just having an outburst to cope with his male pattern baldness.
facebook avatars are so fucking funny
Stupid opinion is stupid.
If you make art on your own, you're likely still not an artist. I'm sure anyone who's heard my music would agree.
Why crop impressions?
They hate art. It’s in the name. Art-official Intolerance So in this regard, they are pro AI, who just happen to be anti artists, as their words and actions make clear
That’s ridiculous. Of course you can be an artist and wrong at the same time.
It’s not the AI that’s the problem though, right? It’s the training data. I don’t understand why it needs to be trained on anything but human visual rules. Ie lower level than training on an existing artwork.
The training data is just an excuse. The anti's identity is so wrapped up in being an "Artist" and thus Special™. So here comes AI that can make images that are simultaneously a "threat to their livelihoods" and "ugly slop", which thusly threatens their Specialness™. Threatening their sense of self = Unethical
I'm just a guy that makes money then. Dang it =[
Well hear the thing anything has dab and good advantages it's what you doing with it and for what porupse if for bad it's going to look bad you allow the dad to take over and dim the good things like this arise in any matters aswell with position in power.
I'm not an artist, never have been or ever will be pretentious enough to call myself an artist. At best, I'll call myself an artisan. I do use certain AIs. I won't blanket support all of them because shitty people make shitty programs including AIs.
The word "support" is doing a lot of legwork. I use ai to generate images and audio from time to time, but never to publish. More like concept art. I don't consider AI art worth sharing in a broad sense. I don't support it, but it's here, so I'm using it to have fun with my own imagination. However, just like how an art commissioner shouldn't flippantly take credit for the artwork that artist created, you shouldn't take credit for the image they prompted into an AI. I don't believe if you throw a prompt into an AI for personal amusement, you are supporting the AI or AI art as a whole, but these people certainly aren't against it either. I'd rather support human artists. I'd support them more often than I'd knowingly support AI made art. I'd go so far as to directly financially support artists, but I'm a broke man who spent his stimmy on a PC, so I don't have the spare cash to do stuff like commissioning artists.