• Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Artists don’t deserve to profit off their own work” is stupid as shit. Complain about copyright abuse and lobbying a la Disney and I’ll be right there with you, but people shouldn’t have the right to take your work and profit off it without either your consent or paying you for it.

    Artists and other creatives who actually do work to create art (not shitting out text into an image generator) should take every priority over AI “creators.”

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Equating training AI to not being able to profit is stupid as shit and the same bullshit argument big companies use to say “we lost a bazillion dollars to people pursuing out software” someone training their AI on an art work (that is probably under a creative commons licence anyway) does suck money out of an artists pocket they would have otherwise made.

      Artists and other creatives who actually do work to create art (not shitting out text into an image generator) should take every priority over AI “creators.”

      Why are you the one that gets to decide what is “work” to create art? Should digital artists not count because they are computer assisted, don’t require as much skill and technique as “traditional” artists and use tools that are based on the work of others like, say, brush makers?

      And the language you use shows that you’re vindictive and angry.

      • Funkwonker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Should digital artists not count because they are computer assisted, don’t require as much skill and technique as “traditional” artists and use tools that are based on the work of others like, say, brush makers?

        My brother in Christ, they didn’t even allude to this, this is an entirely new thought.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah no shit sherlok. I’m applying their flawed logic to other situations, where the conclusion is even more dumb so he can see that the logic doesn’t work.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Commissions, patronage, subscriptions, everything else rando digital artists do when any idiot can post a JPG everywhere and DMCA takedowns accomplish roughly dick.

              Meanwhile - you wanna talk about people who’ve been fucked over by corporations that decide their original artwork is too close to something a dead guy made?

              Or look into whether professional artists were having a good time, before all this? Intellectual property laws have funded and then effectively destroyed countless years of effort by artists who aren’t even allowed to talk about it due to NDAs. CGI firms keep losing everything and going under while the movies they worked on make billions. The status quo is not all sunshine and rainbows. Pretending the choice is money versus nothing is deeply dishonest.

              • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                “Just internet beg” oh okay. Shows exactly how much you value the people making the art you want to feed into the instant gratification machine.

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  ‘How money?’ Existing lucrative business ventures by quite a lot of artists. ‘So beg!’ Yeah you got me, how intellectually sincere, gold sticker, you can leave.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        They said IP, IP protects artists from having their work stolen. The fact AI guzzlers are big mad that IP might apply to them too is irrelevant.

        Digital artists do exactly as much work as traditional artists, comparing it to AI “art” from an AI “artist” is asinine. Do you actually think digital artists just type shit in and a 3D model appears or something?

        And yeah I’m angry when my friends and family who make their living as actual artists, digital and traditional, have their work stolen or used without their permission. They aren’t fucking corporations making up numbers about lost sales, they’re spending weeks trying to get straight up stolen art mass printed on tshirts and mugs removed from online sale. They’re going outside and seeing their art on shit they’ve never sold. Almost none of them own a home or even make enough to not have a regular job, it’s literally taking money out of their pockets to steal their work. This is the shit you’re endorsing by shitting on the idea of IP.

        • AEsheron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          Do you actually think artists using AI tools just type shit into the input and output decent art? It’s still just a new, stronger digital tool. Many previous tools have been demonized, claiming they trivialize the work and people who used them were called hacks and lazy. Over time they get normalized.

          And as far as training data being considered stealing IP, I don’t buy it. I don’t think anyone who’s actually looked into what the training process is and understands it properly would either. For IP concerns, the output should be the only meaningful measure. It’s just as shitty to copy art manually as it is to copy it with AI. Just because an AI used an art piece in training doesn’t mean it infringed until someone tries to use it to copy it. Which, agreed, is a super shitty thing to do. But again, it’s a tool, how it’s used is more important than how it’s made.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Lmao, I’ve used AI image generation, you’re not going to be able to convince me any skill was involved in what I made. The fact some people type a lot more and keep throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks doesn’t make it art or anything they’ve done with their own skill. The fact none of them can control what they’re making every time the sauce updates is proof of that.

            If it’s so obviously not IP violating to train with it then I’m sure it’ll be totally fine if they train them without using artists’ work without permission, since it totally wasn’t relying on those IP violating images. Yet for some reason they fight this tooth and nail. 🤔

            • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Except they totally could. But a data source of such size of material where everyone opted in to use for AI explicitly does not exist. The reason they fight it is in part also because training such models isn’t exactly free. The hardware that it’s done on costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and must run for long periods. You would not just do that for the funsies unless you have to. And considering the data by all means seems to be collected in legal ways, they have cause to fight such cases.

              It’s a bit weird to use that as an argument to begin with since a party that knows they are at fault usually settles rather than fight on and incur more costs. It’s almost as if they don’t agree with your assertion that they needed permission, and that those imagines were IP violating 🤔

              • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                "But a data source of such size of material where everyone opted in to use for AI explicitly does not exist. "

                Dang I wonder why 🤔🤔🤔🤔

                • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Because AI wasn’t a big thing before 2020, and no such permission in obtained material has been legally necessary so far (lawsuits are pending of course). If something has no incentive to exist it will not be created. There’s plenty of ethical justifications why no such permission is needed as well.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          “Artists don’t deserve to profit off their own work” is not what anyone said.

          Even if people can just take your shit and profit off it - so can you.

          This is not a complete rebuttal, but if you need the core fallacy spelled out, let’s go slowly.

              • Femsoup [She/Her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                9 months ago

                Isn’t this a completely different conversation than the one we were having and kind of missing the point? Yes, imo you should be allowed to do that. Still, AI Companies are using the labor of millions of artist for free to train their AIs, which are then threatening to eliminate ways of these artist to gather income.

                How is that related in any way to the ways that copyright has been exploited against fanmade art?

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  The conversation began with ‘fuck copyright,’ so no, restraints on new works are at least as relevant as money.

                  Restraints on derivative works seem directly relevant to railing against AI training. I don’t think fanart goes on your side of the table. You’re taking a stand for amateur references to immense professional works. Presumably on the basis that Disney can keep doing its thing no matter how many people draw their own weird Zootopia comics - yeah? I for one would argue the environment someone grew up in is fair game for them to build from, as much for Star Wars as for ancestral fairy tales.

                  The environment of the internet is a pile of everyone’s JPGs. We think nothing of amateur galleries where people mimic popular styles, borrow characters, and draw frankly unreasonable quantities of low-quality pornography. I’m not up-in-arms about AI because it’s more of the same. I barely understand the objection. An entity learned English from library books? Yeah, that’s how everything that can read English learned to read English. You couldn’t understand this sentence without exposure to countless examples of text that were not explicitly provided for your education. So if there’s a pile of linear algebra that can emit drawings, and it was shaped by looking at a ton of drawings that other people posted-- then-- as opposed to what?

                  The economic concerns are simpler: Hollywood is doomed. This is refrigeration, and they sell ice for iceboxes. They imagine it’s going to make ice much easier to sell, since they won’t need people to harvest and import it. In reality their entire business model is fucked, because their customers also won’t need people to harvest and import it.

                  If they don’t need a studio full of artists to make a cartoon movie… neither do you. Neither do all the artists they cast off. We cannot be far from models that tween pretty damn well on their own, and can be guided to tween flawlessly. The near future is not about to have less human art. No more than when Flash obviated colored paint on clear plastic.

                  Whether or not that’s going to make anyone appropriate amounts of money under late capitalism is another question entirely, but it’s not like artists were famously well-off before, and in any case Disney delenda est.

                • Armok: God of Blood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Even if text to image generators are able to improve to be better than human artists, people won’t stop making art just because a computer can do it faster.

                  • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    But they will stop hiring artists, and that’s more to the point of what they were saying. We’re already seeing some jobs being replaced with algorithms (mostly stuff like shitty click bait journalism, but still), and art has long been considered a skill not worth paying for. In centuries past, art used to be something only the rich could afford. Now, people get upset if artists charge $60 for a commission.

                    The algorithms won’t need to produce work better than we can, or even equal. It just needs to make stuff that seems value appropriate. People have already made algorithms to imitate certain popular artists’ styles, and they’ve seen a hit to their income as a result. Why get a commission done from one of them when you can go online and get 50 for free that are kinda close, and then just pick the one you like.

              • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Even if people can just take your shit and profit off it - so can you.

                What entitles someone to take another person’s work and profit off it?

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  No.

                  The subject is intellectual property, in general.

                  Why am I not entitled to share culture?

                  Why am I not entitled to create, if similarity exists?

                  Why does someone get to own an idea, just because they wrote it down first?

                  • Femsoup [She/Her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Is the world’s copyright system flawed? Yes. Should it be completely removed? No, because otherwise a lot of creative branches would be unsustainable. Artists need money, musicians need money etc.

                  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    If you don’t want to defend what you said that’s fine but I’m not going to pretend we were actually talking about something else. 🤷‍♂️ “Share culture” is not when you take someone else’s drawing and dropship hundreds of shittily made tshirts on the Facebook marketplace. That’s what IP protects artists from and fighting stuff like that takes up a stupid amount of time for anyone that isn’t a corporation.

                    If you are creating that’s absolutely fine. But shit you typed into AI isn’t creating anything and literally couldn’t exist without the people that actually create art.