Artists launch copyright lawsuit against AI art generators Stable Diffusion and Midjourney

[Endymio]

Why would they thrive? Their work can be easily copied at basically no cost. You might get a few celebrity artists making money, but most won't be so lucky....why should an artist spend 100s of hours producing something original, when their style can be immediately copied?

You act as if this is something new. Since the beginning of time, one artist can copy another. Since the invention of the photocopier and digital scanning, it can be done not just cheaply, but for free. Why do artists keep producing regardless?

Copyright law prevents an exact duplicate, and it also prevents "near-duplicates": copies changed only in a trivial manner. The court system has literally centuries of experience and past case law in drawing the line between a "near copy" and a "new, original work". AI changes this not at all.

What is not -- and what has never been protected - is an artist's "style". And in fact, if you study art history, the first thing you'll learn is that great artists throughout history have *always* had their style immediately copied by countless others. That fact accounts for the various art movements that have flourished throughout the years. Realism, Impressionism, Dadism, Art Deco -- none of that would have been possible if an artist's style could not be copied.

It'll be all right. The world of art will flourish in the future ... even more so than it has in the past.

 

[Bamda]

AI will be the downfall of civilization

And that's a bad thing?

 

[brucek]

What will happen is most people or companies will choose their favourite style and pay a small fee (or nothing at all) to re-create it with Stable Diffusion.

I'm not convinced that's true, but if it is, that sounds like an advancement for civilization. Any time the economic cost of a good or service can be materially reduced, prosperity as a whole increases, even if there is an uncomfortable transition period for those whose livelihoods or careers need to pivot around the new capabilities.

But let's get back to compensating artists. If Stable Diffusion was trained on millions of past works, what do you propose the cut per past work would be? How long does each past work get to continue taxing all succeeding generations? Do new works continue to get the same cut even as the effective learning from each new work approaches zero?

And to even that out, what do you propose that each human artist pay for each prior image they've seen in their lifetime prior to their latest work? How are we going to track and manage payments for all that? Or if we keep it at the current $0.00 -- why should the human vs. the AI pay differently?

 

[wizardB]

If this works we should sue street light companies for taking away the jobs of gas lamp lighters.

 

[DonquixoteIII]

One thing I have observed over the years is that 'the law' does not do what you think it does. This case will be interesting. I will watch.

 

[poltevo]

I'm not convinced that's true, but if it is, that sounds like an advancement for civilization. Any time the economic cost of a good or service can be materially reduced, prosperity as a whole increases, even if there is an uncomfortable transition period for those whose livelihoods or careers need to pivot around the new capabilities.

But let's get back to compensating artists. If Stable Diffusion was trained on millions of past works, what do you propose the cut per past work would be? How long does each past work get to continue taxing all succeeding generations? Do new works continue to get the same cut even as the effective learning from each new work approaches zero?

And to even that out, what do you propose that each human artist pay for each prior image they've seen in their lifetime prior to their latest work? How are we going to track and manage payments for all that? Or if we keep it at the current $0.00 -- why should the human vs. the AI pay differently?

That sounds alot like technical determinism. Technology should be shaped by culture and society, not forced on us by a few technologists, who then claim "well the cats out of the bag now!" If the price of "progress" is destroying peoples jobs by ignoring their hard work then thats not progress. Every technology needs to be judged on it own merits, by the criteria of how it benefits society as a whole. That why sweeping statements about civilisational advances, or comparisions to street light companies or cars vs horses, etc... are not helpful. They all assume that efficiency is the only criteria.

How to compensating artists is a complex question, but the answer is not 0. Just because something is complex, doesn't mean it can't be done (although you can guarantee Stable Diffusion/Midjourney etc.. will argue its impossible!) It could be we need neural networks to make these kind of judgements, and I expect it to be very messy. If we take it seriously however, then companies will develop the tools to make it happen and societies will develop the culture/laws.

If 0 seems like an attractive answer, then apply the same logic to any human activity. If 0 now then also 0 for any other algorithm, text, video or work done by a human. All but the most bespoke activity will be replicated cheaply by neural networks. But as I said, every technology needs to be judged on it own merits rather then by the whims of a few technologists.

This law case is about shaping how this technology is used. This is the messy part, but its completely necessary for finding the right balance in this important question.

 

[Endymio]

That sounds alot like technical determinism. Technology should be shaped by culture and society, not forced on us by a few technologists.

So you believe you're in danger of having Stable Diffusion show up at your door with armed henchmen, and forcibly demand that you view their images?

If you wish to keep supporting artists, no one will stop you. BTW, exactly how many original pieces of art *have* you purchased in the past year?

If the price of "progress" is destroying peoples jobs by ignoring their hard work then thats not progress... That why sweeping statements about civilisational advances, or comparisions to street light companies or cars vs horses, etc... are not helpful. They all assume that efficiency is the only criteria.

There's an island off the coast of India, inhabited by a tribe of people called the Sinhalese. They believe as you do, that we should eschew technological advances that destroy a hard-working person's livelihood. If you explain how you identify with their beliefs, they might allow you to join ... especially if you bring your own hand-made stone tools with you, so you need not borrow theirs.

 

[alexnode]

Insert your job description here (x)
OOPS Machine learning was just trained using your data to do this (x) job.
Please pay $60 or $600 per month to Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple and Google. Thank you very much.

- But I am a programmer, I made this thing.
- Sorry you are too expensive, with $60 a month I get unlimited programming.
- By the way with $30 per month you get also unlimited art ... directly from midjourney.
- Bargain, you guys are winners but ... where is everybody ?

 

[brucek]

@poltevo - You still didn't answer the part about how much you are willing to pay to the author/estate of every past image you have ever seen in your life, or how that would be possible, or how far back you are willing to go.

If you do not feel human artists can and should have to do this, I do not understand why AI should either.

Ultimately all new works in all fields are influenced by / built on the shoulders of what came before them. This prior art has never been chargeable before. It shouldn't be now.

If this plays out like many similar past evolving technologies have, some artists will expand their role to include directing AIs to take advantage of their capabilities. It may also be that many more people will be able to afford having more art that they enjoy in their home or other places. And yes, there may ultimately be fewer professional artists if there is less need for their services - but those talents will ultimately be re-deployed somehow creating perhaps yet unknown opportunities and new types of goods or services.

 

[brucek]

where is everybody ?

My hope would be at the beach. But past human history shows that often instead of using technology and other advancements to give ourselves a break, instead we just expand the nature of the expected bundle of goods & services the typical individual or home is expected to consume. I am confident that future society will come up with lots of new goods & services they simply can't live without that aren't doable by AI (or robots, or plastic, or factories, or whatever the new X is.)