/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6384243
The AI prompter, but you'll never draw the same image anyway.

>>6384256
that's true, AI can't draw sovl

>>6384243
Nobody, AI is public domain

>>6384243
Everyone owns the image

Read
https://stability.ai/stablediffusion-terms-of-service

Note, that while users have forfeited copyright (and any/all intellectual property right claims) on these images, they are still public domain and can be used by anyone for any purpose, including by the user. Feel free to use images from DreamStudio Beta and the Stable Diffusion beta Discord service for anything, including commercial purposes.

>>6384301
That's only if you use their service, if you generate the image locally the most likely scenario is that you own the copyright, but it hasn't been tried in court afaik

>>6384243

anything that is generated by AI automatically falls under CC0, Creative Commons.

"no copyright reserved"

Well it should... I'm sure people who uses AI disagree.

But when it comes to a famous artist style, a living artist or have anyone living that hold any right to said artist works.

I don't know. Maybe they can sue the person if they want.

But if the artist is famous enough and have a big enough fanbase. They'll do the attacking/shaming/cancelling on behalf of the artist whether he likes it or not.

Don't use AI to copy a specific style.

Try to be creative and create your OWN style of work with the help of AI. You want to be an artist? That's what artist do.

If I have the ability to copy any style I wouldn't be satisfied with that. I want my own work in my own style. I want people to see my work and say "hey, thats (myname) work."

Copy because you're inspired, copy because you want to practice but don't copy because you want to be a clone of said artist.

Your end goal should not be that.

Copyrighting styles is retarded because you'd run out of viable styles to work with within a generation.
> who owns the image in question? The AI prompter, because he generated it first, or you, because you drew the image?
You.
Quit shitting up the board.

Ban AI threads.

>>6384384
>Copyrighting styles is retarded because you'd run out of viable styles to work with within a generation.
Spoken like a true artlet. Every artist has their own style. There are practically infinite types of different styles.
>> who owns the image in question? The AI prompter, because he generated it first, or you, because you drew the image?
>You.
In that case, styles should be copyrighted and any works made with AI should belong to the artist who made it.

>>6384243
Communism is the future.

>>6384725
>Communism is the future.
Define communism. Communism as Marx defined it implied collective worker ownership.
Really, who owns what this thing produces? Seems we're beyond capitalism/communism, some hyper-consumerist age where public/private interests join to surpass the beauty of subjective human experience and creativity, to churn out consumer products at maximum speed, maximum growth, and maximum scale.

>>6384722
>Spoken like a true artlet. Every artist has their own style. There are practically infinite types of different styles.
Yeah but in US you need to prove that your style is different, specifically to a jury that is untrained in the subject. Good luck with that when the other side is backed by Disney's 5-billion legal department. It'd take approximately 10 years for Disney to own every art style and ban making art for everyone else if styles were copyrightable.

>>6384808
>Yeah but in US you need to prove that your style is different, specifically to a jury that is untrained in the subject.
Why is this suddenly not something that AI can do? In fact, AI could do this infinitely better than anyone else can.
>Good luck with that when the other side is backed by Disney's 5-billion legal department
We can just make an artstyle's copyright only apply to individuals instead of corporations.
>It'd take approximately 10 years for Disney to own every art style and ban making art for everyone else if styles were copyrightable.
Lmao this catastrophism is the kind of FUD that I'd expect from AIfags. This shit would never happen, realistically, and would largely benefit individual artists far, far, far more than it would benefit Disney.

>>6384827
>Why is this suddenly not something that AI can do? In fact, AI could do this infinitely better than anyone else can.
Because lawyers own the planet, and they want to keep the jury system, because it allows them to manipulate gullible normies and get any result they want.
>We can just make an artstyle's copyright only apply to individuals instead of corporations.
We could do about a billion things, but the value of any proposition is going to be only weighed on the basis of "Does this make me (rich person/corporation) a lot of money." We could fix world hunger if we wanted to. Assuming we'll ever do it is utopian thinking.
>Lmao this catastrophism is the kind of FUD that I'd expect from AIfags. This shit would never happen, realistically, and would largely benefit individual artists far, far, far more than it would benefit Disney.
I'm not a prooompter, but I've had experience in the music sphere and the lawsuits there. This is quite literally already happening, only it matters for artists if they become successful and suddenly big publishers are suing them for their music being "too similar" to something old and winning. So it already is happening, even though style is not even copyrightable yet.

>>6384722
You cant copyright a style it is not measurable
Just as you cannot copyright a cooking style
You can however copyright a recipe
What is a recipe for an artist?

Training AI on someone's art style seems more like identity theft than copyright infringement tbf.

>>6384889
>You cant copyright a style it is not measurable
If that were true, AI art wouldn't be able to replicate styles.
>>6384917
This.

>>6384917
And counterfeiting.

>>6384243
This is skirting the real issue. You already can't include people's artworks in your training data without their permission, but the companies are shitskins and don't give a shit about the law. You cannot fight them with the law since they evidently have no respect for it, unless you also have the power of a megacorp lawyer army on your side to rain shit upon them when you need to.

>>6384243
>copy someones style
what a hack, be original
>robot copies someones style
HELPPPP THIS IS LITERALLY ILLEGAL NOOOOO MODS HELP MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>6385144
One takes hard work and is earned, the other requires you to type into a box.

>>6385149
so if it's really easy for me to copy someone elses drawing and takes like 5 seconds then it should be illegal? Is that really the point you want to make?

Basically "ITS NOT FAIR REEEEE"

>>6385156
>so if it's really easy for me to copy someone elses drawing and takes like 5 seconds then it should be illegal? Is that really the point you want to make?
You would never be able to, because you're a promptlet. You're a stain. A subhuman that would happily plug his own brain into the dopamine machine to spend an eternity drooling in a pod. So subservient to the machine that you've rejected your humanity in order to become cattle.
It's not about fairness. It's about trying to save humanity.
You, evidently, are a lost cause.

>>6385165
and with the most surface level attempt at a conversation that doesnt revolve around how he feels....anon completely crumbles and folds.

>>6385168
He wrote, with tears in his eyes

>>6385173
u mad bro xd

>>6384243
>copyrighting styles
That's not the issue, and it never has been. The issue is that your work has been stolen, fed into an AI meatgrinder, and the resulting soup used to make new images. It's the same issue you run into when someone photobashes or traces your artwork- your own property is being used directly to make the resulting product. It's one thing to be a hack or a copycat- despite being rightly looked down upon, that isn't illegal (and shouldn't be). It's entirely another thing to take someone's actual work and use it directly.
>inb4 some techbro pajeet fa/g/got says "but da ay eye is learning like an AKSHOOAL HYUMAN BEAN DOES, it's not copying!!!!"
It isn't. It's a machine learning algorithm, that is taking what it's trained on and transforming it in a purely mathematical way. It's not magic, it's not a genie, it's not sentient or able to "think" in any way. If it were, it would be a general intelligence, and would necessitate the discussion of far more dire issues.

The thing is that the Stable Diffusion AI may be a lot more derivative than one might think at first glance. The more limited the data it has to pull from- such as from a single artist, or a niche style that doesn't easily match up with real life photographic data like ye olde master realism does- the more you can see the "seams" and instances of almost blatant copy-pasting where it lacks material to work with. See this comparison of a SamDoesArts piece with something generated by a SamDoesArts SD model, which I found within about five minutes of searching- it straight up looks like a shitty photobash and paintover.
So no, this isn't about "muh style". This thing is straight up stealing your shit and photobashing with it.

>>6384243
Even without this copyright exercise, as it stands currently, you literally cannot claim ownership of AI made images in most countries in the world, because you didn't make it. AIjeets will fight tooth and nail to change this, lets hope it stays that way.

>>6384725
>Communism is the future.
if by communism you mean the very rich and powerful stealing from the common working man then yeah i guess it is

>>6384312
It has, and failed.
You can't copyright anything that an AI generated, at least not in the US.
Tbh, it's a decent compromise: artists are being used as studying material without compensation, therefore anything that is generated can't be owned either.
But we all know companies will make boatloads of money with the tech and there's nothing we can do to stop them.

>>6385141
>You already can't include people's artworks in your training data without their permission
Says who? The vast majority of AIs are trained in all sorts of data that the AI handlers never owned.
The few that don't are shit at everything and mostly only exist as a proof-of-concept for "hey, look, I can do it without being evil, it sucks but it works".

>>6385141
>You already can't include people's artworks in your training data without their permission.
AI Dev's not training on work without permission is a courtesy and not legally enforceable.
The act (based on use) itself of training may be challenged in court, but it would a hard case because training doesn't disseminate copyrightable information.
The other case may be if you asked the AI to theoretically give me a 1:1 copy of a say a movie/animation if technically possible but that would also imply some type of derivative work.

>>6385571
>Says who?
International copyright law. U.S may have fair use doctrine, but international copyright law doesn't, and the models scrape artists from the whole world.
>The vast majority of AIs are trained in all sorts of data that the AI handlers never owned.
See:
>>6385141
>the companies are shitskins and don't give a shit about the law. You cannot fight them with the law since they evidently have no respect for it,

>>6385579
>AI Dev's not training on work without permission is a courtesy and not legally enforceable.
It is legally enforceable, provided you have the funds to take it into the courts, endure the 50-year legal battle costing billions against Google, and not accidentally fall yourself off the balcony 28 times in the interim.

>>6385630
>It is legally enforceable,
No its not. You cannot, copyright or patent, styles, ideas or methods.
This has been like this for over 200 years.

>>6385689
You don't need to. If the AI causes any financial harm to anyone (by removing jobs, for instance), they cannot have an exemption from international copyright law, and as such their use of the images of the rights holder is de facto unlawful. You can't use anything that person A has created in order to compromise their legitimate interests or conflict with their exploitation of the work.

>>6385566
As far as I know under the current law in the US the presumptions is that the person generating the image hold the copyright. But I don't think it's ever been tried in court.

>>6385689
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss_Enters..,_L.P._v._Penguin_Books_USA,_Inc.

>>6384243

Good question >>89896957

>>6385946

hmm, guess you can't to link to posts in different boards

>>6385689
And you cannot steal any of my data to profit from it without my consent you nigger, and that includes my original artwork.

>>6385946
>>6385948
>AI trannies are such immense newfag tourists they don't even know how to crosslink between boards
Whoa thunk it.

>>6385736
AI niggers do not own their own copyrights (at least in the US) because copyright involves things made by people.
>“The US Copyright Office has already refused to grant a copyright registration for AI-generated art because the current copyright law requires human authorship for copyright protection. That means that, under the current rules, AI-generated art has no owner.”
IF anyone owned the art it would be the maker of the AI itself.

>>6386086
>b-but it was made by me, I inputted the prompt

>>6385282
I'd like to see the excuses they come up with for this one.

>>6386096
>it learns just like you
>theres no difference between a human brain and a computer
>you steal art yourself all the time to learn
>it doesn't actually save the pictures
Usual AIgger lies

>>6386086
It is made by people using the AI, that's the presumption under the current law.

>>6386110
It isn't. They literally do not own it.

>>6386112
They own it just as much as anyone owns any intellectual property, in other words if you infringe on their copyright they could sue you and potentially win and have you pay them for damages. But ofcourse it's not worth doing most of the time.

>>6386054
Well I have so I can lol
>n word
I dunno what you're worried about, everyone knows chuds can't into art

>>6386155
you have to go back
ywnbaw

>>6385512
Communism is when capitalism