Should Style Be copyrighted?

[Anonymous No.6442745]

As of now and since the beginning of IP laws style cannot be copyrighted. I personally think this needs to change and distinct styles need the same copy protection as any other media particularly with AI now here. The excuse that you were emulating or referencing a particular work doesn't fly anymore and neither does fair use.

Take for example SamDoesArt style which AIfags have trained a model directly on his work. Yes the model doesn't have any copyrighted image data on it, yes styles currently cannot be copyrighted. But they basically just copied the artist himself almost like they reversed engineered dare I say it "sovl". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Viy3Cu3DLk&t=625s (the video and artist in question)
This is similar to the reason the AIjeets will not train on copyrighted music because the royalties are more complex. For example we all know there is copyright on the actual "sound/music" lets just say for simplicity sake the raw .wav. However you have royalties on the likeness of the artist or brand of that particular label. Not exactly the same as style but AI can push that line with music.

tl;dr Style needs to be copyrighted

[Anonymous No.6442748]

Looks like AI

[Anonymous No.6442752]

>>6442748
Forgot to add the image (also this one) in question is AI, and not by Sam Yang the same model fined tuned to SDA's style. I'm not going to link it but its publicly out there.

[Anonymous No.6442754]

Ywnbaa

[Anonymous No.6442756]

>>6442745
>style needs to be copyrighted
No it shouldn't be, because it will devolve into a shit throwing fest (jeets would love that lol) of people accuing everyone of "copying" their own style. It would get the point no one would want to publish their work for fear of stepping over another artists style and art would just become even more soulless.

[Anonymous No.6442757]

>>6442745
Artists get way too hung up on "muh style", it literally doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.6442758]

>>6442745
Something needs to be done. Copyright style may be a step in the wrong direction though. How about modifying fair use laws to include fair training laws?

One issue I find with saying art style is not copyrightable as a blanket "it's ethical to use it", AI could potentially mimic an artist completely, to the point where it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the artists own work. It is not here yet, but may one day soon.
Whereas an artist will always have his own influences in creating a mimic of an artist(provided it isn't a pixel level study/forgery of a particular piece).
AI could feasibly replicate the style and accurately predict exactly how X artist would portray subjects that artist never painted before. Artists who are trying to mimic would not have that ability.

With that in mind, it is more akin to identity theft. Or identity democratization, thanks Emad!

[Anonymous No.6442759]

>>6442752
SDA?

[Anonymous No.6442760]

>>6442745
A style doesn't have enough definable traits to ever have an enforceable copyright. Might be one of the dumbest fucking threads I've seen in a while.

[Anonymous No.6442762]

>>6442758
>AI could potentially mimic an artist completely, to the point where it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the artists own work. It is not here yet, but may one day soon.
Then as long as people aren't using it to copy art At which point it goes under re posting artwork which why does AI even matter in this context?

[Anonymous No.6442771]

>>6442760
>Found the jeet.

Even Oekaki art has a distinct enough style between artists be definable. Its not even just style its basically identity theft as this >>6442758
anon pointed out.

[Anonymous No.6442776]

>>6442745
Define style. Is this limited color palate, is this same face?

If there will be a copyright style, it will end 2d art for small artists. Only big guys with big money will control art industry

[Anonymous No.6442777]

>>6442762
I should have clarified, new artworks, that are mistaken as by the original artist, by even the most dedicated fan.

[Anonymous No.6442778]

>>6442745
Thats a gimmick not a style. Totally different

[Anonymous No.6442779]

>>6442776
>Patterns
>Color palate
>Defined reoccurring features.
>A recognizable "Brand"
There would be more but that's just off the top of my head.

[Anonymous No.6442787]

"I would caution the alarmists to remember that applying some sort of digital rights management mechanism could have a chilling effect on the growth of this new art form, and end up helping the powerful entertainment corporations more than the little guys.
"
--James Gurney

[Anonymous No.6442789]

>>6442771
>my work looks similar because I was inspired by this artist
Case closed, you fucking lost and will now get raped by legal fees.

[Anonymous No.6442793]

>>6442779
Good way to completely kill off art. I'm not convinced this isn't a false flag thread from some dumbfuck pajeet.
How are you going to learn to draw exactly if art "style" is copyrighted? In order to start drawing, you just have to come up with something entirely original and hope no one else has thought of it before?

[Anonymous No.6442794]

>>6442789
>Case closed, you fucking lost and will now get raped by legal fees
Then maybe that person needs to be original and not a tracer fag or /beg/.
>>6442776
>If there will be a copyright style, it will end 2d art for small artists. Only big guys with big money will control art industry
I mean whose the bigger bad guy? Pajeets that want to "democratize" art or higher level artists themselves. Maybe it will be a good thing too since the artworld sorely lacks the "gatekeeping" that pajeets love to proclaim they are breaking.

[Anonymous No.6442801]

>>6442745

Okay, I see a resemblance of color palate in your work with big brand, So you violated some rules? We will give you a perma-ban, sounds good.

Hm, you did a fan art of popular character, well you should get to the prison for your crimes

Why 2d artists are so dumb? do they even see how someone could exploit the system?
I will be the first who patent your style. lol

[Anonymous No.6442803]

>>6442793
>How are you going to learn to draw exactly if art "style" is copyrighted? In order to start drawing, you just have to come up with something entirely original and hope no one else has thought of it before?
It wouldn't cut and dry simple " my work looks similar because I was inspired by x" that would violate this. It would have to be a series of work likely judged by a board for breaching copyright. Also stating explicitly, "My work is done in the style of x". Clearly using ML/AI for this would be an acute breach.

[Anonymous No.6442807]

>>6442745
this post is a false flag to get artists to focus on arguments that don't work

[Anonymous No.6442810]

>>6442801
You already have trademark for colors but it only applies if one entity is using that color/style to sell the same or similar product as the trademark holder.
https://www.businessinsider.com/colors-that-are-trademarked-2012-9?op=1#red-3
I don't see what the fucking issue is? If some chink or pajeet is using the SAME exact pallet, SAME exact patterns, Faces and compositions and comparing it to MY own work how is that remotely fair?
This is not the same as, "well I was inspired by this xyz artist or school."

[Anonymous No.6442815]

>>6442745
So anyone who's not working for some big media conglomorate can only draw academic realism or other historical styles that have fallen into public domain.
Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous No.6442821]

What stage of grief are you faggots now? Bargaining?

[Anonymous No.6442822]

>>6442815
I bags NC Wyeth!

[Anonymous No.6442823]

>>6442745
These retarded artists are going to dig themselves into a hole where it will soon be illegal to make fanart without paying royalties. All because of their frail egos.

[Anonymous No.6442826]

>>6442815
I mean pretty much all art by old the old masters and impressionism would fall into this so its not a like a huge loss.

[Anonymous No.6442833]

>>6442826
Sorry, Benson is mine, Find your own!

[Anonymous No.6442836]

>>6442823
>llegal to make fanart
Good. Make your own IP. Fuckin fan artists making more money than the creators always irked me.

[Anonymous No.6442837]

>>6442823
>it will soon be illegal to make fanart without paying royalties
fan art is already illegal, companies turn a blind eye

[Anonymous No.6442840]

Not even an aijeet but I have zero faith that more copyright stuff will work in artists' favor instead of against them.

[Anonymous No.6442841]

>>6442837
selling it is. sharing it is not, surely.

[Anonymous No.6442843]

>>6442826
But then again nobody's really getting worked up over AI copying some generic "style" like an art movement. This is about copying individual artist styles which is more like impersonating someone's handwriting. Surely even non-artist normies would see why that is ethically suspicious.
Each artist has an individual, unconscious style that influences everything they draw even if they're trying to draw in some different "style" like "anime" or "disney" or "impressionism" or whatever. You can't 100% hide your individual style nor can you 100% replicate someone else's. The publically available AI's can't 100% do it either, but it doesn't take a wizard to see it might realistically happen in near future. Some of the non-public, state of the art models might already be capable of it.

[Anonymous No.6442844]

>>6442840
we don't need more laws, just enforce ones that already exist

[Anonymous No.6442846]

>>6442843
>This is about copying individual artist styles which is more like impersonating someone's handwriting. Surely even non-artist normies would see why that is ethically suspicious.
Wait, what? Why would imitating someone's handwriting be unethical? Are you on drugs? Feel free to copy my handwriting as much as you wish.

[Anonymous No.6442847]

>>6442846
You don't mind me signing some contracts for you?

[Anonymous No.6442850]

>>6442847
Forging a signature and imitating handwriting are not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.6442854]

>>6442787
I like gurney but that interview was definitely from the position of someone with far more job security than 99% of young artists on the internet.

[Anonymous No.6442855]

>>6442850
For the purposes of this discussion it's close enough.
An individual, unconscious style that would be difficult for a human to forge perfectly.

[Anonymous No.6442856]

>>6442745
Of course styles can’t be copyrighted, but it’s also pretty low to straight out copy someone.

Both AI and artists need to mix things up, reference from only one artist isn’t a good practice, you’ll be just “that guy that copy X artist”

[Anonymous No.6442866]

And I could easily think of unethical uses for an AI that can copy handwriting. You could scam boomers who would be more likely to trust a hand-written letter from someone they know than an e-mail.

[Anonymous No.6442870]

>>6442866
That would just be flat out forgery.

[Anonymous No.6442873]

>>6442870
Yes. Why is AI copying an individual artist's style not treated as forgery?

[Anonymous No.6442874]

>>6442873
Forgery implies fraud, misrepresentation, i.e like signatures
I guess you could make the case AI can create work in the style of said artist and misrepresent it as his/her own creation and sell it.

[Anonymous No.6442878]

To add to this:
Being able to perfectly copy someone's style with a machine would allow anyone to fuck up an artist's reputation with ease.
Simply prompt "child porn in SamDoesArt's style", sit back and watch the internet do the rest for you.

[Anonymous No.6442880]

>>6442874
Even if you don't do that yourself, if you publish the work you can't prevent someone else from downloading it and then representing it as the artist's real work. Should you be held responsible for that person's actions? Normally that would not seem fair.
But you did made the conscious decision to create and publish something that is nearly indistinguishable from another person's work, done in a style that is uniquely and distinctly part of that person's identity. It's hard to imagine truly ethical and necessary reasons to do that.
Currently that would not be illegal, but perhaps that's something for the courts and legislators to consider.

[Anonymous No.6442882]

>>6442874
>I guess you could make the case AI can create work in the style of said artist and misrepresent it as his/her own creation and sell it.
Or new situations, like "cloning" an artist using AI and using it to produce work for profit because his style is popular and you don't want to pay if you can get it free.
Its more than style as >>6442758 >>6442843 say. The AI could be that artist for all intents and purposes.

[Anonymous No.6442884]

>>6442880
Arguably, it's tantamount to making a convincing deepfake porn of someone and defending it with the fact that you openly stated it's a deepfake and not real.

[Anonymous No.6442887]

>>6442882
hell you could even make a twitter feed based on their tweeting style if they have enough to go off, call it "notthatartist" as a parody (or are parody accounts still banned? shit! my idea is breaking up)

[Anonymous No.6442889]

>>6442803
>It would have to be a series of work likely judged by a board for breaching copyright.
So as long as there's a panel of judges to remove your right to freedom of expression, it's okay? Kill yourself, Ranjeet. You can't copyright a "style" any more than Paris Hilton can trademark "that's hot".

[Anonymous No.6442893]

>>6442889
>long as there's a panel of judges to remove your right to freedom of expression, it's okay? Kill yourself, Ranjeet. You can't copyright a "style" any more than Paris Hilton can trademark "that's hot".
How else would you do it? Have another AI make the decision lol? Its not even style as many people mentioned its literal identity theft. Almost like that cyberpunk theme of extracting peoples personas into AI.

[Anonymous No.6442898]

>>6442887
It could even react to current trends and make fan art of trending characters before the original artist has time to pick up his pencil.

[Anonymous No.6442903]

>people who spend their whole lives tracing and copying think they are suddenly entitled to their own style
holy kek could you be more of a pretentious douchebag?

[Anonymous No.6442909]

>>6442787
"I don’t feel threatened by AI Art. There's no way it can take away my livelihood because of where I'm positioned."
--James Gurney

[Anonymous No.6442917]

>>6442903
is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

[Anonymous No.6442918]

>>6442909
James Gurney? more like Dinosaur City, by James Gurney, Masterpiece, 4k, HD, volumetric lighting, Unreal Engine 5, Octane Renderer, Trending on Artstation

[Anonymous No.6442923]

>>6442745
No. Absolutely not. Fucking AI shitters don't understand the concept of SOVL.

[Anonymous No.6442925]

>>6442760
I recognize styles and artists in the thumbnails

[Anonymous No.6442928]

>>6442856
AI uses img2img. It references art already made by real artists. AI shitters are art remixers, not real artists.

[Anonymous No.6442929]

>>6442928
I use tools to make art. I am an artist.
One of those tools is AI. I am an AI artist.

Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6442931]

>>6442754
kek

[Anonymous No.6442936]

>>6442758
AI art should be treated as edits. They are image remixers. So treat the AI art the same way a DJ makes a compilation of music tracks.

See pic-related. It's the best analogy to describe the AI shitters

[Anonymous No.6442941]

>>6442929
You are a prompter, not an artist, pajeet. The AI does the all work.

[Anonymous No.6442944]

>>6442936
Some are. Some like OP sam rips are worse and need differernt analogies. I am yet to see a solid refutation of the idea that this level of training on an artists work is akin to Identity theft, and should have laws preventing it.

[Anonymous No.6442948]

>>6442925
that doesn't refute what was said though. Just because you can recognize a piece by an artist's style, that doesn't mean there are definable traits that would hold up to any scrutiny in court.
Full blown art movements with distinct originators like cubism that do have definable traits aren't even copyrightable.

[Anonymous No.6442951]

>>6442893
>its literal identity theft.
you guys just get dumber and dumber

[Anonymous No.6442953]

>>6442944
AI prompters are image remixers. img2img takes art that already exists, then adds a few changes, the same way as edits. The AI does it all the work, not the prompter. The prompters are lazy shitbags who can't draw shit. They are image DJs ie image remixers. They are not creating anything new, & the AI is copying someone else's work. So classifying their trashy arbot work should be treated the same way as edits.

[Anonymous No.6442965]

>>6442948
>distinct originators like cubism that do have definable traits aren't even copyrightable.
Yeah and Picasso the creator of cubism and his estate should've held royalties to that specific style since he did INVENT it. But alas IP laws even back then are not for thee (artists) but for me (corpos).
Also its retarded to think that this would crush artistic freedom if anything it would improve the quality art and regulate the amount of slop same style that continues over saturate the artworld

[Anonymous No.6442969]

>>6442745
>Yes the model doesn't have any copyrighted image data on it
But his images were still used as direct digital inputs in creating the program.

[Anonymous No.6442972]

>>6442969
I'm arguing what they did was worse then just using his material for training. That they basically reversed engineered his work and promote it as his identity in the form of AI slop.

[Anonymous No.6442973]

>>6442969
There's nothing illegal about that.

[Anonymous No.6442979]

>>6442973
Should be. And will be. Once the clean AI image generators are out, law will not look back on the unethical ones with kindness.

[Anonymous No.6442984]

>>6442979
The global balance of superpowers depends entirely on who ends up winning the AI arms race. Lawmakers aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot just because some poor liberal art majors got their feelings hurt.

[Anonymous No.6442995]

>>6442745
This is like asking if we should copyright fanart. Then what is fanart? Aren't you essentially copying someone else's artstyle? The AI is doing the same thing. What these AI pajeet shills don't get is SOVL. There is more to an artstyle than just drawing it. You cannot obtain SOVL if a machine is doing the work.

Oh BTW, (((Disney))) has tried to pull off this shit too, & they have been very good at it. If anyone makes fanart of their characters & they have a business, they will sue those people into oblivion. A daycare center in the 80s was sue by the (((Disney))) company for painting murals of the characters, & that's just one example. Some guy made an adult fancomic using the Disney character then was sued afterwards.

Quite frankly I don't want a NO FANART policy. (((Disney))) corrupted the copyright laws all because they were afraid of Mickey Mouse entering the Public Domain. I don't want that shit to happen to other artists too. If any artist does what (((Disney))) did to their fanart, then it would kill the art industry as we know. Not a fan of the AI trash art, but copyrighting someone's artstyle would kill the art industry. No, just no. Don't do what (((Disney))) did to Mickey.

TL;DR version: No, a person's artstyle should not be copyrighted.

[Anonymous No.6442998]

>>6442995
>Then what is fanart?
A quite blatant copyright violation in most cases.
But it's up to the IP holders to pursue it in court. Some companies let it slide or even encourage it. Some like Disney are more litigious.

[Anonymous No.6443007]

>>6442745

It's not just about style, or needing to copyright style itself. It's about intent and degree of likeness.

It's about using the model to create works that have the same sort of subject matter, composition, skill level, style, message that the artist would have. Basically; if you were to show the work to someone else who didn't know how you made it, would they think it's something made by Sam Does Arts, or would they think it was fan art or something totally new, made by someone/something else? Are you using the model to make something truly original or derivative?

In terms of intent; what is the purpose of generating the images? To have fun, or to masquerade as a popular artist to make money off their brand or undermine them? That's the problem with these models. Anybody can use them for any purpose they desire, either benign or nefarious.

Lastly, even if you take an artist's body of work and train it with dreambooth etc, you're not the one training the AI how to paint that gradient, have that taste for certain shapes etc. It's technically the artist, or their work doing that. You are just the middle man. You should not be automatically entitled to the end product just because you facilitated things, because you're not the one doing the actual training.

Lastly, volumetric drawing/painting has existed since the early Renaissance. You have approx. 600 years worth of public domain art you can feed into these things to 'teach them how to draw/paint well'. You do not need to use living artists to train against, there are many amazing artists that have even just died in the past 100 years you could be using instead. It's an extreme excess to train against current working artists, and to feel entitled to what they're making. And it's just completely unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.6443011]

>>6442995
>the "my fellow artists" concern troll
Proliferation of image shitters is a far greater threat to the value of artists and their reasons for sharing their work, as well as their employability if such a thing matters to them, than is a crackdown on fanart.

[Anonymous No.6443014]

>>6442984
If creators know that their work can be easily stolen and used without their consent or compensation, they may be less motivated to produce new content. This could have a negative impact on the overall quality and diversity of content available to us. We need to prioritize the protection of intellectual property and the rights of creators in the development of AI. Ignoring these ethical concerns could have long-term consequences that we may not be able to predict or reverse

[Anonymous No.6443023]

>>6442965
>its retarded to think that this would crush artistic freedom
so not letting you create in a style someone else has created in before you somehow gives you more freedom?
Again, how the fuck would you even learn to draw in the first place?

[Anonymous No.6443025]

>>6443014
You need to grow up and realize that there are bigger things at stake here than your precious moral code. You're acting like the world revolves around your narrow-minded ideology, but that's just not the case. Get over yourself and realize that there are more important things to worry about than your petty fucking concerns.

[Anonymous No.6443027]

>>6443025
>a program gets released
>people immediately start using it unethically in attempts to fuck over people
>the people who complain about it are the problem
Kill yourself, you mouthbreathing retard.

[Anonymous No.6443030]

>>6442965
>it would improve the quality art and regulate the amount of slop same style that continues over saturate the artworld
do me a favor and, as crabs say, "PYW".
I can say with almost 100% certainty your art looks like someone else who drew before you.

[Anonymous No.6443033]

>>6443023
There's quite a bit of a difference in being inspired by an existing style and making something that is literally indistinguishable from the original artist's individual style.
Human artists were never really good at doing the latter convincingly or consistently, so naturally there was no need for laws to regulate it.

[Anonymous No.6443065]

>>6442745
Web scraping is legal, US appeals court reaffirms

2d Artists already lost the battle XD

https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/

[Anonymous No.6443077]

>>6443065
I scrape webs off my ceilings, suck on that spiderfags.

[Anonymous No.6443079]

>>6443065
In 18 months you are gonna wish artists had won.

[Anonymous No.6443086]

>Should Style Be copyrighted?
No, that's retarded, you'd run out of styles that people could use within less than a year. You don't have the right to be the only person who draws things a certain way, and it's good that you don't. If you think current copyright laws are draconian, imagine if only one single mentally deficient inflation diaper fetishist who puts out a single work per year was allowed to create in the style of whoever is your favorite artist.

[Anonymous No.6443092]

>>6443086
>If you think current copyright laws are draconian, imagine if only one single mentally deficient inflation diaper fetishist who puts out a single work per year was allowed to create in the style of whoever is your favorite artist.
We already have that moron, take all the noise and mountains of shit out there and that's what you are left with.
If I can copyright my style, people cannot replicate it without my consent. You would instantly have less crap being pushed out in the digital art world. It's amazing we haven't copyrighted style in the past but it's bet let to slide.

[Anonymous No.6443095]

>>6442745
Naw.
If you start copyrighting styles, you'd significantly hinder any up and coming new artists. Not only that but literally how the fuck do you copyright a style? There are so many reasons that would be retarded it's not even worth getting into.

[Anonymous No.6443104]

>>6443025
There is nothing bigger than morality.

[Anonymous No.6443126]

>Decide to draw something in a different style than my usual
>That style is copyrighted
>The copyright police break down my door
>They proceed to burn all of my papers and pencils

Artists championing for extended copyright laws will kill the industry faster than AI

[Anonymous No.6443130]

Would like to remind everyone in this thread that even if you removed all of the living artists of the training, people could still replicate their styles with AI.

[Anonymous No.6443140]

>>6443126
nice strawman, also no-one is arguing for a draconian implementation except for false-flaging jeets. Just enforcing existing laws and some control over an artists likeness/style.
>>6443130
Then that would be a violation just like forgery and reproduction.

[Anonymous No.6443142]

>some idiots will willingly try to stricten the copyright laws only to be the first to get fucked by them because their template patreon walled shit was ripping off a dozen of other styles

[Anonymous No.6443143]

>>6443140
And? No one will commission anything, they will just generate with AI for private consumption.

[Anonymous No.6443147]

>>6443140
I want less governments, corporations, and legal teams involved in art, thank you.

[Anonymous No.6443157]

>>6443126
It's impossible to accidentally copy a style. Also, I don't think anyone here think styles can be copyrighted, they only don't AI being fine tuned and forced to mimic human artists.

Sadly, it is impossible to avoid because they released this tech as open source and now anyone can train models like that. It's up to the public to reject clear copies.

[Anonymous No.6443158]

>>6443147
>Regulation bad

OK boomer

[Anonymous No.6443193]

>>6443158
we should let disney and nintendo control copyright

[Anonymous No.6443201]

>>6443193
OF THEIR WORK, YES

[Anonymous No.6443206]

>>6443201
say goodbye to fanart then (which is what most modern artists rely heavily on)

[Anonymous No.6443207]

>>6443193
We should let Greg Rutkowski control his copyright.
He doesn't want you using his work in your programs, he should be able to stop you from using his work and his data in your programs.
There should be prison for those who scrape images for AI use without the artist's consent.

[Anonymous No.6443208]

>>6443206
I draw my own original characters and I want my copyright over my own characters.

[Anonymous No.6443213]

>>6443206
They already have the right to go after fanart.

And they do, like GW with Astartes, or Hasbro with JanAnimations.

The trick is to know who will legally try to fuck you and who won't. You make fanart of the second category.

Just stop posting. Your lack of familiarity with the industry is painfully apparent.

[Anonymous No.6443218]

>>6443213
side with megacorps, who are famous for siding with the little guy

[Anonymous No.6443220]

>>6443218
>>6443208
Copyright protects the little guy too, original artists want their original art protected. I want my original characters protected.

[Anonymous No.6443221]

>>6443220
Protected from what? holy cope

[Anonymous No.6443224]

>>6443220
it wont be protected because megacorps have the funding to protect their works while you do not

[Anonymous No.6443225]

>>6443221
Art theft and plagiarism of course. Every true artist protects his and her creations.

[Anonymous No.6443229]

>>6443224
Copyright law protects all original works by default.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

[Anonymous No.6443236]

>>6443224
Samdoesarts is no megacorp, but his following does a nice job of protecting him and his works. Internet clout goes a long way.

He just posted a video against AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Viy3Cu3DLk

[Anonymous No.6443245]

Bro so many weirdo delusional cucks that think that shilling for copyright law is doing anything but censoring the public and preventing anyone from profiting off technology unless they own the rights to it.

Like Roko will still be scanning your work if you ever upload it anywhere. Their AIs will still be stealing from you and microprofiting off your work. You just won’t have any way to do the same back.

Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if half the huzzah US copyright law shills are literally Russian culture war shills paid by the oligarchs. Like why would anyone that posts here ever be concerned about someone stealing their art? Especially stealing it to such a degree that it causes a massive loss of potential income?

[Anonymous No.6443246]

>>6442745
>tl;dr Style needs to be copyrighted

Stop promoting copywronging shit, dude. Artists will never benefit from it, only rich jewish pedophiles do.

[Anonymous No.6443250]

>>6442752
>>6442759
SDA is Sam Does Art

https://civitai.com/?query=Sam
Download Stable Diffusion and knock yourself out.

[Anonymous No.6443253]

>>6443245
>Like Roko will still be scanning your work if you ever upload it anywhere
Make scraping images and including them in a AI dataset a criminal offense
Make not disclosing your dataset a criminal offense
Make using copyrighted images in your dataset a criminal offense.
It's already like this for the music industry, it can be for the art industry as well.

[Anonymous No.6443255]

>>6443250
Using artist's names means you are directly admitting to using their work
ergo you are stealing

[Anonymous No.6443256]

>>6443142
This

[Anonymous No.6443259]

>>6443253
lmfao
All of this makes the US uncompetitive in the international market, nice job giving asians control of the global economy
Now I know why artists are so mad, they are completely and utterly incapable of thinking

[Anonymous No.6443262]

>>6443255
Wrong, I am asking the machine spirit to use said artists as inspiration and its is merging styles together.

[Anonymous No.6443264]

>>6443245
You have big names like Loish and Samdoesarts and Greg Rutkowksi speaking out against AI and pro copyright so they don't have their work stolen dude. You are the bad guys.

[Anonymous No.6443266]

>>6443255
Also, who wouldn't download a car? Just saying

[Anonymous No.6443267]

>>6443264
>work stolen

You rectangularly encirculated faggot, information can't be stolen, only replicated!

[Anonymous No.6443268]

>>6443264
Whats being stolen? None of their works are being replicated and sold by anyone, so...

[Anonymous No.6443272]

>>6443259
China banned AI art

>>6443262
No, you are not stating to "use it as inspiration", you literally prompted "by _____" telling it to use data made by that artist.
Why are you only capable of stealing?

[Anonymous No.6443274]

>>6443272
>Asia is china
Nice
>AI is only art
Really nice

[Anonymous No.6443275]

>>6442745
Lisa frank seems to think so.

[Anonymous No.6443277]

>>6443268
>>6443267
Their works are being used against their consent. They never said they were OK with you taking their data and putting it in your program.
>information can't be stolen
post your credit card info then

[Anonymous No.6443278]

>>6443272
>China banned AI art

I'm not actually surprised, those commie-nazis banned human rights too.

[Anonymous No.6443279]

>>6443272
Thats A way on how you tell the AI to take the inspiration you retard, you can also just type the artist name or the style like "In the style of a renaissance painting" but I do agree, we should remove artists names and just call it style1 instead of greg rutowski.

You will make your own generate image and you will be happy, models will get better and better and simpler to use. Why the fuck are there retards who hate the idea of MORE cool images.

[Anonymous No.6443280]

>>6443065
Oh?
https://www.weil.com/-/media/files/pdfs/2021/ftc-orders-destruction-of-algorithms-created-from-unlawfully-acquired-data.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjfgb29kp38AhUYM1kFHcU9BgAQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3N5dBPvFMB-aLSwcSPZbJ_

[Anonymous No.6443282]

>>6443277
>They never said they were OK with you taking their data and putting it in your program.
Doesn't make it wrong
They never said many things, still doesn't make doing all of what they never said unethical, nor illegal, giving this to the entire world is far more important than whatever you will achieve by gate keeping that shit

[Anonymous No.6443283]

>>6443130
Good luck replicating anything legible without LAION5B.

[Anonymous No.6443284]

>>6443259
We don't exist to serve the economy. It's supposed to be the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6443286]

>>6443279
>Thats A way on how you tell the AI to take the inspiration
That's absurd, programs aren't capable of "inspiration". Programs literally work on data, you tell the program to fetch data tagged a certain specific way because, guess what, it's Greg Rutkowski's data not yours. Renaming it doesn't change the fact that it came from him not you.

[Anonymous No.6443287]

>>6443283
The best datasets aren't laion tho, I don't get your point

[Anonymous No.6443288]

>>6443277
>Their works are being used against their consent.

Uh-huh. They show their shit to the world and demand it to not react, fucking autists.

[Anonymous No.6443289]

>>6443282
>Doesn't make it wrong
Yes it does, especially since they are speaking out against their work being used this way, which is their right to as it is their work, not yours.
The US needs data privacy enforcement laws like yesterday.

[Anonymous No.6443290]

>>6442928
>some guy used img2img
>LOOK HES STEALING

well yeah no shit, thats like you taking an image and just putting a filter on it.

If that was generated from a text prompt, yeah thats totally unique get rekt.

[Anonymous No.6443292]

>>6443289
>The US needs data privacy enforcement laws like yesterday.

This isn't data privacy, this is some perverse autistic gatekeeping.

[Anonymous No.6443296]

>>6443290
>it was generated on a text prompt using data you don't own
What's unique about that?

[Anonymous No.6443297]

>>6443290
Seems like the next step is copyrighting composition I guess

[Anonymous No.6443301]

>>6443292
Not sharing your credit card info is perverse autistic gatekeeping. Post your credit card info, it's only replicating information, it's not stealing your money.

[Anonymous No.6443306]

>>6443301
Alright, here ya go:

4210 0500 2024 1488

CVV: 420

Social Security: 69

[Anonymous No.6443308]

>>6443292
You "people" talk like "gatekeeping" is a bad thing.
The more I listen to you the clearer it becomes the gate exists to protect good from evil which is why you mongrels want to break it down.

[Anonymous No.6443312]

>>6443306
Anon, don't be a hypocrite, post your real information. Why are you some gAtEkEePeR?

[Anonymous No.6443314]

>>6442745
Well, given I already have an attorney and my own brand, tightened copyright laws would actually benefit me. It's also always a pleasure to see techies throw a tantrum, as evidenced by this thread alone from simply speculating about a law change.

[Anonymous No.6443319]

>>6443287
The best datasets are built off of LAION5B retard

[Anonymous No.6443322]

>>6442948
100% this. There is no "legal apocalypse" coming for AI.

[Anonymous No.6443324]

>>6443308
>You "people" talk like "gatekeeping" is a bad thing.

Because it is. Who wants to draw if everyone involved is a copywrite supporting elitist with super-autismic powers looking at you as if you're a hobo? And in the end nobody draws and there are only howls of copyniggers around as art dies out.

>protect good from evil

As if you have any right to deem people good or bad based on their beliefs.

>mongrels

Faggot.

P.S. RMS was fucking right, copyright corrupts.

[Anonymous No.6443329]

>>6443322
>There is no "legal apocalypse"
EXCEPT there is, if data privacy is actually enforced for once, since AI steals data without the owner's consent nor authorization. Now will data privacy actually be enforced someday? That is the question.

[Anonymous No.6443330]

>>6443312
It is real. Not my problem that you exist in a parallel universe where it isn't.

[Anonymous No.6443332]

>>6443324
I'm drawing perfectly fine, because I'm actually drawing, not typing prompts using stolen data.

[Anonymous No.6443336]

>>6443319
Your point being?

[Anonymous No.6443339]

>>6443332
Dude I was talking about "OC character do not steal"-type fags, not AI. AI is just an instrument.

[Anonymous No.6443340]

>>6443324
>Who wants to draw if everyone involved is a copywrite supporting elitist with super-autismic powers looking at you as if you're a hobo? And in the end nobody draws and there are only howls of copyniggers around as art dies out.
Wait do cryptoshizos not support capitalism anymore or something?

[Anonymous No.6443341]

>>6443330
Anon, what a coward you are, if it was real you would post a picture of yourself, timestamped, holding up your credit card without any obscured information. You know, the standard process for data verification?

[Anonymous No.6443344]

>>6443336
>>6443280

[Anonymous No.6443345]

>>6443339
>"OC character do not steal"-type fag
AKA the true artists who want to see their art and their data protected the most. They benefit the most from copyright since they actually create original stuff.

[Anonymous No.6443354]

>>6442745
This is the part where “big artists” pull the old politician trick of superimposing their problems onto the common people in effort to get the little people to fight for their cause for free.

I can see how his directly affects someone like Samdoesart, because he has the most to lose here. He actually could lose value by having his shit mass-copied. Most artists, however, are lowly street urchin who get ghosted by social media algorithms and must scrap for penny commissions, never actually getting anywhere with anything they make.

How does this realistically affect a nobody artist? They can still draw like they always have. They still make no money, like always. The algorithm still ignores their efforts to be seen, like it always has. So what gives? Why should I enlist in Loish’s war? Why should I care about a system that never directly did anything for me even before AI started it’s mass rape and pillage campaign of known social media influencers like RossDraws?

I don’t care. Realistically speaking, AI is no threat to me as a small artist. It won’t steal my art because it’s not popular enough. It won’t prevent me from making money because that’s not an option anyway. I’m not getting roped into caring about a war that has no spoils for me.

The only reason big artists care right now is directly correlated to their self-interest, and yet they’re trying to disingenuously spin this whole AI thing into being an artist issue. I have news for you, artists have been getting raped long before AI, you blind cocksuckers. Where was Samdoesart when algorithms shadowban artists for — oh right, doesn’t affect him. Never mind.

[Anonymous No.6443355]

>>6443344
So, just remove the copyrighted stuff as I stated before, the models will still be capable of replicating anything and anyone... Your point?

[Anonymous No.6443357]

>>6443355
>just remove the copyrighted stuff as I stated before, the models will still be capable of replicating anything and anyone...

[Anonymous No.6443358]

>>6443345
>AKA the true artists

Uh-huh, and I'm the legendary super saiyan.

It's time you faggots realise that posting stuff you do on the Internet is a form of social interaction, and banning people from continuing the thread is hypocritical. Seriously, you don't do that just because you can, you want to speak with others this way.

[Anonymous No.6443363]

>>6443357
https://textual-inversion.github.io/
https://dreambooth.github.io/
Sorry, even if you remove everything from every living artist, their style can be replicated from the sheer amount of content in latent space :)

[Anonymous No.6443366]

>>6443363
>the sheer amount of content in latent space
Now you're starting to get it, good job! Yes, all the compromised data in the latent space as well.

[Anonymous No.6443370]

>>6443366
Moving goal posts, nice

[Anonymous No.6443372]

>>6443358
What thread? I post my art on my website and there's no thread, I am having no interaction with you through my art, don't spew bullshit about me.

[Anonymous No.6443376]

>>6443370
I accept your concession, Raj.

[Anonymous No.6443387]

>>6443329
>AI steals data without the owner's consent nor authorization
web scraping is legal, this has already been established.

Should there be more data privacy and "opt in" as default? Yes, but that isn't the situation, and MAJOR players will fight hard against turning that around.

For anyone who has ever said "Who cares, I got nothing to hide hurdurr" about data privacy and so on, enjoy the shit sandwich you made for yourself.

[Anonymous No.6443396]

Copyright style? Seems like 99% of you faggots are learning to draw just so you could draw anime girls with dicks or furrys. I am interested in learning to write but Jesus Christ is there a lot of anime pictures.

[Anonymous No.6443402]

>>6443387
>web scraping is legal
Not for personal and/or copyrighted data. Hello GDPR.

[Anonymous No.6443406]

>>6443402
When will the US have a law like the GDPR?

[Anonymous No.6443407]

I just prompted a bunch of rutkowskis
feels good man

[Anonymous No.6443410]

>>6443387
>opt in
The problem with that is web crawlers don't care if i.e art station has an opt in or out. Sure the platforms can have their own policy regarding putting hosted art work. The scrapers are only beholden to a non compulsory robots.txt. They technically don't even have to download the actual image based on how they work.

[Anonymous No.6443416]

>The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
>Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work.

That's Fair use factor #4, which completely rips apart that side of the argument the techies like to hide behind. tbdesu it's really only a matter of time before multimedia corpos bleed the call centers dry, followed by some us gubberment intervention.

[Anonymous No.6443439]

>>6443410
Password-protect websites, scraping becomes automatically illegal as per GDPR as it's not publicly available data.

Of course, a GDPR-like law is needed in the US as well for this to work.

[Anonymous No.6443445]

>>6443264
>big names
>said the anonymous shill
Who cares m80? People jacking your beats is part of the big name tax.

And when you stop your endless muh capital screeching for a second and step outside of this temporary muh’ney era we are currently in, and think about your relative place in existence, the more your shit gets stolen and appropriated and reinterpreted the better!

Like that’s how you get remembered. That’s how you have an afterlife after ego death. It’s how you could best possibly influence the future and humanity.

Trying to paywall the ability for anybody to make art to protect people that are already making fuck you money doing art is pathetic and it’s the kind of shit that destroys a culture and creates a dark age.

Btw we ARE in a dark age for most of this shit lol. Most of your internet history will not be recoverable to future scientists in a few centuries.

[Anonymous No.6443449]

>>6442787
Gourmet you fucking clown I bought two of your books

[Anonymous No.6443463]

>>6442745
This is the most retarded idea I have ever fucking heard

[Anonymous No.6443478]

>>6443445
Most people don't want their internet history to be recoverable. I miss the old internet when bullshit like yours didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.6443482]

>>6442794
post work or kys

[Anonymous No.6443484]

>>6443324
>As if you have any right to deem people good or bad based on their beliefs.
Of course I do - my conception of good and evil is the correct one, because guess what, I only believe things that are objectively true.
You subjectivists on the other hand, are like vandals who can't help crashing down gates everywhere you go and destroying and defiling everything that is beautiful and sacred, for you don't actually believe in anything.

[Anonymous No.6443502]

>>6442745
This entire thread is a circlejerk of false-flagging shills. Disgusting. This cannot stand.
"Style" cannot and should not be copyrighted, and has nothing to do with what we're dealing with now. This is all a false argument deflecting from the real issue(s), which can actually be dealt with in a practical manner and will not need extensive or draconian changes to copyright law, merely cases settled to set precedent.

What we're trying to do is prevent companies from mining our data under the pretense of non-profit, research-only usage and then turning right around and using it for profit and screwing US over with the very data that WE produced. This is the core issue. This doesn't affect just artists, it affects everyone. Photographers, coders, writers, anyone who creates content that can be fed into an algorithm.
Secondly, due to the nature of how image generators work, EVERYTHING that they produce is an interpolation of the massive sets of images fed into them. There is no "new" data created, what you're seeing is essentially a huge library of images being animorphed together. What this is is data laundering on a massive scale. Fair use does not and should not apply to this, and if you'll take a minute to read fair use laws you'll see that without any changes whatsoever the AIfags are very likely to land in serious legal trouble. The shills can gaslight us all they want, we are not in the wrong nor are we causing a "legal apocalypse" for standing up for ourselves.

[Anonymous No.6443503]

>>6443354
I'm a "nobody" artist who hardly ever posts anything and has no sustained following beyond a handful of autists, and yet I still see people reposting my years old work to great attention, and have even found my name included as a tag in a training set. You don't have to be an eceleb to have people trying to use your art for their gain. And besides, be forward thinking - you don't plan to be a ngmi forever, do you?

[Anonymous No.6443507]

>>6443502
If anyone is wondering about the fair use laws, here's the relevant info.

[Anonymous No.6443523]

>>6443502
A million times this.
Also id like to add how the fuck does doing this for researchers purposes allow them to ignore website TOS against scraping? Im starting to think even the “we did it as non profit doe” line cant save them

[Anonymous No.6443525]

>>6443502
>EVERYTHING that they produce is an interpolation of the massive sets of images fed into them
Just like your brain

[Anonymous No.6443526]

>>6443502
>What we're trying to do is prevent companies from mining our data
Terminate Section 230. Make companies legally liable for online and offline consequences of internet data.

[Anonymous No.6443532]

>>6443525
>still using this line
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1wlW4t9o1U

[Anonymous No.6443534]

>>6443525
>AI shills unironically believe this
Read Loomis once and you'll understand why this is a completely retarded idea to have. Just because your meme machines have "neural" or "intelligence" in the branding doesn't mean that they contain or have anything to do with those concepts outside of the realm of metaphor.

[Anonymous No.6443535]

>>6443525
>a program is a person
>a human's input to develop their artwork and creative process isn't overwhelmingly things they view, touch, or otherwise experience in real life, with other peoples' art and photographs only constituting a small fraction

[Anonymous No.6443540]

>>6443502
It sucks because archiving human data should be a good thing for future societies, but it's all thrown out the window because at best grifters want to abuse it to make a quick buck while at worst organizations want to weaponize it. This is one of those things we have to keep in the hands of one small group of trusted individuals at all times similar to how we store nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous No.6443542]

>>6443525
yeah, everyone just looks at some anime and can immediately draw it! that's how it works..........right?

[Anonymous No.6443549]

>>6443525
You first.

[Anonymous No.6443559]

>>6443478
> Most people don't want their internet history to be recoverable
It’s literally your entire legacy. Proof of existence. Everything digital you’ll have ever produced won’t exist. Only chance at an afterlife and future historians will only have access to a fraction of it.

And if you don’t care, you’re just some nihilist capitalist with no self-awareness or consideration for the future historian, who gives a shit about your opinion?

pyw

[Anonymous No.6443564]

>>6443559
>blah blah blah
(You)

[Anonymous No.6443570]

>>6443564
Russian can’t speak the language lmao.

It’s literally always foreign shills. How much you getting paid for this shit?

[Anonymous No.6443574]

>>6443542
Try learning to draw something you've never drawn before without reference. Even if you really don't reference it, the idea of it is put in your head as soon as you see it. No one would know how to draw anything if they needed permission to look at everything.

[Anonymous No.6443575]

>>6443534
>Just because your meme machines have "neural" or "intelligence" in the branding doesn't mean that they contain or have anything to do with those concepts outside of the realm of metaphor.
I still can't believe so many people fell for one of the most basic marketing principles. Like buying snake oil to cure cancer. People really believe artificial intelligence is here and algorithms should be given rights

[Anonymous No.6443579]

>>6443570
Please don't derail the thread with your bullshit, nobody cares about your data hoarding perversion, people want to remain anonymous here. We're talking serious matters, so fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6443582]

>>6443559
>your internet history is your entire legacy
I implore you to seek help.

[Anonymous No.6443594]

>>6443570
The absolute, unutterable lack of self awareness to call someone a "foreign shill" while taking the side of the AI fags who have been raiding the entire site with a dedicated shill campaign for months on end. No, the people telling you you're an idiot are not russian shills, you paranoid schizophrenic room temperature IQ subhuman retard. YOU are a part of the problem plaguing this board and the site as a whole. Read the room.

[Anonymous No.6443614]

>>6442745
>dumbass who thinks the AI controversy is about style

[Anonymous No.6443617]

>>6443579
Pyw kike. Not difficult.

Post any reason why some seething foreign shill that hates the west gives a flying fuck about US copyright law.

[Anonymous No.6443620]

>>6443594
All this newspeak and buzzwords doesn’t do anything to disprove the notion that you’re a foreign shill m80.

If you could prove you weren’t you would. Wouldn’t flee to all this bitch whining horseshit. Grow some nuts ya fag.

[Anonymous No.6443625]

>>6443620
>unironically calling people fag as an insult
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.6443627]

I like AI because the people shilling against it are the ones that don’t post work and attack people that do.

If a bunch of seething foreign invaders trained from birth to shill for whatever their totalitarian daddies tell to are against AI and for insane copyright laws, that’s obviously the side that would cause the most harm to actual people in the west and cause even more capital to flow into a pedofascist oligarchy.

[Anonymous No.6443629]

>>6443620
I am the creator of this image. I draw and am, more or less, a native inhabitant of this board. I am also an American.
I really don't know what to tell you if you think some rando disagreeing with you is A RUSSIAN SPY PUTIN SENT THEM AFTER ME AAAAAAA but you're siding with the people who have been sieging this board and spamming it with shill posts constantly. I want them to leave. I want YOU to leave. You are all insufferable.

[Anonymous No.6443631]

>>6443625
Hey it’s that Eastern European mongol newfag with no argument lmao. You get that your social control faggery is entirely a newfag trait that only Russian faggots do.

Why don’t you go back to to VK huh ya fag?

[Anonymous No.6443634]

>>6443627
>totalitarian
>insane copyright laws
It just amazes me how that despite you being a paranoid schizo jumping at shadows and seeing russkies everywhere you fell for the Pajeet shill bait hook line and sinker.
Read these posts, please >>6443502 >>6443507

[Anonymous No.6443636]

>>6443629
I don’t care tbphwyf. Post time stamped passport and I’ll beleedat.

And post something that doesn’t suck while you’re at it. Posting some culture wars boogieman cartoon with a bunch of text spam is exactly the kind of shit that a foreign culture wars shill would do so they could pretend they’re an artist.

And if you don’t want to get confused for a nigger Russian maybe don’t parrot them? Maybe don’t get hoodwinked into shilling for silly shit that only benefits people that laugh about how dumb they think you are?

[Anonymous No.6443642]

>>6442745
Copyrighting styles will cause more problems than it solves. It would be difficult to determine who owns the copyright. If two artists have almost the same style, does the style become uncopyrightable? If so, the law would enable people then to use AI to copy their styles without repercussion. If not, then who owns the style and who is required to lose their livelihood? On top of that, those using AI can push away from occupied areas of the latent space to generate more unique works and optimize them to look good with user preferences. Artists would be fighting each other to protect their copyright while those using AI would simply optimize their works to look just different enough to be unaffected by the law.

[Anonymous No.6443647]

>>6443634
Endlessly spamming back to US law means literally nothing to me you neutered lil bimbo.

I don’t care about what the USG says is legal or not. I violate that law every goddamn day of my life and you likely do too ya dang bozo.

Like what the fuck kind of poindexter newfag moron are you that you’re coming to a website owned by a Japanese toy company being used as a Russian propaganda platform targeting virginal western men to shill for restricting US Copyright Law even more?

Why tho?

[Anonymous No.6443651]

>>6443636
>post something that doesn't suck
You post nothing but the same five half finished polished turds filled with rambling nonsense text over and over, and now you're posting half baked AI generated trash. You have got a LOT of nerve to be saying the things that you're saying right now.

Can't wait until you have another psychotic break in the vein of the KONY 2012 guy and force the mods to ban you again. It really can't be too soon, hopefully it's permanent this time.

[Anonymous No.6443653]

>>6443651
i like your rick and morty sketch, its dope. Why do they have rabbit ears?

[Anonymous No.6443654]

>>6443651
>/beg/ copy of a popular cartoon
What in the FUCK are you so concerned about Ivan?

You couldn’t give that shit away and you think you’re gonna lose money from AI stealing it?

[Anonymous No.6443656]

>>6443654

[Anonymous No.6443657]

>>6443651
>>6443653
Jesus it’s a 14 year old isn’t it.

Why is this fucking bozo endlessly here shilling for attacking US copyright law when they’re some samefagging dunning-Kruger kid?

[Anonymous No.6443658]

>>6443657

[Anonymous No.6443662]

>>6443656
Ah it’s an Ai lol

Imagine being a shill for attacking US copyright law over AI to “protect artists” while being so bad at art that you need to use AI.

[Anonymous No.6443682]

>>6443662
You're a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.6443699]

>u r shill
>no u r shill
>no u
>No ur work sucks
>u a poopyhead
>wow the nerve
>no u
>hurr durr
It's like watching two trannies fight over who gets to molest the children on their discord server.

[Anonymous No.6443703]

>>6443142
Not asking for anything prior to ai art training to be changed, only ai training on Artists should be stopped. That's it. Protect individual artists. Not "copyright a style" to protect them. Make ripping someone's work off with ai illegal. An exception specifically against ai doing it. You might say
>You can't tell it wasn't made by a human
Meanwhile the person who trained the ai is spitting out 100 images a day...
Take him to court and have a painting competition.

[Anonymous No.6443709]

>>6443363
Dream booth adds data to the latent space.

[Anonymous No.6443722]

>>6442917
Andrew Ryan was supposed to be a silly libertarian strawman

[Anonymous No.6443726]

>>6443722
>could you be more of a pretentious douchebag?
That's the joke

[Anonymous No.6443727]

>>6443014
>This could have a negative impact on the overall quality and diversity of content available to us.
Implying we aren't already in the creative gutter?

[Anonymous No.6443729]

>>6443699
Look upon me I will show you the life of th
https://youtu.be/Ps3IXTH2dG0
AHHHHHH


AHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.6443732]

>>6443727
we'd be down the gutter and into the sewers.

[Anonymous No.6443740]

>>6442745
No one should have a monopoly in style or skill

[Anonymous No.6443758]

Yes. Harsher copyright laws are the solution.

[Anonymous No.6443760]

>>6442929
>AI artist
a meaningless word.

[Anonymous No.6443764]

>>6443354
Such a lengthy post just to say that you're a NGMI incel.

[Anonymous No.6443771]

>>6443250
lol saged, let's see your ai reverse this

[Anonymous No.6443815]

>>6443764
Outside of larping, neither are you. I made my peace with not making it a while ago. You still suffer delusions of grandeur.

You’re infinitely replaceable as an artist, friendo. Sooner you accept it the sooner you can avoid the padded cells when the realization finally hits you like a truck.

Go ahead now and call me pajeet while you cope and seethe faggot.

[Anonymous No.6443830]

>>6443662
>says the AI shill, as he spams his AI generated celebrity coom trash on the drawing board
Behold, the cast iron cauldron calling the porcelain cup a nigger.

[Anonymous No.6443833]

>>6443682
You’re a dang ferner that’s bad at art

[Anonymous No.6443836]

>>6443830
This bozo struggles with English

[Anonymous No.6443857]

>>6443836
Джимми, ты дoлжeн oтпycтить мeня. Я дaвнo yмep. Aвapия пpoизoшлa нe пo вaшeй винe. Tы дoлжeн oтпycтить мeня, Джимми. Пoжaлyйcтa, пpocниcь, твoя ceмья cкyчaeт пo тeбe. Bы дoлжны cбeжaть из Haчaлa c Лeoнapдo ДиКaпpиo Джимми, вы дoлжны вpaщaть дpeйдлa, чтoбы yвидeть, были ли вы зaчaты или нeт, и ecли oн пepecтaнeт вpaщaтьcя, вы нaхoдитecь в peaльнoм миpe, нo oн нe пepecтaнeт вpaщaтьcя, вы вo cнe, вы в фильмe «Haчaлo» c Лeoнapдo ДиКaпpиo и Эллиoтoм Пeйджeм дo тoгo, кaк oнa cтaлa тpaнcoм, вaм нyжнo бeжaть, pyccкиe нe нacтoящиe. Пoжaлyйcтa, paзбyди Джимми.

C любoвью, Пyтин

[Anonymous No.6443859]

>>6443836
nta
but how are you so unable to comprehend that, that it becomes a foreign language?

I get that amerilards aren't renowned for their academic prowess, but how in the goddamn fuck forsaken, prostitute infested hellhole can one manage to stay alive without having mastered basic reading skills?

It's not the burn or troll you think it is, it makes you look like an actual, uneducated hoodrat that sucks dicks for crack.

[Anonymous No.6443861]

>>6443836
hehehe anon you can't draw

[Anonymous No.6443900]

>>6442745
Framing the discussion as ”should style be copyrighted” is a trick by AI proponents to cement the idea that text to image diffusers just work like the human brain. Don’t accept the core premise.

[Anonymous No.6443903]

>>6443900
true.
"should AI be allowed to train on copyright artworks"

[Anonymous No.6443918]

>>6443857
Lol nobody cares gookerino. Post pics of shill farm.
>>6443859
> but how are you so unable to comprehend that, that it becomes a foreign language?
What are you fucking stupid? It’s the impotent reflexively conditioned fleeing to appeals to hypocrisy aka the only thing those gooks are capable of doing. Don’t need to learn much English when you can just say NO U a bunch.

It’s like 80 year old Soviet messaging strategy.

> I get that amerilards aren't renowned for their academic prowess
I’m smarter and better educated that you.
>but how in the goddamn fuck forsaken yadda yadda
Look this is something that you seething sniggering ESLs and foreign invaders will never really be able to fully comprehend: You’re always obvious tourists. It’s obvious when youre a foreign LARP. It’s obvious when you’re doing subtly incorrect or subtly over correct attempts at using a language and dialect that you only really know from the internet.

Sorry to break it to you Schlomo but you’re never actually fooling anyone that’s paying any attention.

> It's not the burn or troll you think it is, it makes you look like an actual, uneducated hoodrat that sucks dicks for crack.
Considering literally 40 seconds before you posted this they spammed a whole bunch of Russian meme essays attacking me personally in response to that post I think you kind of have a bunch of cummy egg all your fucking face lmao.

You literally could have just waited for the page to reload and seen what a sniggering faggot you are but nope ya goofed it so hard lmao.

NTA but you’re a punk ass little bitch lmao

[Anonymous No.6443945]

>>6443900
So what is the discussion if it's not that?

[Anonymous No.6443951]

>>6443900
Discussion is being framed by a Russian mongroid shill being paid ~$300 a month to promote culture wars that benefit the oil oligarchs on western media.

Whole thing is a fugazi.

[Anonymous No.6443971]

>>6442878
I feel like you're just repeating the same worries people had about Photoshop back in the day.

[Anonymous No.6443999]

>>6442878
The only group of people who mostly knows this artist in particular are other artists and most of them are already aware of AI and its unethical potential. People aren't living in the early cancel days where they would believe any random post from some nobody posting dubious shit

[Anonymous No.6444015]

>>6443918
>appeals to hypocrisy
So, pointing out the hypocrisy of another bad because soviet messaging strategies from the 80s???
You can make a point by pointing out the hypocrisy of the other, if it's relevant to the conversation.
>I’m smarter and better educated that you
No, nigger, you ain't.
My IQ is maximum.
>seething sniggering ESLs
Nice use of easy copypasted buzzwords, sure showing how high iq and educated you are.
>You’re always obvious tourists. It’s obvious when youre a foreign LARP. It’s obvious when you’re doing subtly incorrect or subtly over correct attempts at using a language and dialect that you only really know from the internet.
Go back to /x/ you stupid nigger.
>that’s paying any attention.
You ain't paying attention. If you were, you'd knew.
>muh russian runes! oh no! must literally be soviet spies from the hollow earth lizard illuminatis!
Go the fuck back to your containment board, faggot or imma send gay aliens to rape you in your sleep tonight.
Watch your windows.

[Anonymous No.6444034]

>>6444015
> So, pointing out the hypocrisy of another bad because soviet messaging strategies from the 80s???
No from like the 40s to today. It’s default how Russians are conditioned to think.
I can see how you got that confused what with you not knowing this fucking language.

And yes welcome to the west Schlomo appeals to hypocrisy mean literally nothing. It’s like a Catholic trying to use original sin to manipulate another Catholic. All people are guilty of sin, all people are guilty of hypocrisy. So what authoritarian cults do is use that as a way to manipulate and control and suppress and guilt anyone critical of their dumb bullshit.

> You can make a point by pointing out the hypocrisy of the other, if it's relevant to the conversation.
Nope there’s never really any actual logical or rational point to be made by ad hominem and appeals to hypocrisy. It’s just attacking the person because you have no rational response to their argument. It’s lashing out and acting like a faggoty toddler when you lose an argument.
> No, nigger, you ain't.
I am.
>My IQ is maximum.
Yeah this means nothing. For one thing the fact that you still give a shit about IQ to unironically rush to it like it’s some Mensa card says a lot about your lack of education and understanding on the study of intelligence.

Like did you take an IQ test when you were 6 or whenever or did you do one of those psychographic data collection scam ones online?
> Nice use of easy copypasted buzzwords, sure showing how high iq and educated you are.
You’re literally just projecting about using “copypasted buzzwords” while not actually saying lol.
Not to mention the fact that you reflexively project about “copypasting buzzwords” is something that is 100% exclusive to you fucking loser ESL larps.
> Go back to /x/ you stupid nigger.
Go back to your fucking country.
> You ain't paying attention. If you were, you'd knew.
Post shill farm faggot enough of your struggling

[Anonymous No.6444042]

>>6443918
First I'm a Russkie and now I'm a Korean?
Actually, I'll take that one, Korean artists are pretty based.
>appeal to hypocrisy
I mean, you are a hypocrite though. (You) are siding with the AI shills, at least some of which are Pajeets and who knows what else, who have been spamming the entire site for an extended period of time and yet you're accusing people like myself of being foreign shills because... we're standing up to the foreign shills?
You're literally in a false flagging thread made by them right now, my fine negroid fellow. The way you think is completely and utterly bizarre.

>spammed a whole bunch of russian meme essays
I wrote some ridiculous nonsense and fed it through Google Translate, ya goon. Specifically because you have some weird notion that the Russians are after you, or something, and something something Putin. Because you're legitimately and unironically a paranoid schizophrenic.
I know who you are because you showed up on /ic/ some time back, spamming your paintings of Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about cumming and all that other stuff, and I remember within a rather short period of time you had a meltdown that ended up getting you banned. Anyone that was here for any length of time knows who you are because you're a huge attention whore and you spam like crazy.

[Anonymous No.6444050]

>>6442745
I ahte AI and shit but lets be honest here that SAM only draw one type of composition And it's the same shit on every single post he make: pixar girls, blurry BG, instagram filter and color palette. He is just begging to be picked up by AI.

[Anonymous No.6444059]

>>6444042
> First I'm a Russkie and now I'm a Korean?
Don’t think I ever called you korean. This is an error on your part because you’re a foreign gook invader that doesn’t understand this language.
> Actually, I'll take that one, Korean artists are pretty based.
So you’ll take something that nobody said and pat yourself on the back about it? Seems kinda retarded tbphwyf.
> I mean, you are a hypocrite though.
A: Sure. Everyone is. You are too you sniveling fascist cocksucker.
B: Me personally being a “hypocrite” according to some important faggot foreigner is entirely irrelevant to the rationality of my argument. My argument is the same as it’s always been. Something you’ll fundamentally never understand as a degenerate mindraped shill.

> (You) are siding with the AI shills,
Absolutely. Been anticipating this happening on this timeframe since 2014. Couldn’t be more stoked about it. It’s the end of the modern era! This is the biggest thing since the propagation of camera technology! Fucking cool.

at least some of which are Pajeets and who knows what else, who have been spamming the entire site for an extended period of time and yet you're accusing people like myself of being foreign shills because... we're standing up to the foreign shills?
> at least some of which are Pajeets and who knows what else
M8 I don’t give a shit about your little chimpy tribalism. You’re a pajeet. You’re a Korean. You’re a Russian. You’re Schroedingers anonymous foreign faggot. You’re all the same. You don’t get to anonymously throw sticks at one boogieman and pretend you’re on my team you little bitch.

Tldr on the rest I don’t care. You’re a foreign bad faith nigger until you prove otherwise and you are literally reflexively psychologically incapable of ever doing that.

Go suck Russian oligarch cock harder and shill for subverting a foreign countries laws harder ya terrorist piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.6444120]

>>6444059
I'm pretty sure "gook" refers to Koreans, yes.

As for the rationality of your argument- parroting AI shill bullshit, ahem- when I gave you a counterpoint in these posts >>6443502 >>6443507 all you did was screech and shitfling and call me a russian shill. There was no "argument" or "rationality" to be found.

Furthermore, your "justification" of the copyright-violating usage of indiscriminately scraped data for profit was that... we're hypocrites because something something we all violate copyright anyways so they should get a pass too. That's very odd, because if I remember right, I believe that you had a lot of very strong, very choice words to say about "appeal to hypocrisy"... yet you yourself used an "appeal to hypocrisy" to justify your position. So you're a hypocrite about whether being a hypocrite is okay or not. Curious! Maybe you aren't so rational, intelligent, or educated after all. You can't even keep from tripping over yourself.

[Anonymous No.6444146]

>>6444059
Oh, and lest we forget, in your initial post you claimed it was sussy Russies Amogus whomst'd've shill for le to-tattle-tarian oilystarchy copyright law while not posting their work, but dang, look at all the work I posted to back myself up here. Work made by my own hands with love and care and hugs and kisses. The fact that you do nothing but post AI generated junk, I dunno mayne, that seems kinda SUS ඞ (vine boom), maybe even a little RUSS ඞ (vine boom), I'm thinking that perhaps maybe (You) were the shill AMOGUS ඞ (vine boom) all along

[Anonymous No.6444213]

>>6444120
>>6444146
Didn’t read none of this shit.

[Anonymous No.6444237]

>>6442878
You can't "simply" do that because you'd need to prove it wasn't done by AI done by some nigger trying to cancel someone.
You retards literally don't think it's fucking annoying.

[Anonymous No.6444244]

>>6442929
Use tools wrong, you go to jail

[Anonymous No.6444254]

>>6443193
>>6443201
>>6443206
Nintendo doesn't sell animations you stupid niggers.
Disney sells likeness and movies, if you do the same that's competition. Disney isn't selling autistic fan fic crossovers or porn, and thus, doesn't count.

You faggots literally can't think it's tiresome.

[Anonymous No.6444262]

>>6443267
>>6443268
>AIfags are gamers after all
I fucking knew it. "LE I'LL PIRATE THAT ISN'T THIEF"

Go DIE in acid, subcreatures.

[Anonymous No.6444263]

>>6444213
I accept your concession :3c

[Anonymous No.6444273]

>>6444263
Well ya had no argument to concede to up til the part where I didn’t read.

And I’ll have no idea how you much you “won” your fake competitive shill understanding of a rational argument because, again, didn’t read lol.

You spend all that time google translating into English a whole buncha cope I assume while I was goofing around with an amazing new technology not reading none of that shit.

[Anonymous No.6444283]

>>6443525
>Just like your brain
That is FACTUALLY wrong on so many levels.
You've realize that if you actually fucking drew worth a damn for yourself.

[Anonymous No.6444288]

>>6443574
>Try learning to draw something you've never drawn before without reference
I do it every day, AI however factually can't.

[Anonymous No.6444302]

>>6444273
Boy, you KNOW someone's completely assblasted, anally devastated, and derriere deflowered with no recourse when they pull out the "LOL I TOTALLY DIDN'T READ ANY OF THAT HA HA I TOOK MY TOYS AND WENT HOME" card.
Love to see it.

[Anonymous No.6444311]

>>6444302
Dint read. Don’t have my lifealert
> The office, scanners head explosion Gabe, shut up about BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, zombie brains guts, the industrial Revolution and it’s consequences, office setting on fire, blood, schizophrenic, manic, hyper, static, 3D translucent anarchy,

[Anonymous No.6444611]

>>6444311
>bootyblasted to the point of incoherance

[Anonymous No.6444666]

The real problem here is data.
If you scrape copyrighted or personal data, you should be legally punished. It being on the internet doesn't mean you can put it in a database and use it in your programs.

[Anonymous No.6444667]

>>6444311
Nigger can't draw, rest in nigger hell

[Anonymous No.6444725]

>>6443657
Even your ai generated images are trash.

[Anonymous No.6444739]

>>6443502
Companies hoarding data for profit also fucks over everyone else. We can't compete in marketing if they already have a full arsenal at their disposal. something something antitrust laws

[Anonymous No.6444742]

>>6444666
>It being on the internet doesn't mean you can put it in a database and use it in your programs.
Actually it does. Thanks for the art. :)

[Anonymous No.6444743]

>>6444667
>>6444725
Project less cuckerino.

Pyw

[Anonymous No.6444761]

>>6444743
You already got dabbed into the soil by asking people to post their work in this very thread, I wouldn't keep pushing your luck if I were you

[Anonymous No.6444788]

>>6444761
> You already got dabbed into the soil by asking people to post their work in this very thread,
Literally cite where schlomo. You some kind of desperately pathetic gaslighting faggot lmao?

A: Post Passport
B: Post your work
C: Stop trying to invade the west you nigger tourist

[Anonymous No.6444793]

>>6444666
>but copyrighted
There is a clear grey zone regarding artistic freedom that as an individual you are allowed to "use" copyrighted works.
The key word here is transformative.

If say i used mickey mouse as a base, and did so much shit to it that it would end up looking completely different from the original, it would be valid and protected as my own actual work. I could even sell merch with that on it, because it became my work the instant i put it out there with my "name" on it.

If you were to do this as a company, that's a whole different story and the laws would become much stricter, but even then, if the work is transformative, no one can sue your company for anything.
>It being on the internet doesn't mean you can put it in a database and use it in your programs.
There are still people who are going to do it because they don't give a single shit.
Companies have done it for more than a decade.

The least you should do is to not put any of your personal information on the internet for everyone to see or being easily accessible to random people, not even your name.

If laws were to become stricter, techfags might as well just put a download tax on every image you save or only allow you to see anything if you unlock it.
Which might sound insane, but tech giants are not strangers to play this sort of games.

[Anonymous No.6444806]

>destroys art careers and cause mass suicide among artists
What a GIGACHAD.

[Anonymous No.6444830]

>>6444793
So Patreon then? Sounds good, artists need to pay the bills too.

AI is derivative, not transformative. You can't work without the images in the dataset, while an artist can draw without having the reference right before his eyes.

[Anonymous No.6444839]

>>6442745
Wrong board retard.

[Anonymous No.6444857]

>>6444839
It's the right board faggot. This topic is popular and receives attention here, but doesnt even reach 5 replies on other boards.

[Anonymous No.6444862]

>>6442878
Like deepfakes, that (didn't) put so many innocent people in jail?

[Anonymous No.6444870]

>>6442745
>>6442752
Even if it's trained to the style, the base isn't that unique so the result seem very generic in any case.
I use dead artists for the most part in the prompt, and I could get away with using only those. The ability to recreate if only by chance some of the spirit of my favorite art that doesn't agree with mainstream styles is priceless. Most of the AI art I see doesn't interest me but the potential shouldn't be curtailed by a misguided use of copyright law

[Anonymous No.6444872]

>>6442878
This would absolutely never hurt the artist and it would make anyone that tried to push it as propaganda against the artist look like a pervert obsessed with creating child porn.

Crazy how much you culture wars bozos flee to imaginary child porn scenarios immediately in like every situation lol..

[Anonymous No.6444996]

>/ic/
>style
Hohoho

[Anonymous No.6445051]

>>6443296
like, does anyone OWN art, man?

[Anonymous No.6445059]

>>6444806
>le bloated Dalit face
Wew

[Anonymous No.6445093]

Am I the only one who thinks current AI art programs are only a bait for improving popularity and normalize AI for future paywall releases?

I mean, it can produce beautiful random images and fool normies and tech bros, but it can't do anything new (or not popular) with a specific design.

It's almost as they are cooking an actual tool that can be useful in production and release it as a "premium/pro" service, where you can really control and even design stuff within the program.

We never had a new tech that made customization and overall control worse, actually, new techs are usually focused in improving exactly that.

[Anonymous No.6445367]

>>6445093
Well that's kinda what Stable Diffusion is doing, they don't plan to make money hosting compute, they make money by selling fine tuned models trained on their massive super cluster.
Also keep in mind the tech is still very much under development so stuff like controls/prompting and UI are limited though they are slowly getting better.

[Anonymous No.6445389]

>>6445093
No, you literally figured it out.
Using one single braincell made you smarter than 98% of this board.

[Anonymous No.6445574]

>>6445093
Does anybody here believe that the indian hedge-fund manager stole all our art in order to "democratize creativity"?

[Anonymous No.6445583]

>>6442998
So if a draw fanart of your OC, I'm violating your copyright? kys for being so retarded.

[Anonymous No.6445587]

>>6442998
To hell with your MUH IP & your MUH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Nothing is stopping me from drawing fanart of your OC.

[Anonymous No.6445593]

>>6443014
28 years is all you faggots should get in terms of copyright. After 28 years, it becomes public domain. That's how it used to be, until (((Disney))) bribed Congress with the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Fanartists aren't stealing your profits. If anything, they are boosting it. Call it good PR.

[Anonymous No.6445605]

>>6445583
If you sell it or claim you invented the OC, yes.

[Anonymous No.6445608]

>>6443011
>image shitters is a far greater threat to the value of artists and their reasons for sharing their work
AI shitters are image remixers, not real artists. The AI does all the work & uses img2img, using a few images that were created by the real artists, then adds slight changes here & there. You could classify all AI art as "edits" because they are modifications of original art pieces.

Look at pic-related as an example. The AI clearly used images of Kangaroo Jack then modified a few things here & there. It is an edit.

[Anonymous No.6445624]

>>6445605
There's a difference between stealing someone's OCs & making fanart (parody) of it.

People make commissions off of fanart all the time. The doujinshi industry in Japan is a multi-million dollar business where some artists make 6 figures. Lots of those doujinshis are fanart/parodies of actual mangas/series. None of the people who make money off commissions & doujinshis are claiming ownership of those characters. Your OC is your own, but no, you just want to be a greedy kike have a NO FUN ALLOWED policy just like (((Disney))). Sounds like you want to use MUH COPYRIGHT to stifle any competition.

[Anonymous No.6445628]

>>6445367
In 5 years, it will start making cartoons & animation. The Pandora box is already opened.

[Anonymous No.6445629]

>>6445624
>There's a difference between stealing someone's OCs & making fanart (parody) of it.
Not what I said, and doesn't matter
If you make fan art for free it's fair, if you do it for profit it's not. If you claim you invented it it's double nigger bad.

You'd only seethe this hard over that fact if you had ill intentions in the first place. It's common sense fan art for free use is legal. No one is going to seethe over someone playing basketball with a soccer ball for shits and giggles.

[Anonymous No.6445636]

>>6445624
>People make commissions off of fanart all the time.
That's , btw, not selling copyrighted art, you're being paid for your service, your drawing skills, not the image in question. The commissioner pays you to work for him for a piece, no different from Disney employees drawing illustrations of mickey for a promo of a show. Which you don't pay to see the image, because Disney doesn't sell images, they sell movies.

[Anonymous No.6445641]

>>6445593
Nothing should ever enter public domain. Just make new things you fucking uncreative shitheads!

[Anonymous No.6445642]

>>6445629
Companies can still take your shit down even if you make fanart for free

[Anonymous No.6445643]

>>6442929
None of that means anything if your definition of art is circular, which it has to be for AI shit to be art.

Deal with it

[Anonymous No.6445654]

>>6442745
Yeah, let's ban anime from westerners finally. Go back to drawing your shitty capeshit

[Anonymous No.6445655]

>>6443971
The first 2 are actual improvements.

[Anonymous No.6445656]

>>6443971
Photoshop was a mistake. Trad art has stagnated for 30 years due to it.

[Anonymous No.6445658]

>>6445642
No one cares if Disney does this, it's their right to care to do so because they had power over you, stupid brown skin

The internet already has more power over you as long as you have a big following they can cancel any poopjeet trying to steal your characters. It's all the same shit. Just stop trying to act special for making fan art by claiming it's all your work instead of crediting the original maker. It's not that damn difficult.

[Anonymous No.6445665]

>>6445658
Chill a bit? I wasn't even that anon

[Anonymous No.6445686]

>>6444788
You aren't white, I can tell, everyone can

[Anonymous No.6445927]

>>6445686
Survey says….. XXX

[Anonymous No.6445933]

>>6443857
>>6443830
This kid is a faggot

[Anonymous No.6445974]

>>6445636
>That's , btw, not selling copyrighted art, you're being paid for your compute power, your service capabilities, not the image in question. The customer pays you to work for him for a query, no different from Disney server farms rendering illustrations of mickey for a promo of a show. Which you don't pay to see the image, because Disney doesn't sell images, they sell movies.
?

[Anonymous No.6445978]

>>6445974
AI isn't a person, it has no rights to be paid to, idiot. You didn't make shit.

[Anonymous No.6446105]

>>6442745
>Should Style Be copyrighted?
No
Roger Dean already tried against James Cameron and lost.
You can't claim style for the same reason you cant claim a musical genre
>tl;dr Style needs to be copyrighted
You're retarded and worse naive if you think anyone has a unique enough "style" that AI will ever be able to train on it. And even if there was a case that someone is genius enough to pioneer a novel style in this day and age, the worth of that artist's work comes from the artist, not the work itself. You think anyone nowadays gives a shit about how good 'Tomato Soup' looks or do they drop millions because "it's a wArHol"?
This entire argument is built a false narrative that you're talking about art, when the ethos behind it all is trying to protect your work as a product.
Make you paranoid doom posts here >>>/biz/

[Anonymous No.6446372]

>>6442745
They're already working on image generators that produce original styles, so I don't see how this will prevent a collapse of the human art economy. And no one is banning AI outright. There are tens of trillions of dollars at stake.

[Anonymous No.6446484]

>>6442807
Second

[Anonymous No.6446909]

>>6446105
Its not the style that the issue, I've should've clarified, what basically I'm talking about is near or blatant flat out identity theft of an artist. The AI jeet blender is trained to the point that it basically "is" the artist. I mean it's almost like the cyberpunk sci-fi shit of download or copying the memories of person onto an engram and using that AI to make you art for free (which I'm sure the streetshitting techbros have no ethics on either and push the envelope as far as possible).

If some one using my "identity" to make art in my style that needs to be made illegal if it doesn't already breech the law to being with. If style has to be copyrighted to protect content creators than so be it, maybe make it a 20 year clause for style protection vs the 100 year current statute of limitations for copyright to make it fair.
Its not such a bad thing either we would have far less shit (even before AI) flooding the market and people would actually have to be creative.

[Anonymous No.6446957]

>>6446909
Cry about it

[Anonymous No.6446960]

>>6446909
>Thinking AI is identity theft.
What level of mental gymnastics is this.

[Anonymous No.6447878]

>>6442745
Copyright yourselves into the tomb artfags lol what a bunch of useful idiots

[Anonymous No.6448197]

>>6446960
>someone uses your style to generate atrocious content and pollutes your brand and reputation with it
seems pretty clear cut identity theft to me

[Anonymous No.6448561]

>>6446960
Just wait or AI video generation. You'll change your tune when videos of you are sent to your family of you doing things...
They'll never look at you the same way, even if they learn it is faked.

[Anonymous No.6449460]

>>6446909
>identity theft of an artist
nobody cared about humans doing it, and if you actually knew anything about art, stealing artistic identity is not only been the norm for the past hundred years, but a celebrated method.
How many art shitters online are using a "Anime" or "Cartoon" style that is blatantly not theirs and shape their entire life and work around it?
I would agree with you AI schizos that there would be an issue of corporations copyrighting AI generated works, but guess what, nearly none of you talentless hacks are making that case. It's something stupid like
>stealing art identity

[Anonymous No.6449713]

>>6442745
Do you own the copyright for those images, OP?