• BlueÆther@no.lastname.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      it’s worse than that, the article talks about img2img using AI. so these click farms are ripping real images and using that as the img2img prompt

        • BlueÆther@no.lastname.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          They are taking an artist work and reproducing it - changed slightly. If you did that to a Disney work (AI or not) would they consider it copyright or fair use?

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Disney considering it one way or the other doesn’t mean anything, legally speaking. It’s not so much about “used a reference” – you can take a movie still-frame and make an oil painting of it and it’ll be your work. It’s about that how the spammers use AI doesn’t have sufficient artistic intent, sweat of the brow, whatever your local standard is, to actually give you copyright over its output, as such it’s as if you had simply photocopied the thing. It certainly is possible to use AI in a way that gives you copyright over its output, even with img2img, but those people ain’t doing it. It’s also possible to photocopy that still-frame in a way that gives you copyright, e.g. if you collage and otherwise transform it in an artistic manner.

            • General_Effort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              11 months ago

              you can take a movie still-frame and make an oil painting of it and it’ll be your work.

              Maybe but not usually. This is making a derivative work. Derivative have their own copyright, but permission of the original owner is required to make them. In US terms, it might be fair use, if the painter wants to, say, make an artistic statement about consumer culture. EG Mickey Mouse has shown up in South Park episodes for the purpose of satire. That’s fine.

              OTOH, if there’s nothing deeper behind the painting, then it’s just unlicensed merch. EG, Disney has come down on day care centers for using their IP.

              Whether the OP describes infringement is doubtful to me. No one owns the right to make pictures of EG people next to wooden dogs. On its face, there is no infringement.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                Mickey Mouse and various other Disney stuff is trademarked which is a whole another can of worms.

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                OTOH, if there’s nothing deeper behind the painting, then it’s just unlicensed merch. EG, Disney has come down on day care centers for using their IP.

                I’m not sure if it affects your larger point, but I suspect the problem with day care centers is not that they’re copying a specific work, but that they’re using characters that Disney owns.

                • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  True, I chose a very bad example there and muddied the waters.

                  Normally, trademarks aren’t so bad, relatively speaking. As long as there’s no confusion about who is responsible for the product, and there’s no defamation, you should be able to use those pretty freely. When “trademark dilution” comes into play, it can get onerous, though.

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Dual copyright is a thing, if your work is not sufficiently transformative (for example if you retain enough substantial original features that it’s clearly recognizable) then it can be infringing if the original even if your changes is under your copyright.

          • rifugee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Depends on what you are using it for.

            “The general fair use definition is that fair use is any use of a work that is not done in an effort to profit from the copyrighted work.”

            Source

    • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      AI trained on plagiarized art created by real humans who were not compensated for work that AI companies are now making money on.

      Aka stealing

      • BlueÆther@no.lastname.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        it’s worse than that, the article talks about img2img using AI. so these click farms are ripping real images and using that as the img2img prompt

      • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        42
        ·
        11 months ago

        Its not plagarism. Its not stealing either. Its training. The only artists who complain about this dont care about making art and are only concerned about making money.

        • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          When a robot replaces your job (or perhaps your friends or family) and you/they lose their way of earning money will your argument remain the same?

          If AI/robots could give us the utopia from sci-fi books it’d be grand and I’d be inclined to agree with you. But they aren’t, no one is getting early retirement because a robot replaced them in a factory and artists aren’t getting residuals from the derivatives these “trainings” are creating. It’s theft, outright, and the thieves are trying to make money off these originals.