this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
220 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37602 readers
435 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] trashhalo@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

Re: Stolen. Not stolen comments Copyright law as interpreted judges is still being worked out on AI. Stay tuned if it's defined as stolen or not. But even if the courts decide existing copyright law would define training on artists work as legitimate use. The law can change and it still could swing the way of the artist if congress got involved.


My personal opinion, which may not reflect what happens legally is I hope we all get more control over our data and how it's used and sold. Wether that's my personal data like my comments, location or my artistic data like my paintings. I think that would be a better world

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Copyright law as interpreted judges is still being worked out on AI. Stay tuned if it’s defined as stolen or not.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. Copyright and theft are not the same thing. They are unrelated to each other. When you violate copyright you are not "stealing" anything. This art is not "stolen", full stop.

[–] trashhalo@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Is copyright infringement theft" is something that had been debated for as long as mp3s were a thing. This is an old argument with lots of material on both sides scattered across the web. I clearly fall on the side of copyright infringement is theft and theft is stealing.

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There's absolutely no debate, legal or otherwise.

Theft, by definition, requires you to deprive someone of something. That simply cannot happen when you copy stuff. That's why it's called copyright infringement and not theft.

You can only steal art by physically stealing an art piece - then and only then it's theft.

[–] trashhalo@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

😀 just want to note theres a call out to this debate in the Wikipedia page on copyright infringement. I promise I didn't add that paragraph there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

[–] whelmer@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What do you mean there is no debate? You're debating it right now.

Plenty of artists view it as theft when people take their work and use it for their own ends without their permission. Not everyone, sure. But it's a bit odd to state so emphatically that there is no debate.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)