Silent extinction rule
Silent extinction rule
You are allowed to use copyrighted content for training. I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF if you haven’t already. The EFF is a digital rights group who most recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
Also remember that AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. We can already train open source models, we shouldn’t put up barriers that only benefit the ultra-wealthy. If we weaken fair use, we hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep up. Mega corporations already own datasets, and have the money to buy more. And that’s before they make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off and with fewer rights than where they started.
Artists are understandably concerned about the possibility that automatic image generators like Stable Diffusion will undercut the market for their work. We live in a society that does not support people who are automated out of a job, and being a visual artist is an already precarious career.In...
I disagree with that article 100%. They’re missing the spirit of copyright law which is to protect artists that create original work. They already try to protect musicians and do this in music with sampling. But instead of one artist stealing parts of your song or the spirit of the song, they’re coming after visual art from every angle because it’s a computer and like 10,000 people doing that. We should be able to copyright our work and have to agree for it to be used, the end. It’s ridiculous and greedy of these huge companies to do anything else.
Also, how fucked up is it that they liken it to the little guy competing with big companies, that’s not a thing. If they used public domain art, I don’t think any of this would be an issue. Do we own our own voice, imagination, likeness? I say yeah, we do. The corporations shouldn’t have the rights to those.
I disagree with that article 100%. They’re missing the spirit of copyright law which is to protect artists that create original work. They already try to protect musicians and do this in music with sampling. But instead of one artist stealing parts of your song or the spirit of the song, they’re coming after visual art from every angle because it’s a computer and like 10,000 people doing that. We should be able to copyright our work and have to agree for it to be used, the end. It’s ridiculous and greedy of these huge companies to do anything else.
To quote the article:
Just to be clear, I don’t give a shit about corporations, but what you want will hurt all artists and give corporations the unprecedented legal tools to take down anything they don’t feel like having around.
What part are you referencing here:
Also, how fucked up is it that they liken it to the little guy competing with big companies, that’s not a thing. If they used public domain art, I don’t think any of this would be an issue. Do we own our own voice, imagination, likeness? I say yeah, we do. The corporations shouldn’t have the rights to those.
I’m not really sure what this is about.
Artists are understandably concerned about the possibility that automatic image generators like Stable Diffusion will undercut the market for their work. We live in a society that does not support people who are automated out of a job, and being a visual artist is an already precarious career.In...
The article is only going by technicalities in the law, we need to close that loophole and go with the spirit of the law. We need to protect the human artist’s imagination and creations.
I’m not really sure what this is about.
Is this:
but what you want will hurt all artists and give corporations the unprecedented legal tools to take down anything they don’t feel like having around.
We can’t play by the existing rules, why would we want to? We need to make new rules. The actors union knew where this was going and created new rules for their actors and the visual arts need to do the same.
I guess I want free art. There is nothing wrong with wanting a tool to help people better communicate, inspire, create, and connect with each other in ways they may not have been able to before.
We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants. We learn from each other, and humanity is at its best when we can all share in our advancements. Calling this stealing is self-serving, manipulative rhetoric that unjustly vilifies people and misrepresents the reality of how these models work.
It took us 100,000 years to get from cave drawings to Leonard Da Vinci. This is just another step, like artists who used Camera Obscura in the past. It’s important to remember that early man was as smart as we are, they just lacked the interconnectivity that we have.
Calling this stealing is self-serving, manipulative rhetoric that unjustly vilifies people and misrepresents the reality of how these models work.
So whatever you do for a living, give it to me free. We all stand on the shoulders of giants after all. Management? You have to manage for free, we learned that shit from our ancestors. Research, come on, I want it alllllll. Medical, heal me for free with the equipment that was based on older versions. Music? There aren’t that many chords to begin with, you didn’t create a note. Electrician? Work for free, you didn’t invent electricity or how to connect to the grid. Etc., etc., etc., etc.,. etc., etc., etc.,…