Quote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 18, 2024, 03:24:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).

It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.

It's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.

You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 18, 2024, 03:24:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).

It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.

It's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.

You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

Except that's not what it does, any more than if you made a new image based on the artistic style of Boris Vallejo, he couldn't sue you for that either.

But hey, I understand. The monks who worked in the scriptoriums tried to illegalize the printing press too. They failed, because the printing press was much more useful than the monks were.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 20, 2024, 05:34:42 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AMIt's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.

You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

Except that's not what it does, any more than if you made a new image based on the artistic style of Boris Vallejo, he couldn't sue you for that either.

But hey, I understand. The monks who worked in the scriptoriums tried to illegalize the printing press too. They failed, because the printing press was much more useful than the monks were.

The interior of someone's head has never been subject to copyright. However, it is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.

A non-computerized parallel would be if someone published a book called "How to Draw like Boris Vallejo" and included in it a bunch of traced, broken-down, and analyzed versions of Vallejo's works. Someone who learned from the book might create a painting that doesn't violate Vallejo's copyright, but the book itself does violate Vallejo's copyright.

I think copyright has been made over-broad and especially lasts insanely too long, but I still support the principle of patent and copyright to incentivize creation.

The idea that machine learning trained on something is copyright violation is spread by people who have no idea how either of those things work.

If they scream loudly enough, maybe their politicians will falsely extend it to machine generated things though- they'll still be wrong, but now they'll have government force on their side.

AI is so huge that there's no way any government will try to stop it.

Well wait, that's not quite true. Certainly many governments could be stupid enough to try to stop it. But that would quickly get swept away as they realized that banning AI would put them at such a huge technological disadvantage (like if someone had banned the horseless carriage). Any such law would either be repealed or ignored fairly quickly.

Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PMYou mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

You mean the countermeasures which don't actually work and creating media which isn't worth copying?

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.

Unless of course the resulting images are considered transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 20, 2024, 08:26:32 PMAI is so huge that there's no way any government will try to stop it.

Well wait, that's not quite true. Certainly many governments could be stupid enough to try to stop it. But that would quickly get swept away as they realized that banning AI would put them at such a huge technological disadvantage (like if someone had banned the horseless carriage). Any such law would either be repealed or ignored fairly quickly.

The European Union has entered the chat...

There's a reason the EU can't produce technological innovation nor compete with those who do.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on September 20, 2024, 08:47:10 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.

Unless of course the resulting images are considered transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.

Yes, if an AI is trained only on work that is wholly owned by the corporation doing the training, then there is no copyright issue. Similarly there is no issue if it is only trained on public domain works.

However, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.

If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.

I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.

https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on September 20, 2024, 08:47:10 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.

Unless of course the resulting images are considered transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.

Yes, if an AI is trained only on work that is wholly owned by the corporation doing the training, then there is no copyright issue. Similarly there is no issue if it is only trained on public domain works.

However, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.

If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.

I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.

https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists

Unless the AI can output an exact copy (without a direct input of the work) of an artist's creation you can't claim it's copyright violation.

Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.

Else using art in the public domain to train it is forgery.

Sadly the judges that will decide over this are ignorant about art and tech, so you ludites will probably help the megacorporations get what they want so us plebs won't be able to use the tool to compete with them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 21, 2024, 12:43:41 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PMHowever, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.

If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.

I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.

https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists

Unless the AI can output an exact copy (without a direct input of the work) of an artist's creation you can't claim it's copyright violation.

Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.

Imitating someone closely can absolutely be an copyright infringement if there is substantial similarity. i.e. If you paint the same subject in a similar style, it can be an infringement even if you change some details. A landmark case on this was Sid & Marty Krofft vs McDonald's, where they successfully sued over McDonald's imitation of their H.R. Puff n Stuff characters.



The McDonaldland characters are not exact copies, but they were still found to be copyright infringing.

A large fraction of copyright cases are not about 100% exact copies, but rather about imitating too closely.

Hah! How am I as Gen X not more messed up with HR Pufnstuf and McDonaldland friends as my childhood memories! Or maybe all those psychedelic nightmares helped me endure the horrors of life? Perhaps the children need the Willy Wonka boat ride of terror more than we think? Perhaps terrified children getting over their nightmares is crucial to a resilient and competent adulthood?

Eh, who am I kidding, it was probably all the drugs and no deeper than that!

Quote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 01:43:30 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 21, 2024, 12:43:41 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PMHowever, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.

If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.

I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.

https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists

Unless the AI can output an exact copy (without a direct input of the work) of an artist's creation you can't claim it's copyright violation.

Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.

Imitating someone closely can absolutely be an copyright infringement if there is substantial similarity. i.e. If you paint the same subject in a similar style, it can be an infringement even if you change some details. A landmark case on this was Sid & Marty Krofft vs McDonald's, where they successfully sued over McDonald's imitation of their H.R. Puff n Stuff characters.



The McDonaldland characters are not exact copies, but they were still found to be copyright infringing.

A large fraction of copyright cases are not about 100% exact copies, but rather about imitating too closely.

Doin a quick google, it's notable that McDonald's actively worked with Kroft in developing the characters and setting for their campaign.

QuoteEarly in 1970, the advertising agency Needham, Harper and Steers contacted Marty Krofft asking if the Kroffts would be willing to work with Needham on an advertising campaign for the McDonald's hamburger chain based on the H.R. Pufnstuf characters. Various telephone conversations followed to discuss the concept, and on 31 August 1970 Needham sent a letter saying it was going ahead, but soon after Needham telephoned to say the campaign had been cancelled. Needham had in fact won the contract for the campaign, hired former employees of the Kroffts to work on the sets and costumes, and hired the person who supplied the H.R. Pufnstuf voices to make the voices for several of the McDonaldland commercials, the first of which was broadcast in January 1971.[2]

...

The court also noted that Needham clearly had access to Pufnstuf, since their representatives had visited the Krofft's headquarters to discuss engineering and design work for the commercials even after they had been awarded the McDonald's contract and had decided not to use the Kroffts.

So this wasn't just a case of McDonalds copying HR Puffinstuff, but actively working with them until the contract was cancelled.

That makes way more sense now.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2024, 05:35:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 01:43:30 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 21, 2024, 12:43:41 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PMHowever, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.

If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.

I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.

https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists

Unless the AI can output an exact copy (without a direct input of the work) of an artist's creation you can't claim it's copyright violation.

Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.

Imitating someone closely can absolutely be an copyright infringement if there is substantial similarity. i.e. If you paint the same subject in a similar style, it can be an infringement even if you change some details. A landmark case on this was Sid & Marty Krofft vs McDonald's, where they successfully sued over McDonald's imitation of their H.R. Puff n Stuff characters.



The McDonaldland characters are not exact copies, but they were still found to be copyright infringing.

A large fraction of copyright cases are not about 100% exact copies, but rather about imitating too closely.

Doin a quick google, it's notable that McDonald's actively worked with Kroft in developing the characters and setting for their campaign.

QuoteEarly in 1970, the advertising agency Needham, Harper and Steers contacted Marty Krofft asking if the Kroffts would be willing to work with Needham on an advertising campaign for the McDonald's hamburger chain based on the H.R. Pufnstuf characters. Various telephone conversations followed to discuss the concept, and on 31 August 1970 Needham sent a letter saying it was going ahead, but soon after Needham telephoned to say the campaign had been cancelled. Needham had in fact won the contract for the campaign, hired former employees of the Kroffts to work on the sets and costumes, and hired the person who supplied the H.R. Pufnstuf voices to make the voices for several of the McDonaldland commercials, the first of which was broadcast in January 1971.[2]

...

The court also noted that Needham clearly had access to Pufnstuf, since their representatives had visited the Krofft's headquarters to discuss engineering and design work for the commercials even after they had been awarded the McDonald's contract and had decided not to use the Kroffts.

So this wasn't just a case of McDonalds copying HR Puffinstuff, but actively working with them until the contract was cancelled.

What, jhkim leaving out crucial details that might invalidate his example?  I'm shocked!

AI and copyright are really two different issues, anyway.  If copyright had been maintained at 28 years (14+14), I might be more sympathetic to arguments about copying "style."  But just about every part of copyright law has been manipulated by politicians bought by big media (*cough*DISNEY*cough*), and if we can't reduce the terms to something reasonable, then being very strict about what is considered infringement is the only rational way forward.  The idea that we would benefit not only from corporations locking away properties for two full lifetimes, in addition to restricting the ability of small entities to generate media without paying the toll to the media giants, is beyond ludicrous.  LLMs can be a great equalizer, which is why the media giants are both against them and investing heavily in them at the same time...

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2024, 05:35:28 PMDoin a quick google, it's notable that McDonald's actively worked with Kroft in developing the characters and setting for their campaign.

QuoteEarly in 1970, the advertising agency Needham, Harper and Steers contacted Marty Krofft asking if the Kroffts would be willing to work with Needham on an advertising campaign for the McDonald's hamburger chain based on the H.R. Pufnstuf characters. Various telephone conversations followed to discuss the concept, and on 31 August 1970 Needham sent a letter saying it was going ahead, but soon after Needham telephoned to say the campaign had been cancelled. Needham had in fact won the contract for the campaign, hired former employees of the Kroffts to work on the sets and costumes, and hired the person who supplied the H.R. Pufnstuf voices to make the voices for several of the McDonaldland commercials, the first of which was broadcast in January 1971.[2]
...
The court also noted that Needham clearly had access to Pufnstuf, since their representatives had visited the Krofft's headquarters to discuss engineering and design work for the commercials even after they had been awarded the McDonald's contract and had decided not to use the Kroffts.

So this wasn't just a case of McDonalds copying HR Puffinstuff, but actively working with them until the contract was cancelled.

That is true - but the ruling was about copyright infringement, not contract dispute. The reply implies that if only McDonald's had ripped off the Krofts without even trying to pay them, then they'd have been safe from lawsuit. That is not my understanding of the case. Though note that the infringement wasn't about just the sample images above - it was about the broader content of the live-action ad campaign. Still, the point is that just changing details wasn't enough to negate substantial similarity.

The reason that it was a famous landmark case is because it told corporations that they couldn't just closely imitate artists without paying them.


If you want a case of imitation without prior contract, there's the 1976 lawsuit over George Harrison's first solo single, "My Sweet Lord". It was sued for similarity to The Chiffon's "He's So Fine". In that case, even though it was widely agreed that he didn't consciously copy the song and had no contact with the Chiffons, it was an infringement because he subconsciously copied out music.

I'm sure a copyright lawyer could think of more relevant cases, but the point is that the standard is "substantial similarity" -- and non-exact copies can still be sued as infringement.