|
pixaal posted:Oh I'm not calling them slam dunks I'm saying they'd have at least some chance of not being laughed out of the court. Both of your examples are public domain though? They would not even be laughed out of court, they would not even be enter to go near one if they based their claims on that Not a lawyer, feel free to correct me.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:"AI steals real artists' work!" The creator of Axiom Verge is gonna be FURIOUS!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
mcbexx posted:Both of your examples are public domain though? They would not even be laughed out of court, they would not even be enter to go near one if they based their claims on that Well true it doesn't help their case that it's stealing current works but it provides an example of it actually reproducing the training data is what I'm trying to get at. It's still probably a losing case but there's a chance a jury would side with that. This I can't see anyone siding with. e: I guess why push out this mess when there's more solid arguments inches away. They are still mostly liquid but maybe you could, with some investigation, get some living artists works to be reproduced easily. I'm just confused at how half assed the other side is. pixaal fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufQmmEx1rbs the idea of having an insult bot is pretty legit. it just listens to you talking and talks poo poo back at you all day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
The most well-known example of overfit currently covered by copyright is probably the "Afghan Girl" photograph which could be reproduced very accurately in MJ v4 with just those words (which promptly got added to the word filter banlist) Overfit is definitely a thing, it's just not going to be a thing unless something is so well-known it's in the dataset literally hundreds of times over, which describes very few recent pieces The bigger problem Midjourney has is their anime model which dispenses random unprompted gacha characters and has trouble not coughing up Link fan-art when you prompt something like "blonde boy" Elotana fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jan 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
I saw this advertisement on finviz today. I'm just glad the demon's from Devil's Advocate are getting work these days
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
           Done without referencing any artist names or existing media/genres, I got a consistent style just through my description of the aesthetic  Used my own sketches for image prompts on a few of them but most were pure text prompt.I'm not going to give the exact thing away but it all started with trying to generate ASCII art in midjourney and realizing that it was bad at that, but that the results were cool and worth exploring further. To go in tandem with these from the last post on the last page: deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jan 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
Megazver posted:The other two installers just install their own environments by default, instead of being a piece of poo poo like Auto1111. Have you actually tried the other two? Thanks for the suggestion. I hadn't actually tried running the installer; I just wanted to set up PyTorch on my own before I realized that PT doesn't yet support CUDA 12.0. I don't really want to mess around with my drivers since I'm using my GPU for other things as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:For the former, da Vinci died five centuries ago, and the latter, dude died 133 years ago; how could any jury find legal wrongdoing there? "Style" is not and has never been copyrightable the problem isn't "style", it's that the AI actually is overfitted on poo poo like starry night, mona lisa, vermeer's girl with the pearl earring etc, because they show up so many separate times in the training set here's an image i just generated with just the prompt "mona lisa" and nothing else: sd 1.5:  real:  if you prompt for poo poo like that you will get images that are close enough copies that a judge would actually hit them for copyright violation, if those works were still copyrighted. not just in a internal-workings mumbo-jumbo way but a "show a judge these two jpegs with no context or explanation of how it was made and they will say 'yup that's a violation' " way. and it actually happens for some well-known still-copyrighted works too! midjourney had to blacklist the keyword "afghan girl" because it was producing very close copies of the famous photograph (which is still under copyright) mj:  real:  Although the AI does not store copies of everything in its dataset, it is possible to get overfitted, copyright-violating imitations of specific images when they are overemphasized relative to other data in the training process. It's also possible to overfit when making a fine-tuned model and end up with it producing copies of the fine-tune training data. Personally I would argue that the images themselves should be hit for the copyright violation and not the model that generated them, but there is definitely a lot of room for various legal interpretations/arguments in court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:Although the AI does not store copies of everything in its dataset, it is possible to get overfitted, copyright-violating imitations of specific images when they are overemphasized relative to other data in the training process. It's also possible to overfit when making a fine-tuned model and end up with it producing copies of the fine-tune training data.  While those Afghan Girl generated images look incredibly similar, they are not copyright infringing because they do not contain any parts of the original image. As a human being, (assuming I had the talent) if I painted a wholly convincing duplicate of that picture, it wouldn't be copyright infringing unless I tried to sell it, or pass myself off as the copyright holder. I'm sure MJ and other AI companies blacklist those simply to avoid controversy and having to defend themselves. In a different vein, this is the best description of the argument I was trying to make. quote:AI art tools increase efficiency, yes. Contrary to myth, they rarely produce professional-quality outputs in one step, but combined into a workflow with a human artist they yield professional results in much less time than manual work. But that does not inherently mean a corresponding decrease in the size of the market, because as prices to complete projects drop due to the decreased time required, more people will pay for projects that they otherwise could not have afforded. Custom graphics for a car or building. An indie video game. A mural for one's living room. All across the market, new sectors will be priced into the market that were previously priced out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
That view of copyright is completely wrong. If you print out a piece of art and trace over it on paper (or even just put it up on display and copy it freehand) that's still a copyright violation even though you have none of the original pixels left around. Copyright in the US is output-based not process-based. It doesn't matter how you made the image, it only matters whether the resulting work is "substantially similar". Copyright also does not care about whether you use it commercially or pass yourself off as the copyright holder. You're confusing it for fair use, which is a very different thing. It's the difference between "no this is not a copy" vs "yes i admit this is a copy but it falls under certain legal exceptions". And in any case being noncommercial isn't enough to qualify for fair use on its own, for example getting a huge projector and setting up your own pirated movie night in the park would be a violation even if attendance is free. RPATDO_LAMD fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Technically, every time you view a copyrighted image on the internet you're committing a copyright violation, since your computer had to specifically download and load a copy of the image file in question to view it. It's just no one seriously tries to go after that, because actually enforcing that as a violation would completely break the way the Internet currently works as a medium for sharing and displaying images that nobody really wants to deal with the hassle of. In practice, it's publicly using a copy of a copyrighted work that gets hit with the legal stick. It's difference between the RIAA going after individual torrent users vs the uploaders themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:"AI steals real artists' work!" I'd love to hear as much about your prompts as you're willing to share.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
I've been attempting a thing where I made up some descriptive genre-ish/emotive phrases and I've been trying to "train" them myself through rating the images MJ generates with them - my thought being that if no one else is using them (because they're made up words) then I'm the only one rating images generated with those phrases in the prompts. In theory, that gives me control over how those words are interpreted. I'm not sure it works like I think it does and it could be confirmation bias, but it seems to be having an effect, and that's why I don't want to share the exact prompts. But a starter phrase for that style: "Vivid ASCII art made from glyphics" Essentially just ask for ASCII art made out of something other than letters. Throw in some descriptive adjectives and stuff, experiment with whether that description comes before or after the rest of the prompt, it all changes things in some weird ways. After poking at that prompt all day: It's very, very cool, but just straight up asking for ASCII art isn't much different stylistically. Specifying 'glyphics' and throwing in some adjectives does seem to affect the content though. I've been able to steer it toward stuff like this, which is neat:  
deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jan 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:I've been attempting a thing where I made up some descriptive genre-ish/emotive phrases and I've been trying to "train" them myself through rating the images MJ generates with them - my thought being that if no one else is using them (because they're made up words) then I'm the only one rating images generated with those phrases in the prompts. In theory, that gives me control over how those words are interpreted. I'm not sure it works like I think it does and it could be confirmation bias, but it seems to be having an effect, and that's why I don't want to share the exact prompts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:"AI steals real artists' work!" Am I the only one finding it ironic that many "real artists" who - sometimes exclusively - publish fanart of widely popular intellectual properties (admittedly pretty great art, from an artisinal standpoint, don't get me wrong), are the most vocal about "AI being theft"? I would wager that within a year, the majority of (digital) artists will be using AI to create concepts/assets they will manually refine , without batting an eye or even remembering that they huffed and puffed about it today. This one caught my eye and gave me a good chuckle. "Beep boop, no humans are involved in AI generated art, just us computers, beep boop!" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
I dunno man. People like to draw on computers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Somebody who’s not me should use an art AI to make an anti-AI art poster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
Nigmaetcetera posted:Somebody who’s not me should use an art AI to make an anti-AI art poster. Someone made an entire model that just generated variations of that anti AI image form
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
Nigmaetcetera posted:Somebody who’s not me should use an art AI to make an anti-AI art poster. The irony is, because the datasets are from pre-2020, you'd have to img2img or dreambooth it to get best results. e: f,b yeah that
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Someone made an entire model that just generated variations of that anti AI image form That’s cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
All art is theft if you think like a capitalist pig
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
RIP Rutibex, ya made cool art
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
mcbexx posted:Am I the only one finding it ironic that many "real artists" who - sometimes exclusively - publish fanart of widely popular intellectual properties (admittedly pretty great art, from an artisinal standpoint, don't get me wrong), are the most vocal about "AI being theft"? I don't think that will be the case. I think the most effected artists will be commission artists. There will still be a lot of people who want high quality bespoke art, but I think some people will be happy to use AI to generate their D&D characters or their fetish art. Also the AI can be really good at generating certain types of fanart even with very simple prompts. I can also see the number of concept artists needed shrinking down (they can't be replaced, but AI is capable of handling some of the grunt work).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
easy 3d modelling tools has resulted in a lot of super uninspired low-effort concept art, it's especially obvious with long series like star wars - if you look at the concept work for the mandalorian, some of it is good, and some of it is just incredibly phoned-in 3d work, but almost all the pre-cg star wars concept art is fantastic
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
hydroceramics posted:Fascinating. I never would have thought of that approach. Do you pay for private results? Everything is public by default so somebody could glom on to what you're doing even if statistically you're likely to be lost in the flood. Yeah, I started paying for the Pro sub or whatever last month when I started this. A lot of the words are from or related to a fictional setting I've been working into a videogame (with both human art characters and AI-art backgrounds) for a while so the very hopeful and optimistic thought is that when/if that eventually releases, people would be able to generate images of things/concepts from the game in Midjourney because I use MJ as my concept artist, sort of like this: mcbexx posted:I would wager that within a year, the majority of (digital) artists will be using AI to create concepts/assets they will manually refine , without batting an eye or even remembering that they huffed and puffed about it today.  -> 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:Yeah, I started paying for the Pro sub or whatever last month when I started this. A lot of the words are from or related to a fictional setting I've been working into a videogame (with both human art characters and AI-art backgrounds) for a while so the very hopeful and optimistic thought is that when/if that eventually releases, people would be able to generate images of things/concepts from the game in Midjourney because I use MJ as my concept artist, sort of like this: Got some really interesting returns with your recommendations:    Adding in some of my own stuff kind of lost that pixel-ish style but still had some interesting effects: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
this is awesome
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
If you haven't seen the leper's colony recently: thread poster Rutibex chose today to construct and die on a hill in a very funny way. RIP Rutibex, thought of ants and died.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Those are rad, it's such a cool style IMO When it loses the pixely style you can just image prompt it with "Vibrant ASCII Art made of Ancient Symbols."  Then if it's still not quite how you want it, do the same thing again using that version as the image.  These were done with no text in the prompt except "Vibrant ASCII Art made of Ancient Symbols." You can add in a description of the image to keep the content closer to the original but in my experience the more "stuff" in the prompt beyond the style, the more times you might need to do this to reiterate the style. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Good looking stuff 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Objective Action posted:If you haven't seen the leper's colony recently: thread poster Rutibex chose today to construct and die on a hill in a very funny way. I’m glad, they were a Putin supporter. Also I bought one of their books on drivethrurpg, not knowing they were a Putin supporter of course, and it was just a bunch of random tables, not a drop of originally crafted lore. I get why they sympathized with AI art programs, they procedurally generated all their “creative” works. Nigmaetcetera fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jan 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
Lol Dude self perma'd defending robot rights and negging the autistic. All those posts lost like tears in rain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
quote:User requested. Doesn't want to post on a forum that doesn't recognize chat robots should have human rights. he got a case of the google engineer brains, very tragic 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:That view of copyright is completely wrong. If you print out a piece of art and trace over it on paper (or even just put it up on display and copy it freehand) that's still a copyright violation even though you have none of the original pixels left around. exactly. Basically, if you make a shrek, it doesn't matter how you made a shrek, you made a shrek and shrek is copyrighted - mspaint has no clue what a 'shrek' is, but if you scribble a shrek it's still shrek
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
someone dying on a hill while kissing a computer on the lips
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
Sourdough Sam posted:Lol Dude self perma'd defending robot rights and negging the autistic. All those posts lost like tears in rain. What they were making GBS threads on my people? gently caress ‘em even worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
Nigmaetcetera posted:What they were making GBS threads on my people? gently caress ‘em even worse. in essence they claimed GPT3 is a higher functioning human mind than an autistic person major yikesarola, good riddance
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
This will be much more interesting than that silly class action, but I still don't think they have a real case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Tunicate posted:exactly. Basically, if you make a shrek, it doesn't matter how you made a shrek, you made a shrek and shrek is copyrighted - mspaint has no clue what a 'shrek' is, but if you scribble a shrek it's still shrek No, specific images of Shrek are copyrighted, Shrek itself is trademarked. If you scribble your own Shrek, you do own the copyright to that image. You might get in trouble with trademark lawyers, but the copyright is yours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:27
|
|
