People using prompts are not “making” art. They are hallucinating theft from actual artists. There never was any skill or materials gate. Pen or pencil and a scrap of paper, pick it up and start. There is no defense for AI “art” or the shills that push it.
If you use summary tools on google to make you a list or a paragraph you’re ripping off actual writers and stealing their collective style. (Language models don’t just come from nowhere after all) Spell check is ok, but if you write like you’re borderline illiterate, well, pick up a grammar book and a notepad and get cracking. Hire a professional editor to plan your next set of PowerPoint slides.
There is nothing new under the sun, even artists who draw their own stuff learn from other artists and use it in their art. AI training isn’t theft as long as the art is free to look at, that is just sour grapes. Torrenting anything and using it either as inspiration for your own work, or for training AI is theft and shouldn’t be done by anybody, but especially not corporations. Either way, it isn’t the training that is theft.
Disney has assembled a very good case against one generative AI company, showing that the stuff “learned” from shared art is essentially infringing on copyright and failing to assemble its own ideas. They asked it for “A man in a metal suit” and it would consistently give them Iron Man, down to the fine details.
We’ve moved away from the simple Copy and Paste tools in image editors, but I would say not nearly far enough for technology to evade the principles of trademark and copyright infringements. The “model” is in many ways just a database of other people’s stolen artwork, ready to be rearranged.
Even so, if you commission a picture of Iron Man or if you generate a picture of Iron Man… both are going to be covered under trademark without any need to differentiate the two.
People using prompts are not “making” art. They are hallucinating theft from actual artists. There never was any skill or materials gate. Pen or pencil and a scrap of paper, pick it up and start. There is no defense for AI “art” or the shills that push it.
If you use summary tools on google to make you a list or a paragraph you’re ripping off actual writers and stealing their collective style. (Language models don’t just come from nowhere after all) Spell check is ok, but if you write like you’re borderline illiterate, well, pick up a grammar book and a notepad and get cracking. Hire a professional editor to plan your next set of PowerPoint slides.
Sheesh.
There is nothing new under the sun, even artists who draw their own stuff learn from other artists and use it in their art. AI training isn’t theft as long as the art is free to look at, that is just sour grapes. Torrenting anything and using it either as inspiration for your own work, or for training AI is theft and shouldn’t be done by anybody, but especially not corporations. Either way, it isn’t the training that is theft.
Disney has assembled a very good case against one generative AI company, showing that the stuff “learned” from shared art is essentially infringing on copyright and failing to assemble its own ideas. They asked it for “A man in a metal suit” and it would consistently give them Iron Man, down to the fine details.
We’ve moved away from the simple Copy and Paste tools in image editors, but I would say not nearly far enough for technology to evade the principles of trademark and copyright infringements. The “model” is in many ways just a database of other people’s stolen artwork, ready to be rearranged.
Even so, if you commission a picture of Iron Man or if you generate a picture of Iron Man… both are going to be covered under trademark without any need to differentiate the two.