Artists fight AI programs that copy their styles

It's a dangerous race that no one can predict or control': Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and 1,000 other tech leaders call for a pause on AI development which poses a 'profound risk to society and humanity.

   Musk and 1,000 others signed the letter on The Future of Life Institute's site. They say the current race to develop AI is dangerous and unpredictable. Musk and the industry are calling for a six-month pause in development

RKL

the article is about independent artists, not employees of a company who create their original artworks and styles which are being used by AI to create images the original artists do not benefit from leading to a court case filed. The copyrights of those original works belong to the artists who created them, and not the owners of the AI software.

Employees of a company who create works or products during their work time have no ownership of those. Those are not part of the article.

Freelance artists retain the copyrights of their works. Under U.S. copyright law, when you work as a freelancer (or “independent contractor”), you are the “author” and copyright owner of your work, even though your client is paying you to do it.

Just last month, the US Copyright Office has declared that images created using AI-powered image generators would not be granted copyright protection, as copyright can only be granted as a product of human authorship

So AI-generated images would have no protection from anyone to use

Not for works for hire.

I already stated that in a previous comment.

> wallaceToday  06:05 pm JST

Copyright remains the property of the artist or artists as in the case of a band and others.

Not for works for hire.

Copyright remains the property of the artist or artists as in the case of a band and others. Many artists work for Disney but they do not know the copyright of their work, Disney does.

Work created by an independent artist remains their copyright unless they sell it or transfer it. Those are the artists the article is about.

Another problem are are the NFT, which anyone can create, even from someone else's work, and once created belong solely to them and not the owner of the work.

wallaceToday  05:14 pm JST

you agreed with Yarral, which the TOS proved you both were incorrect.

No, because there can be joint owners, among other things and also your statement below is wrong--own it:

wallaceMar. 28  06:01 pm JST

Copyright remains that of the artist.

The reply was to Yarral who stated JT owns all the posts here which it does not as I pointed out with the TOS.

The article is about AI using the work of living artists on the internet to create new works. If it is a direct copy then that is a copyright violation in many countries. Different countries have different copyright laws.

If the AI copies a “style”, or anyone else, say such as Impressionism then that probably is not a copyright violation.

There are many artworks without copyright because the artist is deceased. Such as de Vinci and the famous Mona Lisa. Anyone can copy the Mona Lisa but it would be criminal to say it was by de Vinci. The photograph of the Mona Lisa is copyright to the photographer or owner of the photo. Copying or using someone’s photo of the Mona Lisa would be a copyright violation.

RKL

you agreed with Yarral, which the TOS proved you both were incorrect.

wallaceMar. 28  10:30 pm JST

JT does not own our posts, they own an agreed use 

you should read the TOS before you use any site.

I did. Nothing saying the copyright remains with the artist.

wallaceToday  06:01 pm JST

Copyright remains that of the artist.

Yes it is. Every artist worth his/her salt has a particular style and should be given full credit for that. After all, you see these artist kits for children with Bob Ross's picture on the box. While a child may or may not be able to paint those 'happy little clouds' as well as he did, it does inspire and he endorsed it.

These AI programs don't necessarily make their user an artist but the originators who've done it all before must be acknowledged and credited. Besides, who really likes rip-offs of anything anyway? Oh I forget - the consumer public loves the same old tired recycled/rehashed franchises in entertainment, don't they?

5th generation films, 5th generation TV shows, 5th generation music, 5th generation trends, oh hell.

YrralToday  10:07 pm JST

Wallace, anything you write here,JT own it

Excellent point.

Great one. No comeback for that.

Wallace, anything you write here,JT own it

Lots of jobs are going to disappear with AI.

Not necessarily.

Copyright remains that of the artist.

If a human copied the style it's not a problem.

It is. If you use an Ocarina to score a western movie, you'll be accused of ripping off Ennio Morricone.

it should just be an obligation to somehow label those AI calculation results so that they can be identified as being different from creative artwork produced by humans.

"ArtStation now requires CreatedWithAI tagging on all content distributed through the ArtStation Marketplace that was created using generative AI programs, as per our Terms of Service."

AI is also art, but only the art of programming computers. But the results of AI aren’t art, of course not. So-called AI art is only a computational result of sophisticated mathematical calculations, mostly matrices multiplication. Like many products have to be labeled and the ingredients are printed on the packages, it should just be an obligation to somehow label those AI calculation results so that they can be identified as being different from creative artwork produced by humans.

If a human copied the style it's not a problem. The real issue is both speed and the commercial success from the art buying consumer. Nobody likes jealousy but envy is a whole other story. Embrace the tool and grow your craft...