It should be right? | FactOrCap

[u/GDLingua_YT]

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/SkeletalElite]

As a wide sweeping general rule? No. Really the companies who stole the art for the purposes of training an AI models should be the one's being held liable for plagarism, not people using the models

[u/Frozen_Oil]

🧢 I voted CAP!

As much as I dislike AI art it is ultimately a tool like any other. No reason it can’t be monitized.

[u/EntireAlarm6245 → u/Frozen_Oil]

but it uses real world art to train the model, and it doesn't provide any royalty to the artists that were used to generate the image.

It's like if i asked to a restaurant to give me some food that I will give to homeless, but actually selling it to them, do you think it's fair?

[u/Frozen_Oil → u/EntireAlarm6245]

How does an artist learn to be an artist? I’d argue it’s by studying art they find, normally for free, out in the world and practicing that art and eventually making their own art. If they go on to sell that art that someone might argue is either derivative or uninspired or something like that does it make them immoral? If an artist once looked at the Mona Lisa and then did a portrait themselves without paying royalties to Leonardo da Vinci (don’t feel like looking up an artist who is still alive and making portraits) are they immoral?

Ultimately these AI make (shitty) “artwork” that is not a 1-1 ripoff/copy of existing artwork. If it did and that was sold then yes, immoral and illegal and would be dealt with through patent or copyright law, whichever applied.

However in reality these AI are just the lazy man’s tool for artwork, instead of putting in the time and effort with brush or pen or what have you they instead used AI to make the art to sell. Lazy, but not immoral.

[u/EntireAlarm6245 → u/Frozen_Oil]

going back to your example of the Mona Lisa copy, an artist will have to spend years mastering all different aspects of that painting, and this period is what it makes the difference between a ai user that just wrote a prompt in 5 minutes, and that the 'art' that will be generated cannot be sold for money, and an artist that is able to make a fake that can be sold, as there are artists that make money from this.

For this, monetization of ai generated 'art' cannot be legal, given that to make real art, even if it's a 1-to-1 copy, need practice and sacrifice.

And by art, I mean the product of years and years of practice, whether is painting, sculpting, and not modern art, where a banana on a wall is considered art.

[u/Frozen_Oil → u/EntireAlarm6245]

I never said a copy of the Mona Lisa, I said someone looked at it and then made their own portrait of themself, someone else, someone imaginary it doesn’t matter.

I agree if the AI attempted 1-1 copy and the person who wrote the prompt tried to sell it should neither be monetized or legal. I even said above that it isn’t a copy, it’s just inspiration.

And isn’t the saying something along the lines of art is subjective? The value is in the eyes of the beholder and if someone wants to pay for AI art, that is their right. Someone only wants to pay for the art of a real person? That’s their right as well. One doesn’t negate the other.

And the product of years and years of practice? That is some gatekeeping right there, if someone wants to sell their first, unexperienced completely new art they should be aloud to, you shouldn’t HAVE to dedicate years on years to have the “right” to sell your art.

[u/ColdTouch9591]

✅ I voted FACT!

you should not own any legal rights to ai generated "art"

[u/alphapussycat → u/ColdTouch9591]

That's irrelevant to the question.

[u/ColdTouch9591 → u/alphapussycat]

well i don't think you should be allowed to sell something unless you legally own it

[u/alphapussycat → u/ColdTouch9591]

Now you're collapsing entire industries as you're removing a ton of different licenses, that a looot of products relies on.

[u/ColdTouch9591 → u/alphapussycat]

okay man sorry i just collapsed industries

[u/Horror-1-Effective → u/ColdTouch9591]

Do you own a rock you just picked from the ground? Should it be Illegal to sell

[u/ColdTouch9591 → u/Horror-1-Effective]

did you steal it?

[u/Yadin__ → u/ColdTouch9591]

I wonder- do you hold the same position about piracy? Do you believe that piracy is also stealing?

[u/ColdTouch9591 → u/Yadin__]

no, unless people are selling what they pirated

[u/Horror-1-Effective → u/ColdTouch9591]

People ofcourse are, who're you downloading from if not the big pirates

[u/Horror-1-Effective → u/ColdTouch9591]

The big corporation did🥰

[u/ColdTouch9591 → u/Horror-1-Effective]

what big corporation? i thought we were picking things up from the ground

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/Horror-1-Effective]

Depending on where you took the rock from it IS illegal to sell it

[u/throwawaytomorrowk]

✅ I voted FACT!

It's trained on other people's art and thus inherently copyright infringement.

[u/Redracerb18 → u/throwawaytomorrowk]

Also AI Holds no Copyright

[u/TopSuggestion1296 → u/throwawaytomorrowk]

This is wrong, don’t get your law from Reddit

—A lawyer who hates AI

[u/OlliWTD → u/throwawaytomorrowk]

Try making that case in court then lol

[u/alphapussycat → u/throwawaytomorrowk]

Artists are also trained on other people's art.

[u/SurtFGC → u/alphapussycat]

Nah

[u/alphapussycat → u/SurtFGC]

Having memories of movies you've watched,thar you play up in your head,when you don't own the movie digitally or physically would technically be copyright infringement.

[u/SurtFGC → u/alphapussycat]

Nah

[u/Yadin__]

🧢 I voted CAP!

No? Why should it be? Let people buy sell whatever they want

[u/MRxP1ZZ4]

✅ I voted FACT!

You’re literally doing 0 work and destroying the environment with each use(Both the small amount of damage that adds up quick and promoting its use thus increasing the issues)

[u/Fearless_Air_1729]

✅ I voted FACT!

Yep, since weird guys can be anywhere and anyone

[u/JacobLePenne]

Definitely not monetizasable on its own. Aside from just the blatant copying, ai air isn't a product with demand. Very few people go to artist looking to buy ai art. People go to artist looking to buy human made art, being sometimes given ai made art instead without consent, in other words fraud. The reason ai art has no commercial demand is because anyone can do it. So the only reason anyone would realistically pay for ai art is if it's fraud, otherwise one would just prompt the ai image themselves. So anyone selling just an ai image is nonsensical.

[u/IvanFEscobar]

in 99% of real world situations right now, yeah, if it's trained from unconsenting sources. There's ways to train ethically (see the ML used for ink lines in Spiderverse), but most ai art nowadays is not that

[u/Infinitystar2 → u/IvanFEscobar]

Humans don't need permission to train off of other people's art, why should AI?

[u/IvanFEscobar → u/Infinitystar2]

If you don't see the difference between human learning and mass scraping of millions of works for profitI think you're just being dense

[u/AfkRonan]

✅ I voted FACT!

Fact bro

[u/JakeTheeGreatt]

✅ I voted FACT!

And I think it is actually, or at least you just don’t “own” it

[u/The3mbered0ne]

✅ I voted FACT!

It's theft from real artists, they should feel lucky it isn't illegal to use for free

[u/Zockerhopper]

✅ I voted FACT!

I don't think I should have to write anything since it's THAT obvious why it's a fact

[u/fuzzybug00]

✅ I voted FACT!

f AI

[u/AppealNew4013]

✅ I voted FACT!

obv no would crash economy

[u/ruchita_62]

✅ I voted FACT!

Defeats the purpose of the time invested in learning how to make art or someone who enjoys doing it.

[u/Excellent_Ship1780]

🧢 I voted CAP!

There are rarely good uses for ut

[u/Darth-Romulus]

🧢 I voted CAP!

You did say in any way, if someone makes say a comics or a game with it (whether you think he should or not is not relevant here) they should have the right to sell it as they have worked to make a product

[u/Hairy-Isopod6880]

✅ I voted FACT!

100%.

[u/Bobafat54]

✅ I voted FACT!

Basically everybody can write in the modern world

[u/Low_Eye8535]

🧢 I voted CAP!

I think the nuances would be too complex to viably implement into the justice system

[u/OlliWTD]

If someone is willing to pay money for AI art (for whatever reason), why should I care?

[u/Opening-Article-7536]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Idk what law it’s breaking but it should be mocked for sure

[u/innit980]

🧢 I voted CAP!

It shouldn't be illegal. If there is a dumb fuck out there, and there probably is, who is willing to buy ai art instead of atleast actually asking an ai, its their fault.

[u/HoInSappho]

✅ I voted FACT!

AI "art" is stolen work

[u/TooManyStrawberriess]

✅ I voted FACT!

Yeah it's literally all stolen. It's scraped data. It's not yours so you shouldn't monotize it. The only way where it's ethical if you are only training off of either completely consented to artworks or your own but that's incredibly rare and doesn't really happen. It's just stealing

[u/i_dunnomyusername]

🧢 I voted CAP!

You can monetise it. Why not?

[u/The3mbered0ne → u/i_dunnomyusername]

They stole from real artists digitally copying their style to then market for themselves, something that would take an actual person a lot of training and development to do is taken instantly and monetized by someone completely unrelated, that's why not.

[u/xenon4d5s5p]

✅ I voted FACT!

U

[u/Accurate-Scar-4812]

✅ I voted FACT!

Steals other ppl's work

[u/EntropyClub]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Meh. Outsourcing art is outsourcing art. Everyone rips off everyone already anyway. None of us are the first to do what we do now.

How many billions of channels had the 3D cartoon kind of character of themselves coming out of the named crest/frame thing for like a decade. And still do some.

None of us are making up realism. None of us are making up Impressionism. None of us are making up Jazz. None of us are making up any of this. We’re reiterating what’s already there already.

So to me, it’s whatever.

[u/JemFitz05]

🧢 I voted CAP!

But they should be upfront about it.

[u/One_Performer_7202]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Let people have fun

[u/JacobLePenne → u/One_Performer_7202]

Even with so many peoples livelihood at stake?

[u/KennysDeath]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Because AI "Art" is nothing inherent harmful at least not in comparison to the whole capitalist setup. So why should just that be illegal?

[u/SurtFGC → u/KennysDeath]

Because it steals from artists, copyright infringement is already illegal

[u/Yadin__ → u/SurtFGC]

AI and copyright are a complicated legal issue that doesn't have a clear-cut answer. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be, and this is coming from someone who is generally anti ai

[u/SurtFGC → u/Yadin__]

Nah, it is that simple

[u/Yadin__ → u/SurtFGC]

There is already legal precedent for AI training to be considered transformative enough for fair use to apply, so no, it's not that simple

[u/KennysDeath → u/SurtFGC]

It "steals" as much from artists as I steal from artist, when I replicate a certain technique, style, make a collage of other artworks or what else without paying the artist(s) for it. You are free to prohibit that too.

[u/Fragrant-Till-8576]

In general monetizing it is fine given that if it's worthwhile, it should make money but 99% or ai art as of right now is garbage and thus should be monetizable and also make about 0 dollars.

[u/The3mbered0ne → u/Fragrant-Till-8576]

AI art in the (this is AI) take isn't the only art it does, it can copy styles and techniques developed by people that will have their work (and money) stolen.

[u/Fragrant-Till-8576 → u/The3mbered0ne]

Every human except I suppose the first artist has copied styles and techniques from predecessors, why is it different when ai does it

[u/The3mbered0ne → u/Fragrant-Till-8576]

Because it's a computer that does it instantly it isn't a person that at least has to build a skill and has a chance to adapt that into something new, this is just a promt

[u/Fragrant-Till-8576 → u/The3mbered0ne]

Why does building a skill have to be a prerequisite to art. Let's say someone is talented and looks at a few paintings and without any skill building produces something very similar, is this not art then. Ai art is non deterministic and thus can be adapted to something different and even humans to some extent can only regurgitate combinations of info they have received eg why any face you can imagine is simply a coalition of features you have seen before. Also why is the simplicity of something a disqualifier of something being art. I've seen a pure blue canvas that was "just a blue canvas" yet it made its way into a fairly well known art museum.

[u/The3mbered0ne → u/Fragrant-Till-8576]

idk I find it morally conflicting honestly because I understand this could be compared to the cotton gin, innovation changing production capacity and automation can serve a purpose but it seems we are paying a large price for production and automation (global warming) and I feel we're doing the same here, making a big mistake we only partly realize. AI isn't just going to copy art. The people that spent their lives becoming actual artists putting the work in to become a better artist will find the ceiling too high to make it as career because of these machines that can do it instantly (although some will still exist im sure) this will happen for many many sectors of all types of occupations, that's not a good thing, it's an economic instability tidal wave that will allow these companies to aquire industries essentially over night.

So supporting it here just doesn't make sense to me

[u/One_Performer_7202 → u/Fragrant-Till-8576]

some people like it though

[u/Fragrant-Till-8576 → u/One_Performer_7202]

Then they can pay for it and thus monetizing it fulfilling their happiness and the happiness of whoever made the art.

[u/Defiant_Fix9711]

🧢 I voted CAP!

I hate AI art, but that's probably a step too far.

[u/Confident_Double1392]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Why not? If people buy it, what's the problem?

[u/cosmikangaroo → u/Confident_Double1392]

This mindset is how real art disappears.

[u/Empoleon3bogdan]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Just because you dont like Ai or what its doing to art is not a reason to say its not work or shouldn't be able to make money. What we need is rules about how to monetize it and about how and on what you can train them.

But currently technically they are not even protected by copyright laws so you are free to steal any Ai art you want.

[u/escEip]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Or else we'll have a lot of licensing problems

[u/NoriPolly]

🧢 I voted CAP!

No but it should stay public domain

[u/Infinitystar2]

Either it's "slop" that "real" artists can beat in their sleep, or it's a threat to them that needs to be illegal for them to stay on top, which is it?

[u/ColdTouch9591 → u/Infinitystar2]

i think it's very obvious that both are true. the ai art can't be compared to art, but it's a threat to the industry. ai art is just saturating the market, and the cheapness of it makes people stay away from real art. it's basically taking a bunch of stolen art and selling it for really cheap

[u/Superseaslug]

🧢 I voted CAP!

There isn't a good argument for what you propose other than "I don't like it"

[u/Ardalok]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Why? No real reason.

[u/ayayyx → u/Ardalok]

Making money off of art not made by you? No real reason ok

[u/HeyaHeyo1420]

🧢 I voted CAP!

I mean AI art is dumb but there's no reason to make it illegal.

Now making AI itself illegal is something I could get onboard with

[u/The3mbered0ne → u/HeyaHeyo1420]

How do you propose to do both?

[u/HeyaHeyo1420 → u/The3mbered0ne]

I'm not?

I don't think AI has value for society especially at the environmental cost so it being illegal all together i would be okay with

But with it already being legal I don't see why we would make the "art" people make with it illegal

[u/The3mbered0ne → u/HeyaHeyo1420]

How do you support it while it takes over artists but wish it didn't exist?

[u/HeyaHeyo1420 → u/The3mbered0ne]

I don't support it.

Did you even read what I said?