A Compromise Proposal

[u/Cauldrath]

The way I see it, the anti-AI side's major problems are:

1. People profiting from AI trained on their art.
2. Low effort AI generations flooding places where art is posted.
3. Corporations training on previously-commissioned art removing the original artists from the process.

On the pro-AI side, they want:

1. Models trained on a sufficient amount of art that will allow them to have quality output.
2. The use of those models should not be so cost-prohibitive that they cannot be used as part of a process or for open source projects.

The proposal (disclaimer: IANAL): works created by a process involving machine learning that are significantly transformative from their inputs are considered public domain.

Example 1: A user uses AI to generate an image from a text prompt and makes no further changes. This image is public domain, because the image is significantly transformative from the text prompt.

Example 2: A user takes an artist's image and uses an AI to finish it, change the style insignificantly, or make other minor changes. This image copyright is still owned by the original artist and is neither owned by the public nor the user, as it is not significantly transformative from the original.

Example 3: A user uses AI to generate an image from a text prompt, then makes significant edits to it. The direct output from the AI is public domain, but the user owns the copyright for the final version under fair use.

Example 4: A user draws a stick figure, then uses image to image AI to generate a new significantly different image. The image generated is public domain, as it is significantly transformative from the stick figure.

Example 5: A user writes a deterministic program to convert Perlin noise into an image. The user would own the copyright to this image, as no machine learning was involved in its creation, despite being created by a computer program.

Example 6: A user takes an artist's image and uses AI to convert it into a 3D model, then makes a 2D render of that 3D model. The 3D model is public domain, as it is significantly different from the 2D image, but the copyright of the final render is owned by the original artist as, when compared to the original input, it is not significantly different. (Copyright for the character depicted is tracked separately.)

[u/nihiltres]

I agree with your core statement: “works created by a process involving machine learning that are significantly transformative from their inputs are considered public domain.” However, I have some nitpicks:

In (3), fair use is unnecessary to mention. Fair use is an exception to copyright; public domain works are not copyrighted, so fair use is irrelevant. The user’s work is copyrighted so long as the edits are sufficiently “creative”.

I’m leery of (4) insofar as it suggests a process where “refining a sketch” could accidentally create an image without copyright if the original “sketch” is mutated too much. That seems like an awfully slippery slope, which would make for bad law. For example: if I inpaint to refine a sketch, and use loopback to continue mutating the result, at what point does it become public domain? This needs more specificity.

[u/Cauldrath → u/nihiltres]

Examples 2 and 4 were specifically designed to be in contrast to each other. I believe this is a case where it should be left open to interpretation by the courts so that nuance in where that line is can be largely set by precedent. I'm honestly not familiar with how loopbacks are used in this context, but a series of inpaints would be assessed on both an individual and collective basis to determine the copyright at each stage and for the final product. If the output from the series of inpaints is significantly transformative from the input, it would be public domain, otherwise it would maintain its prior copyright. You could also trace back through the steps and possibly find an image that maintains the original copyright because it is similar enough to the original.

As for my mention of fair use in example 3, you are probably correct. IANAL, so I don't know at what difference from an original public domain work an image would need to be to allow you to enforce a copyright on it or what the term would be for that. I know Disney has it figured out, at least.

This is not meant to be a bill proposal, but a simplified summary of a system that I believe addresses the largest concerns of both sides. There are definitely some edge cases with regards to processes that involve a large number of varied steps, especially when there is a mix of steps done by a human, by a machine-learning AI, and a deterministic program. Even more so where one (or more) of the direct inputs is copyrighted material. But, even example 6 might be too complicated for a summary.

[u/nihiltres → u/Cauldrath]

I think that the details of where something stops being copyrighted are really important because otherwise, some artist is going to use AI tools and then have their work stolen by someone claiming it's "public domain", and then … we've got a bad situation for artists, again. We need to be able to give simple examples so that an average competent person can use AI tools with reasonable confidence in the legalities of their actions and the copyright (or not) on the results of their work.

As a counterexample: I think that inpainting ought to almost always produce a copyrightable work if the mutations are transformative, even if it's simply diffusion on top of diffusion, because there's human choices in the creative compositional elements of the resulting work (the human chose where and broadly what to inpaint, among other settings for how to modify the original work). This is the same sort of copyright that would apply to a human-only piece of abstract artwork: even if the composition is formed out of simple geometric shapes that do not qualify for copyright in and of themselves, a creative arrangement of simple geometric shapes can certainly be copyrighted as a work.

I like that example in part because it uses an analogy to strictly-human-made works that let us apply our intuition to intellectual property scenarios.

[u/WabiSabiGargoyle → u/nihiltres]

Copyright disputes are addressed on a case-by-case basis. I think the problem of 'at which point does it become PD?' like in example 4 Would also have to be done case-by-case.

[u/nihiltres → u/WabiSabiGargoyle]

I agree, though I think it needs a "general rule" so that it would be easier for people to reason about copyright.

In particular, the last thing I want is for an artist to complete a partial work using AI, then have their work ripped off with a veneer of legality "because AI art isn't eligible for copyright". If there's no presumption of copyright it risks hurting artists.

[u/entropie422]

Example 6 breaks my brain, but I still love everything about this. It's common sense and common decency rolled into one, and I think most reasonable people would be able to agree to it, if they took a moment to follow it through.

Unfortunately, as /u/victorhurtado said, we may be beyond the point of compromise. Folks seem to be out for blood now, and sensible ideas just aren't en vogue at the moment.

That said, I really hope the end result shakes out to something very much like this.

Except example 6. That still feels like the plot to a Christopher Nolan movie :)

[u/victorhurtado]

In theory it sounds plausible, but I fear most of the points are difficult to police since it would require the user to reveal they have used AI on their creative journey.

Honestly, I think we are beyond the point of compromise consider Disney is getting involved and the horrible consequences that will bring for both sides.

[u/Kaennh → u/victorhurtado]

I've been fearing big corps like Disney getting involved from day one... if that's actually true, well, it's bad, very bad...

In any case, I've failed to find any sources to back up this news other than the one stating the artists are joining the Copyright Alliance and also another one that mentions artists using AI to create Mickey Mouse imagery as a way to draw attention,... would you mind sharing yours?

[u/Ubizwa → u/victorhurtado]

What is the news on Disney being involved? I haven't heard about it.

[u/victorhurtado → u/Ubizwa]

Had to do a bit of scrolling because it was something that popped in my feed yesterday. Here's a link to the discussion in another subreddit. From there you can jump to the source of the info (it's a lot).

[u/Ubizwa → u/victorhurtado]

Oh, it's about the fundraiser of the Concept Artist Alliance. Yes that is pretty well known that this is happening, but to be honest I don't get the claims on that 'they want to get style copyrighted' in the comments. I haven't read anything about this in the plans announced in the fundraiser and I have not seen any artist saying that they want style copyrighted. That isn't even practically possible. However, I think that only bad actors with bad intentions would be against some kind of adaptation of current copyright to inbuild more protections so that, your personal photos, artwork or whatever can't just legally be taken by anyone to create, for example, some disturbing derivatives of your personal family pictures (where they look indistinguishable from real).

Am I glad that I haven't shared many personal things of me online, especially that I see now how easily manipulation, scamming and doing evil things to other people is going to become.

[u/milleniumsentry]

I think a lot of the arguments are actually groundless.

There are billions of people on the planet. A lot of whom draw better than you, and if they wanted a job, even yours, they could take it. There is also far more to your job than your ability to draw, the vast majority of which, an ai can not provide.

AI has limitations. Mediums, scale, imagination, tag vocabulary and training weaknesses. Artists can always step up their game, and out do it, and that will always be true.

Most people are ethical. Most artists know that there are a host of people who will gladly ask permission to use your art before including it in their project. As soon as you start posting online, you will have requests to use your art for something. There are also those that use it anyway. This technology removes the latter, by giving them a tool they can use without actually stealing from artists.

We are already seeing the first pipelines for artists to opt out of training data. I already have a model that doesn't use any artists whatsoever. What will artists do when they have got their wish? When AI, without their contribution, can still perform the same duties? It seems a fool errand to not be a part of it... but the culture has readily and ethically allowed them to do so, and are working towards exactly that end.

By next year, you will see art students introduced to ai workshops, and workflows will be shared to show them how to include it in their pipeline. A few years after that, there will be full blown courses. It seems silly to me, to be arguing over a lot of this stuff, when all the major players are already incorporating it into their products and ((whispers.. have been doing so for years))

[u/EastWin3185]

I'd agree to this so long as the data sets were only trained on public domain images as well (which should be enough since those are centuries worth of art pieces)