• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Exactly. Make ALL output public domain. Force them to release their training sets. Force them to open source their models.

    There will still be companies like Adobe and DeviantArt who will be able to work around this due to their ToS, but we have enough existing models to make them obsolete due to the power of FOSS.

    • aibler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Making all ai work public domain is a great idea… until you start trying to draft actual laws. If ai is only used to make the eyeballs of character is it public domain? If I use a stable diffusion base but then fine-tune it on my own work is it public domain? What if I use ai to make the general idea, then I use that as inspiration to make my own work? How does anyone prove that anything is or isn’t ai generated or assisted? The list goes on and on. Making laws about ai use in art simply isn’t realistic, they are just too hard to nail down, and too easy to skirt. I don’t know what the solution is, but it isn’t this unfortunately.

      The other big problem with it is that it just means that few big companies who already own almost all the IP(yes, most professional artists don’t actually own their own work) just make their own models with their own work and are able to enjoy the benefits of AI while any small group just has yet another disadvantage. It will probably be these big companies pushing for anti-AI/“pro artist” laws.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Of course things are messy. I still think it’s the best option. I would say that yes, a character with AI eyes, would be public domain. Treat it like the GPL. If a small part of your code is GPL, all of your code has to be GPL.

        Likewise, it isn’t easy to prove, people will get away with it doing in very small quantities and sufficiently reworking it, but extravagant examples would be caught, like serial plagiarists eventually are. The resulting loss in credibility could end careers. Of course, the best approach would be to completely remove copyrights altogether, then this wouldn’t be an issue at all.

        • aibler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fair enough. What’s your stance on this - should someone be allowed to create a text prompt and a list of settings for a specific model and then sell that data that they 100% created themself?

          I haven’t heard anyone saying they think people should not be allowed their sell their own text creation like this, but if they are allowed to, then it means that anyone who wants to sell AI art just needs to sell the instructions for someone else to create the art themself. This could easily be set up as a file format that the purchaser then just has to run on their own. Seems like a waste of energy for everyone to generate their own copy of the work, but I can’t imagine any laws being set up that say people are not allowed to sell their own creations because the purchaser may plug what they created into an AI.

          Should this be allowed or should the law extend to people not being allowed to sell text that may be used by someone else to create art?

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            They can sell it all they want, and then the buyer should be able to share it for free. I’m OK with people selling their labor.

            • aibler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Is this because of your general anti-copyright stance, or is this specific to people selling things that some people think are likely to be used to make AI artwork? I mean, are you saying that anyone who makes anything should be allowed to sell what they make and anyone should be allowed to share it for free?

              What I am getting at is that you said anything made by AI should be in the public domain, so should prompts that a person rights (100% on their own) be considered “AI art” because they are likely to be turned into AI art? Or do you just think there is nothing special about AI art and all of everyone’s work should be in the public domain?

              It would be interesting if we end up with lawyers in court arguing over whether or not something would make a good enough AI art prompt to be it in or out of the public domain.

              • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I mean, are you saying that anyone who makes anything should be allowed to sell what they make and anyone should be allowed to share it for free?

                Precisely. I do not believe that treating intangible things like expressions or ideas as “property” is beneficial to humanity as a whole.

                Or do you just think there is nothing special about AI art and all of everyone’s work should be in the public domain?

                This. I do not support copyrights. They are a blight on human creativity since the first moment they were put into enforcement and all they did is make non-artistic middlemen rich.

                All these problems we have now, is because we are trying to shoehorn a 100+ year old legal framework, created when people didn’t even consider something like the internet might exist, to generative AI. This won’t work. It will only be used to screw the poor even worse.

                • aibler@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Very interesting take, I was mistakenly under the impression that you thought that AI derived artwork should be treated differently than something made by a human creator.

    • misk@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      (I edited my comment slightly due to my scatter brain then saw you basically expanding my thought in the same way)