[caconym_]

> Sometimes, but not always.

Sure—they often have such a poor understanding of art and the artist that they may not know that's what they're looking for, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, indeed, what they are looking for.

> And which copyright law says he doesn't have. Style isn't copyrightable.

The part of my comment you quoted says nothing about copyright law, so I'm not sure what you're trying to contradict here. An artist's personal style is a central pillar of their intellectual property in the sense that it takes massive personal investment to develop and everything they create flows from it, and it is a central pillar of their competitive advantage in the sense that it's aesthetically unique, positively stimulating to the viewer, and links their identity to their entire body of work in a way that can be exploited in the marketplace.

The fact is that copyright law currently has no idea what to make of these AI tools. I think the only concrete opinion so far adopted by the US copyright office (which may in the future be superseded by legal precedent or law) is that products of AI alone are not products of human authorship and thus cannot themselves be copyrighted. It will take time for arguments to be made, for money to change hands, and finally for more broadly useful law to be settled, which is why I previously alluded to a period of ten years to let things shake out.

If copyright law does step up to protect artists from this novel attack on their intellectual property, I doubt that protection will come in the form of allowing styles to be broadly copyrightable. From the contemporary commercial perspective, most of the value proposition of these tools is the ability to automatically and at scale launder the intellectual property of artists into derivative works that ostensibly do not infringe on the original works; given that, it is very much in the spirit of existing intellectual property law to write new law to protect artists.

Only time will tell whether the inevitable evolution of intellectual property law to account for AI tools favors individual artists or large tech corporations.

[dale_glass]

> Only time will tell whether the inevitable evolution of intellectual property law to account for AI tools favors individual artists or large tech corporations.

Definitely tech corporations. I'd be careful placing my hopes on copyright.

You know there's a lot of public domain out there, as well as permissively licensed images, right?

So here's my future prediction:

1. If forced, AI companies will prune their datasets of anything not permissively licensed.

2. They'll start friendly community initiatives to fill in the holes. Just like Wikipedia has requests for pictures, so can AI.

3. There's probably going to be more interest in doing more with less, and in training AI on AI output.

Given that AI output is deemed non-copyrightable, the end result is a vast amount of public domain pictures, which can be freely used without paying anyone.

Think it's unlikely? I think it'd very likely based on what happened with the software industry. The industry heavily encouraged Open Source as opposed to Free Software, and as a result today you can easily run a business with zero licensing concerns or payment to anyone.

And once you're there, there's no taking this back. There's not once in my life that I've thought "You know, it's nice that GCC and Clang are free, but I really feel like paying big bucks for a compiler".

[caconym_]

> Definitely tech corporations. I'd be careful placing my hopes on copyright.

Yes, I expect you're right.

> [...] Think it's unlikely?

The part of your scenario I'm most skeptical of is the part where artists freely contribute their work to AI training sets en masse. Even putting aside the current (admittedly somewhat reactionary) trend of artists being loudly contemptuous of AI tools and (to a large extent) the people who use them, I don't think the incentives for artists to post their work online are quite the same incentives that drive programmers to open-source their work, and I really don't think having your work subsumed into a vast training set where it completely loses its identity is nearly as satisfying (or professionally enabling, for that matter) as being able to show e.g. that your open-source library gets 100k downloads every day and is a critical component of X, Y, and Z popular software packages. Art—especially art created for non-commercial reasons, which is what we're talking about here—is often very personal, and as a result artists crave direct engagement from the people looking at it.

If the hypothetical "community initiatives" you're proposing can make such contributions more rewarding, either by drastically improving attribution on the output side of the model (seems unlikely) or by offering some other incredible value proposition distinct from the "opportunity" to have one's works blended into the AI slurry, maybe. But if the AI industry and community ever do actually start listening to artists and respecting their intellectual property to the point that they are no longer simply taking what they want just because they can, I think it will be an uphill battle to convince artists to freely give the same without compensation.

It seems more likely to me that large AI companies would need to pay artists to contribute to training sets, making themselves and their peers partially or wholly redundant. I don't think that's great either, but at least it isn't bald-faced theft of intellectual property.

[dale_glass]

> The part of your scenario I'm most skeptical of is the part where artists freely contribute their work to AI training sets en masse.

You're not quite getting it.

First, there's the public domain. Centuries of art hanging in museums and the like is there for the taking. There's also some modern works there like I think works made for the US government.

Second, there's permissive licensing. For instance I uploaded a bunch of stuff to Flickr that I don't mind at all being used for AI. That's also free for the taking.

Third, if AI output is not copyrightable, AI output can be fed to itself. So lacks in SD can be filled by generating, filtering and reinforcing what you want.

Fourth, if any jurisdiction declares that training is fair game, that can also be added.

Fifth, it occurs to me that if AI output is not copyrightable, then it possibly allows proprietary AIs to be gradually blended in. Eg, say Adobe runs its own. It might own the training set, but if Adobe legally licensed everything, but the output is not copyrighted, then you can feed it to another system still and get some benefit from Adobe's work that way.

This constitutes already a starting set that can be used.

> But if the AI industry and community ever do actually start listening to artists and respecting their intellectual property to the point that they are no longer simply taking what they want just because they can, I think it will be an uphill battle to convince artists to freely give the same without compensation.

So you don't. You don't appeal to traditional artists, you appeal to AI users, who are seeing their cool tools attacked by the artists. You convince them to find more material in a public library, or to make some (since AI output is not copyrighted).

> I don't think that's great either, but at least it isn't bald-faced theft of intellectual property.

I honestly fail to see the long term benefit. I see little satisfaction in "Well, the machine took my job, but at least I fought a legal battle to make sure modern AI is trained from squeaky clean 18th century art".

Once you have a clean AI that's it, that's the end game. You can even sell that as a perk. Why deal with copyright, royalties, and all that nonsense? Here's a machine that will do whatever you want for cheap and won't ever ask for anything.

[caconym_]

> You're not quite getting it.

I guess I must be failing to respond to the point you're trying to make in the way you expect. I admit that I am not quite sure what that point is.

There are several overlapping concerns here. One concern is the possibility of AI systems violating the intellectual property rights of living artists whose work is not in the public domain and who have not given permission for it to be used in this way. Another (but not the only other) concern is working artists being outcompeted by AI in the marketplace. You seem to be responding to the second concern; I am responding to the first, since it's most relevant to the context of Greg Rutkowski's name and work being included in AI art training sets without his consent and (now) explicitly against his wishes.

If you think I'm arguing that removing copyrighted works from the training sets of AI systems whose operators haven't secured the rights to said works will ultimately prevent such systems from partially or totally outcompeting human artist(s) in some market(s), you're wrong. I have not argued that and I will not, since I don't believe it. What I believe is that the cat is out of the bag with these systems and that we will be stuck with them for the foreseeable future, regardless of how their creators manage to finagle training sets, regardless of their impacts on the prospects of working artists and more broadly on culture. I suspect attempts to curtail their use or ban them outright would do more harm than good. But I also believe that all of the above being true doesn't give us the right to run roughshod over the existing intellectual property rights of artists as we grease ourselves up for the long slide into cultural oblivion.

I hope that helps to clarify my position.

[dragonwriter]

> Only time will tell whether the inevitable evolution of intellectual property law to account for AI tools favors individual artists or large tech corporations.

In the end, its going to be “large tech corporations” vs. “large media corporations”, with both sides citing individual artists (in one case, their users, and in the other, their suppliers) to present the clash of titans as a David vs. Goliath story with themselves cast as David.