| > 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. |
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.