The virtues of A.I. art

[Husky_Embrace]

I am not used to US law. My opinion is based on German law.

You've responded to a single part of my post, and ignored the rest. Is deflection your best defense?

As a deflection it's not a good one. Germany falls under international law the last time I checked. You have a valid opinion, and a false fact.

Just because you have great utility for it doesn't mean it's free of controversy. "Oh look I can use this program to use other people's work for me, and they get nothing for it."

 

[Venefica]

Writing much does not mean automatically much content.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

Writing much does not mean automatically much content.

True. Imagine my disappointment when the thin "arguments" are a sentence long.

 

[Venefica]

As far as I know, in international private law, there is no international law binding all countries for immaterial property like pictures, paintings etc. .

According to my knowledge from the German legal view, copying is forbidden and triggers indemnification. But for assuming copying, there must be the danger that the images can be confused. I do not see that danger. I have myself tried to copy a painting I like very much, and the result was simply nonsense.

As far as I know, the AI takes pixels from pictures, from hundreds of pictures and mixes them together to create a new picture. Even if I write in a prompt, a picture should be Helmut-Newton-style; it has that style, but, of course, it is not a copy from pictures of Helmut Newton.

 

[THROBBS]

This is a bit of a strawman argument. I don't feel I'm an "artist" in the sense we all understand that term, when I generate images and videos using AI. For me it's just a tool for translating ideas in my head into images, and I think there is some merit in this when it's done well. I'll include an example of the type of thing I do with AI.

No "strawman".
Of course one has to define "Art", but some basis for it is both what it is and what it is not.

For the sake of this thread, we are speaking of visual art. (Though much can be applied to music and dance etc...)

Art is NOT simply a visual self-expression. Though many folk claim that EVERYONE can produce Art and children are creating art in elementary school.
Everyone can produce self-expression, but to advance to Artistry, there need be some degree of mastery.

Much like, my "ability" to sing. I would never (nor would anyone else) label me a "Singer", just because I produce semi-melodic notes.
Likewise, I love to "throw down", but I am no "Dancer"

So, having a tool that allows one to conjure imagery is not a measure of artistry nor craftsmanship. One can learn to spew more intentional images, but that is not by much effort of one's self. The "prize" of the Artist label should go to the programers.

 

[THROBBS]

As far as I know, in international private law, there is no international law binding all countries for immaterial property like pictures, paintings etc. .

According to my knowledge from the German legal view, copying is forbidden and triggers indemnification. But for assuming copying, there must be the danger that the images can be confused. I do not see that danger. I have myself tried to copy a painting I like very much, and the result was simply nonsense.

As far as I know, the AI takes pixels from pictures, from hundreds of pictures and mixes them together to create a new picture. Even if I write in a prompt, a picture should be Helmut-Newton-style; it has that style, but, of course, it is not a copy from pictures of Helmut Newton.

The net result would not exist without those who have studied and practiced and worked to create imagery that you wish to emulate.
That work has been consumed and stored and melded with other imagery which has been taken. These are not individual "pixels", they are collective pixels (as even painted. photographed works) are digitized. You simplification makes it sound as if it just a "pinch" of this and a "dash" of that and blended together. That is not quite the truth.

If you want a Helmut-Newton style, grab a camera, study his work and take your own photos and learn about lighting and composition, focus and exposure. Even TRY and copy his work with your own models. You see it is not so simple, and it should not be, as it isn't.

That will be much more satisfying and more likely to take you in a direction (sometimes accidentally) that is your own.

 

[Venefica]

@THROBBS

My understanding how AI works is quite different from what you say. However, the main factor is that, according to German law there must be the danger of confusing the pictures.

So, I see no reason to change my mind.

 

[THROBBS]

@THROBBS

My understanding how AI works is quite different from what you say. However, the main factor is that, according to German law there must be the danger of confusing the pictures.

So, I see no reason to change my mind.

Perhaps.

Currently, even in The United States, the law is very much in line with "the potential confusion" issue, BUT there is much movement with the fact that images and word are being harvested (stolen) without consent.


Regardless, the net result is not "Art"... it is generated imagery. Sometimes very beautiful, though derivative, by its very "nature" (which is not "natural".

I never expect to change your mind, on the legality.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

As far as I know, in international private law, there is no international law binding all countries for immaterial property like pictures, paintings etc. .

According to my knowledge from the German legal view, copying is forbidden and triggers indemnification. But for assuming copying, there must be the danger that the images can be confused. I do not see that danger. I have myself tried to copy a painting I like very much, and the result was simply nonsense.

As far as I know, the AI takes pixels from pictures, from hundreds of pictures and mixes them together to create a new picture. Even if I write in a prompt, a picture should be Helmut-Newton-style; it has that style, but, of course, it is not a copy from pictures of Helmut Newton.

That is a much better argument! Thanks!

Now German law isn't as narrow as that. Any pictures have a copyright as soon as they are created. That means whether it is publicly available or not doesn't matter. Downloading, storing and doing anything else is already a crime, as you need permission of the user.

Now there's two major exceptions. Commercial and research exceptions. So far any court case about AI has ruled a research exception. Commercial exception allows downloading and analysis if it isn't stated otherwise that it's not allowed to be used for such purposes.

That leaves an opening for what AI companies are doing. However, there's a much bigger law that'll spike them. Privacy laws. The EU is quite strict about them. As soon as anyone can be identified in a picture, you're obligated to ask permission. This is a major strike, removing so many pictures from being allowed to be used.

Let's go back to the first one. Many major studios or companies maintaining famous artwork do not want their stuff to be copied. Can you make The Scream? The Mona Lisa? Can you make Studio Ghibli inspired art? They took that data. Whether it's pixel groups (generally useless) or whole files doesn't matter. They take protected work and use it in their learning algorithms.

They most definitely trespass on these rules. I can currently ask for an AI generated picture of trump based on a recent picture online. It made one. There's a peron on there (strike 1) and it might've been from a press reporter who has explicitly stated it can't be used for automated scraping (strike 2).

So by German law there's definitely rules against it.

I just wait until they add my dickpicks I keep sending them.

 

[LargoKitt]

I love AI because it gives me the ability to visualise my fantasy what would be otherwise not possible.

BTW: Does anybody believe that any image on the net or in magazines is not worked over by software, i. e. AI. And yes, AI builds images by copying pixels from other pictures. But it is always combined into other output and, from my view and in my humble German-based legal opinion, that is no action violating intellectual property.

I have seen pictures that really copy the style of Gustav Klimt. It is easy to say, "Make a picture that looks like a Picasso". So thos eare 'famous' artists you can see have been 'sampled'. One can then assume that A.I. apps sample 'Mr. or Ms. Nobody' if they want to. Like Picasso, they may have worked long hours to create a unique style. But now their style is there for anyone to use and they never make a dime.

 

[Venefica]

Everybody is entitled to copy a style. You may not copy a picture.

 

[Venefica]

@Husky_Embrace
"Now German law isn't as narrow as that. Any pictures have a copyright as soon as they are created. That means whether it is publicly available or not doesn't matter. Downloading, storing and doing anything else is already a crime, as you need permission of the user."

That has no real content.

Obviously, AI does not copy images. It takes elements and put it together to a new one. That is not forbidden. That is not copying that artwork.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

@Husky_Embrace
"Now German law isn't as narrow as that. Any pictures have a copyright as soon as they are created. That means whether it is publicly available or not doesn't matter. Downloading, storing and doing anything else is already a crime, as you need permission of the user."

That has no real content.

Obviously, AI does not copy images. It takes elements and put it together to a new one. That is not forbidden. That is not copying that artwork.

Your stance seems entirely based on the result presented. AI is capable to reproduce any contents it's learned. We can also see it can recreate famous artworks close enough that people can confuse them, or confuse individuals. That being said, the result is only part of it.

AI obviously does copy it. They use (parts of) a picture in their algorithm. That is only possible if you download and store the data. That you don't always see it as an end result doesn't matter. As they start with downloading (copying) the data, then storing it in the algorithm and possibly separately as well, they are already in violation.

If they download and store your baby pictures and never use them, they still have copied and stored your copyrighted data.

 

[Venefica]

@Husky_Embrace

As far as I know, you can copy anything you want for private usage. There are art students sitting in the Louvre and making copies. That is allowed.

You change your arguments now from using a part is evil to they store a copy and that is evil. From my view, only the output is the question. And you can take a picture of Manet, copy it, change it and that is allowed, too. The border is confusion.

From my view, there is an industry fearing a loss of turnover and trying to fight AI to save their turnover. And a moral coat is better than simply saying we fear for our profit.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

@Husky_Embrace

As far as I know, you can copy anything you want for private usage. There are art students sitting in the Louvre and making copies. That is allowed.

You change your arguments now from using a part is evil to they store a copy and that is evil. From my view, only the output is the question. And you can take a picture of Manet, copy it, change it and that is allowed, too. The border is confusion.

From my view, there is an industry fearing a loss of turnover and trying to fight AI to save their turnover. And a moral coat is better than simply saying we fear for our profit.

The students in the Louvre clearly fall under the research exception. Even if they would not, they have permission from the musea to use it.

I don't change my arguments, I notify you that the law doesn't apply to a narrow view if it is convenient for you. It has an application to everything in it's reach. The term copy is much broader than just what someone presents to you as an end product. There is no question that a downloaded version can be confused with the copyright one. Whether that is in the output or not, it is a violation.

Fear of loss on turnover is always there. With automation this is very visible, as well as changing to renewable energy for example. The difference is that people that dig coal get compensated. If they help automation, they are compensated. A windmill doesn't use coal, or the labours of a coal miner, so they aren't compensated. Unless you take into account the power from a coal power plant, then they are compensated indirectly.

An AI is different. Your hard work is used by a company that then commercialises it without compensation to the one who did the work, or having the permission to do so. It is as if a coal miner gets his coal taken without their permission, it is sold without compensation to the coal miner, and the coal miner can now only sell a fraction of it's coal.

I think they abolished this in most of the world. That thing where you have people work for you and you do not compensate them for it.

I'm not against AI. If they source their data legitimately, then there's no problem. They can do absolutely wonderful things with AI. Currently they are not. That is a problem.

 

[Venefica]

@husky-Embrace

A photo of the Mona Lisa is not a copy of it. Nobody would ever confuse a photo of the Mona Lisa with the original. You mix totally different issues together.

And I do not see what kind of "research" a student copying a picture does.

 

[THROBBS]

Everybody is entitled to copy a style. You may not copy a picture.

But with A.I., YOU are not copying a style. The A.I. is taking images (and style) largely without permission.
Even if it is public domain works, by utilizing A.I. your participation and work is minimal.

I do encourage copying styles and even entire works, by HAND, and by doing so, actually LEARNING something (actual intelligence).
I also would hope that one would give credit, rather than try and pass off as entirely one's own work. Typically, an artist would say "After Klimt", if making a copy.

 

[THROBBS]

@Husky_Embrace
"Now German law isn't as narrow as that. Any pictures have a copyright as soon as they are created. That means whether it is publicly available or not doesn't matter. Downloading, storing and doing anything else is already a crime, as you need permission of the user."

That has no real content.

Obviously, AI does not copy images. It takes elements and put it together to a new one. That is not forbidden. That is not copying that artwork.

A.I. DOES copy images, that is its data base.

The A.I. user may not be breaking any laws, but they are not making any Art.

 

[Venefica]

OK, that discussion leads to nothing. You repeat your view. I explain why it is not applicable. Then you again repeat what you said.

 

[InkReadyBull]

AI is at best neutral, it seems to me. For every good thing it can do for us there is a negative aspect... for-profit plagiarism of art being but one... and, at worst, it may be the end of us, if climate catastrophe doesn't get us first.

Genuinely, I wish I were still living in the world of my youth. The world into which we're heading seems to be little short of an abomination, inflicted upon the overwhelming majority of humanity by a small clique of geeks backed by profit-driven big corporations.

I do not normally post in the fora but AI is one area which incenses me.

 

[THROBBS]

@husky-Embrace

A photo of the Mona Lisa is not a copy of it. Nobody would ever confuse a photo of the Mona Lisa with the original. You mix totally different issues together.

And I do not see what kind of "research" a student copying a picture does.

A photo IS a copy. Most evey digital work is "distributed" via copies, everything is digitize. it is copied.

the student research is STUDY (they are students), they are studying color, compositon, style. Their output will be "copies" but far less accurate than a photo (if made in the context of a museum rendering) - generally oil paints are not allowed in galleries. Often Pens are not allowed either. (concern over vandalism).

I think a portion of our "conflict" here, is that you "do not see what kind of "research" a student copying a picture does".

That is the HUMAN aspect of Art- actual learning - parsing information in a creative and human way. A.I. cannot (at this point) do that, it is far more "clinical". The computers have no real experience in appreciation of beauty, a breeze, a tree, a mood- it only barfs back a distilled version which once came from humans.

 

[THROBBS]

OK, that discussion leads to nothing. You repeat your view. I explain why it is not applicable. Then you again repeat what you said.

As do you.

Hopefully, everyone can vary our views with some nuiance to make ourselves clear.

I am less debating the legality, rather the essence of ART.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

@husky-Embrace

A photo of the Mona Lisa is not a copy of it. Nobody would ever confuse a photo of the Mona Lisa with the original. You mix totally different issues together.

And I do not see what kind of "research" a student copying a picture does.

If I download a picture on the internet, it is an exact replica. That is another term for a copy.

Students their work is standard seen as research.

 

[THROBBS]

If I download a picture on the internet, it is an exact replica. That is another term for a copy.

Students their work is standard seen as research.

I think a bit of quibble is that the downloaded picture is not "exact", in that it lacks the texture and resolution of an original (speaking of, for example, an oil painting). Though there is digital Art - Painted by humans using digital brushes etc... which is NOT A.I.