You are so close to get it, and yet so far far away.
I see, your new technique is posting quotes in random fashion without presenting an argument.
After all, how can anyone debunk an argument, when you don't even make it!
By pointing out you're not making one.
You cannot copyright a fucking style, if you could all art and human artists as we know it would be doomed.
Which is why I see this legal panic could well be a Trojan Horse that destroy independent artists.
Let's put it this way Disney isn't going to fear "styles" being copyrighted because Disney will Own All The Styles.
It's giving the artists the rope to hang themselves with.
Ah, once again the attempt to misquote something in the desperate hope I forget the argument I made and you can maybe, maybe not get humiliated for once?
Not happening.
The section you're quoting from:
The argument isn't "styles are copyright protected", the argument is:
If you use a prompt for an AI to create something in the
style of X, the only way for an AI to be able to do this is if the
know that style.
Therefor, in order for the AI to know of that artist, it
must have material of that artist in its database.
You
writing that prompt is an admission that you were aware you're working off the work of others,
therefor the company that you're trying to hide behind and blame for the copyright theft cannot shield you.
You
knowingly gave a prompt that
admitted you
knew that they were drawing on unlicensed art assets.
And again, your embarassing attempt to reframe the quote & invent a new context failed.
It can't, the mode either is already trained and that is the more important bit since that would give results with or without your input.
Or it would give garbage results that don't have the quality to work as assets.
And your evidence for that claim is...
...the sound of wind whistling through trees...
Oh.
The ToS is a License for the "Copies".
If you license a picture to put on your site other viewers can see it thus creating copies.
If you buy an asset for use of a game again you need a license because that asset is packaged with the game.
You can throw the ToS into trash as the Copy-Right Law as it currently stands the training of the AI models have nothing to do with the creation of "Copies".
This might change but it's not there yet.
Oh, you mean to tell me that new technologies appearing may not immediately fall exactly under existing laws and may need subsequent legislation?
Why I wonder what we were talking about for the last few pages!
My my, whatever was the topic! I may have forgotten that just like-
No I didn't.
The entire point I made, throughout the last pages - in case you didn't pay attention - is that because there is no clear cut legislation on AI generation right now that legislation will come that adjusts to that.
As to the extent current laws
are applicable to AI generation is something currently not known by
anyone and will in fact only be found out once the first AI copyright claims are filed and the first court process begin - which will likely be near the end of this or next year.
So congratulations on repeating the essence of
what I was telling you over the last few pages and
still not understanding the implications or extent.
It must be so fun to be you.
Every day you are continually surprised by all the new things you already learned yesterday.
I envy that. I bet you've been playing the same video game for the last 10 years and are still looking forward to playing it for the first time tomorrow.
Even by some miracle they have no privacy on the users and have full logs with all the prompts they use.
Just because you have the prompt does not mean you will have the result, that is what AI Generation is all about, there are Infinite Possible Results.
In other words it's not enforceable. If you can't link to the user then all you got is the pixels and vertexes that are indistinguishable to what humans can make.
As of right now Pandora's Box is already opened, the only way to stop it is to shut down all the supercomputers and ban it completely.
Ah. I see.
So, there's this thing called the internet. And when you go on any webpage, that webpage access is not just linked to the webpage - it is also stored at the service provider that hosts the website.
So if the police suspects that you may have
knowingly utilized
an AI generator using stolen art assets in order to generate things to
sell for your financial gain, they can issue a request at the service provider for IP records. They can compare those IP records with the IPs your internet connection had at that exact moment in time, they can track down how often someone from your computer logged into a site in order to use their services. Further, they can track the data transmissions & sizes that happened between you and the webpage, thus getting an idea of whether you generated something (and thus received something) or not.
How do I know this? Because that's exactly what police are currently doing when you use a torrent to illegally download movies or games from the internet. They put a plant into the stream, track the IP connections, then filter it out.
Furthermore, some of the AI generation services that exist are services you have to subscribe to. (Like the one this forum recommends)
That creates a payment history that can be used to track down that you did, in fact, subscribe to a service that was using art assets
you knew they didn't have the rights to use.
Welcome to the internet baby. First day? Lots of surprises are waiting for you!
There isn't.
Humans are Trained when they are Born with 24/7 High Resolution Video Feed for your entire lifetime. That is the initial training model otherwise you would not be able to recognize things at all.
Yes they can use some discretion to specialize.
And it's not much of a skill since your "taste" is formed randomly by your curiosity and things you stumbled upon.
It's not really fair to say you are directed and skilled when that arisen out of the things you have seen that you are denying access to the AI models to have.
AI Models do not have the lifetime video feed, they are trained directly with photographs and artwork so that's why they skip a step and can directly do art.
Yes the AI just happen to "stumble" upon every art that humans have created and can thus create any style humans created, what a "coincidence".
The fact that they are so generic and universal is the last thing that is going to keep human artists alive.
They contain everything, they do not have the random path a human lived through.
They are the God Eternal, not the Human Individuals that Live.
Ah, I see, you've already forgotten my 5 points and think you can just choose to ignore them and make up some "God Eternal" mumbo jumbo.
Perhaps you should reread them again, and understand the difference between
siphoning off people's artwork and
creatively engaging with artwork.
Here it is, once again, the all-time favorite you keep forgetting about: (You should pay particular attention to 2-5, each of which
directly addresses the nonsense the nonsense you wrote above. How did I manage to disprove your nonsense in the past? Well, I'm either some kind of supergenius, or you still haven't really figured out this "reading thing".)
---
Now your argument is a bit threadbare and vague, more like just an opinion shouted in the void...
But no matter! We'll pretend you made a fully valid argument.
The one you could've done from the start and you didn't have to veil behind any analogy:
(We'll pretend this is your argument.)
Hardstyle Gaming said:
If an artist learns techniques of another artist through observing them, and then uses the knowledge gained through them in their own work, isn't this the same as an AI learning from artists and then using this to create an artwork?
Wow, not a bad argument my friend. It's actually aimed at the topic we're speaking about, and it actually encompasses the logic you're following - the comparison between the process of an artist learning & applying this knowledge and a machine learning & applying this knowledge. Kudos to you!
The answer's still
no though.
That's because there are fundamental differences between those two things.
1. The AI is
not you.
This is pretty obvious. But it also means that
you, the person benefitting from the product, selling it, making money, etc. is not the person that did the learning. You didn't do the work. You didn't learn a thing. So why would you get to do anything with work you didn't do?
You didn't study anything, you didn't process techniques or gain insights, you didn't apply them craftily or creatively in new ways, you didn't even produce the result. The AI did - not you the guy making the money.
An artist does work. They study the techniques of artists, often for years. They have to come up with ways to apply the insights gained - often in new ways that create new techniques. And then they have to skillfully apply them with the craft they honed over years in many and many hours of work. Their labor, their fruits.
Your labor...does not yield fruits.
2. Studying & observing is a
skill.
Every artist knows that. You can look at a painting and see what's there, but you don't understand why. Or how the effect was created. To what purpose.
Artists spend a lot of time trying to hone their perception, to understand the relationship between things.
When an artist learns new skills, it is their work, too. The result of a lifetime of honing their perception and looking for meaning and understanding - from composition to technical skill.
You...don't do any of that. A generator does - in some fashion - do that for you. But neither you nor the generator are actually really learning anything.
If either of you is asked: Why did you draw it this way?
The artist can answer.
You and the AI? Answer only in silence.
3. Learning & improving is a process that involves
creativity.
The artist is not merely exploring someone elses work, but is also attempting to improve through a confrontation with the question of what art is and how it works. An AI does not. There is no foundation of "self-experience", of the AI learning to draw on its own. It merely siphons off of the work of others, it does not mingle it with its own inventions & practices. The AI cannot do what hasn't been done before, because it does not know
how.
An artist, on the other hand, always looks for the creative application of old techniques in new ways to create something fresh and new.
4. Art uses
human existance as basis.
The lived reality. A human draws on their own experience and uses it as the lens that materializes their work. Their art is
based on their own interpretation of that experience. An AI does not base any of its work on their own interpretation of their existence. An AI does not start drawing and then chooses to study & learn from other people's work. It only takes patterns from other people's work because it has nothing to start with. They simply create a distorted reflection of other people's interpretation of their existence through the shallow copy they create. Not their own.
Thus every artist, in their work, even if technically similar to someone elses, incorporates
themselves as a quality to the work.
An AI cannot incorporate itself in the work. It does not know how. It can only mimic others.
5. A human's art is
independent in its existence.
Brush, canvas, photoshop. Whatever. They can sit down and do art. You can't. And neither can the AI.
If there was no basis that the AI can train on, then there's nothing you or the AI could do.
In fact, if all artists would stop doing art tomorrow, and all we have is AI art being generated, then art would stagnate. There would be no new inventions, no new styles or techniques, nothing new creative being done. Because neither you nor the AI is doing something creative, nor are you drawing on your skills. You're siphoning off others work. And if they stop working? All you can do is repeat the stuff you've stolen. You can't make anything new of your own.
An artists art exists because the artist exists and wishes to do art.
Your AI art exists because other people make art, which makes up for your inability to do so.
Conclusion:
Studying the art of others over thousands of hours and incorporating them partially in your own or drawing on it
for inspiration in experimenting & inventing new combinations
is not the same as pressing the button on
a generator.
What staggering surprise! Who would've thought?!
I hope that shows you a few of the small differences between an artist learning & applying the learned art in new art, and an AI art "learning" how to mimic other people's art.
It means they use AI CG for creative projects made by humans called "games".
That is far from "creative silence".
But we weren't arguing for the creative process of whether making a game was creative.
We were arguing about whether an AI has any "creative" element in the process of being trained on other people's art, because that's part of the human learning experience.
Yes, you once again - for the 10th time, completely forgot what we were talking about and threw arguments into the void.
No, stealing assets from other people or their games and then putting them into your game
does not say anything about the creative process in which you obtained those assets.
Putting things into a game that you stole is not the same as a person drawing the things that you stole to put into your game.
Just because you put stolen things into a game does not mean that's a creative enough act that you can just completely ignore the copyright protection of the original art assets.
That sort of stuff gets you lawsuits:
You must be registered to see the links
You keep dancing around the same fundamental problem.
You want to be able to use other people's work for your own benefit without paying them, so you can use art you cannot make yourself.
You desperately want it to be somehow right and always possible to click a button and get nifty free stuff without putting in the work.
And you desperately keep trying to find some reason, some explanation, that some magical in-between intermediary that delivers to you the things you can't do yourself, absolves you from
knowingly drawing on the work of others.
Because you know, absolutely and for a fact, that none of these generators could produce anything if they didn't draw on other people's work.
That's your personal failing manifesting itself. I'm not an artist either. I can't draw worth shit.
Know what I do? Hire artists.
I don't invent some bullshit mumbo jumbo of a magical powerful eternal god that gives me images that are made up of stolen work of others that somehow makes it right.
