AI generated art

[Kodra_Dev]

It's not illegal to generate images with AI. It's not illegal to sell generated images either. AI-generated images are not copyrightable, but that doesn't mean they're not legal.

But keep spreading misinformation! That's exactly what this industry needs.

 

[XcentY]

Ai bros are so brain dead. There is no debate. It's not a discussion about your feelings about it. It's illegal that's it. Look what I found on reddit just NOW and tell me it benefits the art industry lol View attachment 2571140

And for people that still thinks it's not an issue, well guess what, it is and it's getting care of right now. So keep coping guys lol, you're the real heroes of the industry lol

You must be registered to see the links

You found one post on Reddit and that's it... All AI creators are stealers...

You see, that's what I call wrong...
Don't put everybody in the same bag.

There is stolen material in some models and they will be prosecuted.
But I don't think they trained Dall-E or MidJourney with stolen materials... These are big companies and they can't afford to lose all their work and fame...
That some creators trained some LorA models for stable diffusion illegally... I agree with you. but don't throw the baby with the bathwater.

 

[cohenber101]

Wake me up when the AI are easily access and can trading OC Pornstar card, similar to Honey Select and Custom Maid 3D.

 

[FacelessVixen]

I'll always be more impressed by those who can actually draw.

 

[VegitoHlove]

It's not illegal to generate images with AI. It's not illegal to sell generated images either. AI-generated images are not copyrightable, but that doesn't mean they're not legal.

But keep spreading misinformation! That's exactly what this industry needs.

To whom are you speaking in response to? Cause I never said it was. Or am I jumping the gun?

 

[Kodra_Dev]

To whom are you speaking in response to? Cause I never said it was. Or am I jumping the gun?

Not you. Someone around #160 said it's illegal. I didn't notice that's not the latest discussion lol

 

[VegitoHlove]

Not you. Someone around #160 said it's illegal. I didn't notice that's not the latest discussion lol

Ah. Cool. Was just confused cause your post was after mine.

 

[Deleted member 5954819]

It's not illegal to generate images with AI. It's not illegal to sell generated images either. AI-generated images are not copyrightable, but that doesn't mean they're not legal.

But keep spreading misinformation! That's exactly what this industry needs.

The only one spreading false information is you when you claim that everything is legal. Each AI has its own license and terms. Just because you ignore them and can't read them doesn't mean that some of them don't exist.

DALL-E - "has raised some legal concerns around ownership and copyright infringement. DALL-E allows users to create commercial images, including the right to reprint, sell and merchandise them. However, it is unclear who owns the copyright to these images, and if they might infringe on existing copyrighted works. This is a complex issue with no clear answers, and further legal guidance will be needed to resolve it." (It looks like you solved it a long time ago because, according to your words, everything is legal)

Midjourney - "Midjourney offers free and trial accounts that come with the Commons Noncommercial 40 Attribution International License. This allows users to use images from Midjourney as long as they don't sell them or make money off of them. Users must also give credit ( attribution) to Midjourney when using these images." It is also necessary to remember that everything you create on Midjourney is publicly available to everyone, and your creation can be used by other users without your knowledge.

What does the law say? "According to the U.S. Copyright Office Rules, A.I. Art Can't Be Copyrighted. BUT - It simply means that I can't enforce the copyright, at least until the law will be changed. It's also important to remember that this only applies to the US. So every country might technically have different copyright laws."

Prove the opposite when you called me a liar. Thank you.

 

[Kodra_Dev]

Wow. You posted 4 paragraphs of text and none of them supports your claim... that's incredible.

You claimed:

They mainly still do not understand that they cannot use publicly available AI for commercial purposes.

Literally none of the stuff you posted says you can't use it for commercial purposes.

I'll explain them to you cause you don't seem to understand what you posted.

In DALL-E's case: it's called a disclaimer. You know what a disclaimer is, right? It basically just means "we don't take any legal responsibility for the users". It doesn't mean the tool is illegal to use commercially. If you ever actually read disclaimers from any online services (like Reddit, Twitter, Google Drive etc), you'll know those corps always try to cover everything.

In Midjourny's case: you choose a specific paragraph about free users. How convenient. TIL the free version is the only "public available AI" for Midjourney.

In the law's case: yes, as I said, AI art being not copyrightable doesn't make it illegal. Thanks for repeating my point tho.

The only thing you got right is that one should check the law in their own country instead of being US-centric and assuming that apply everywhere.

Again, of course it's possible to do illegal things with generative AI: I could ask DALL-E to generate a Mickey Mouse, print it on a t-shirt and sell it. It would probably get me into trouble. And guess what? I could do that with Photoshop too. How terrible... I must go online and warn everybody that they cannot use Photoshop for commercial purposes!

 

[Deleted member 5954819]

In DALL-E's case: it's called a disclaimer. You know what a disclaimer is, right? It basically just means "we don't take any legal responsibility for the users". It doesn't mean the tool is illegal to use commercially. If you ever actually read disclaimers from any online services (like Reddit, Twitter, Google Drive etc), you'll know those corps always try to cover everything.

I never said that using DALL-E is not allowed for commercial purposes. I literally wrote in my post, "DALL-E allows users to create commercial images, including the right to reprint, sell, and merchandise them." So don't put something in my mouth that I never said. Everything I wrote there about DALL-E comes from their site, so don't convince me that I don't understand something or that I wrote something wrong when it's their own statement. That's one of the reasons why my comments were put in "", because I was just quoting information from their site.

In Midjourny's case: you choose a specific paragraph about free users. How convenient. TIL the free version is the only "public available AI" for Midjourney.

Because in your statements about how everything is legal, you didn't mention anywhere that you have to pay for something. If you had written at the very beginning, "You can do it, but read the conditions for when you can do it for commercial purposes and when you can't," I wouldn't have said anything about it. But you don't mention perhaps the most important thing, and now you feel very horrified that someone spoke up. Everyone here talks about AI in general, but mysteriously no one cares about the conditions you have to meet. I'm not saying that you're writing something bad, but you have to be specific about these things.

" It's not illegal to generate images with AI. It's not illegal to sell generated images either. " - You wrote it in general, and in that case, it is not entirely true. That's why I responded to it

 

[GGAdams]

lol

You must be registered to see the links

It's getting illegal, sorry guys, it never was a debate, just wanted to teach you about reality

 

[Deleted member 440241]

lol

You must be registered to see the links

It's getting illegal, sorry guys, it never was a debate, just wanted to teach you about reality

There's a difference between "illegal" and "can't be protected by copyright". Not sure how you can teach anyone about reality when you're not living in it.

 

[XcentY]

I'll always be more impressed by those who can actually draw.

I'm also impressed by those who can actually draw... because I know the time they put in their art...
But sometimes I can be impressed by the drawer but not by his drawings...
Example : Ok you can draw bart better than me but I'm not impressed by the drawing

 

[DuniX]

A.I. Art Can't Be Copyrighted.

That means:

This allows users to use images from Midjourney as long as they don't sell them or make money off of them. Users must also give credit ( attribution) to Midjourney when using these images.

However, it is unclear who owns the copyright to these images,

That means there is nothing stopping a random person that has nothing to do with the generation that stumbles upon that image from clicking "save image" and using that for whatever purposes because as it currently stands it's not copyrighted.

Of course Getty is suing creators of stable diffusion for copyright infringement.

As long as they acquire those images through legal means by buying them then they own them.
Copyright protects "Copies" so they have nothing to do with the images generated from the trained models.
Trained models are not "Copies". If you buy a Tool and use a Tool to make wood crafting that is not copyright infringement, if you use the atoms that make the tool to create crafts or use the pixels that make an image to train AIs to generate images that is not copyright infringement.
We might not have a legal judgement yet on this but it's unlikely to succeed based on this reason.

If there is a problem with infringement it's mostly because the watermark demonstrates that they don't legally own them.

Copyright Law could get updated to explicitly protect them more from AIs but it's not there yet.

 

[Deleted member 5954819]

That means there is nothing stopping a random person that has nothing to do with the generation that stumbles upon that image from clicking "save image" and using that for whatever purposes because as it currently stands it's not copyrighted.

If you look at it this way, you're basically right, and I agree with that. But that doesn't mean you have to support or ignore it. It's not right. You also wouldn't be happy if someone stole your work and you got nothing from it.

On the other hand, someone owns the copyrights given the fact that Midjourney and Stability AI are going to court, which they will most likely lose. Precisely because those AIs were trained on other people's artwork and they objected to it. They didn't have permission to use their images, and they also didn't have any license that would alow it. And you know how it is... The more AI is talked about and the more popular it becomes, the more things like this will happen. Especially to people who will gain some popularity thanks to AI. The bottom line is that if something like this is indeed confirmed for one AI and they lose that trial, all other AIs will follow suit.

 

[DuniX]

If you look at it this way, you're basically right, and I agree with that. But that doesn't mean you have to support or ignore it. It's not right. You also wouldn't be happy if someone stole your work and you got nothing from it.

That's far from FBI coming for you or getting sued for millions of dollars for using AI art.

which they will most likely lose.

They are more likely going to Win.

Precisely because those AIs were trained on other people's artwork and they objected to it.

Their feelings do not matter, their Copyright are only the rights to distributing Copies.
They have nothing to do with things you Own that you Bought legally, that's private fucking property.

Until the Law changes to account for that they are likely going to win, and even if it's updated it might already be too late if the models are already trained.

My opinion is pandora's box is already opened, whatever they do would be pointless.

In fact artists can even be given more rope to hang themselves. I heard some artist "claiming" a style that the AI stole.
That is the most stupidest thing I have heard.
If a style can really be "patented" independent artists might as well be over. What do you think Disney and Adobe is going to do?
They will patent Every Single Style, even Generic Toddler Drawings and Stickmen Figures will not be spared because the only obstacle in the way is a lone bored patent officer.

Record Labels have managed to Own almost every Copyrighted Music since the past century.
You still think You have a chance?

 

[Deleted member 5954819]

They have nothing to do with things you Own that you Bought legally, that's private fucking property.

You may have bought something legally, but they had no right to sell it. That's the point.

If someone steals a car, sells it to you, and the police find out that the car was stolen, does that mean nothing illegal happened and it's your property because you bought it? Sometimes, think about what you write. I don't know which country you live in, but in almost every EU country, you will lose the car even though you paid for it, and the thief ends up in prison.

Did Midjourney have the right to steal millions of images and use them for their AI? They weren't supposed to... So what are we talking about here?

In fact artists can even be given more rope to hang themselves. I heard some artist "claiming" a style that the AI stole.
That is the most stupidest thing I have heard.

Maybe it's stupid to you, but it's actually a fact according to which the AI creates things for you. Dozens of people have already written to you here, and you still don't understand. The more creations there are, the more things will resemble each other, and it will be much easier to find out which creation was just copied and from whom. I don't understand why you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Well... I won't say more; some people are a waste of time and live in their own bubble, where there is no other truth than theirs. Good luck with your AI. I wonder how far you will go in one year. Let me know then

 

[DuniX]

You may have bought something legally, but they had no right to sell it. That's the point.

They are not selling anything. They are using it as training data.
No actual pixel is copied.
There is no "Copy". At least not in a legal sense.

and it will be much easier to find out which creation was just copied and from whom.

If it's not a "copy" then it must be something else entirely, a "style".
And if you want to "protect" and "patent" that, here is some rope..

 

[VegitoHlove]

Hmm. I don't Getty winning the lawsuit. It also contradicts the copyright law or rather the lack their of. Even if they could successfully argue that the use of their images in training the AI was copyright infringement They still have a problem with:

!.) Making an argument that Third party checkpoints/models and Loras etc infringes copyrights.

2.) The images produced by the stable diffusion based models (or any other model) for that matter CAN'T be held to copyright as the copyright has to be held by a human in order to have any hopes of being copyrightable. Do you see the problem here?

 

[Hardstyle Gaming]

If they are going to set the precedent that "you cant learn from an artist without permission" then every artist is open to being sued because every artist learned from other artists.