Show transcript

Screenshot of a tumblr post by hbmmaster:

the framing of generative ai as “theft” in popular discourse has really set us back so far like not only should we not consider copyright infringement theft we shouldn’t even consider generative ai copyright infringement

who do you think benefits from redefining “theft” to include “making something indirectly derivative of something created by someone else”? because I can assure you it’s not artists

okay I’m going to mute this post, I’ll just say,

if your gut reaction to this is that you think this is a pro-ai post, that you think “not theft” means “not bad”, I want you to think very carefully about what exactly “theft” is to you and what it is about ai that you consider “stealing”.

do you also consider other derivative works to be “stealing”? (fanfiction, youtube poops, gifsets) if not, why not? what’s the difference? because if the difference is actually just “well it’s fine when a person does it” then you really should try to find a better way to articulate the problems you have with ai than just saying it’s “stealing from artists”.

I dislike ai too, I’m probably on your side. I just want people to stop shooting themselves in the foot by making anti-ai arguments that have broader anti-art implications. I believe in you. you can come up with a better argument than just calling it “theft”.

  • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    No, it is theft. They use an artist’s work to make an image they would otherwise pay the artist to make (a worse version, but still). And given how I’ve seen an image with a deformed patreon logo in the corner, they didn’t pay what they should have for the images. They stole a commission.

    But were they (the AI users) going to pay for the content? I have never paid for a Patreon, given that I don’t really have any disposable income. Why would I start, just because AI exists? Just because a sale may be made in some contexts, doesn’t mean it has been made.

    And it is copyright violation. There have been successful lawsuits over much less than a direct image of RDJ in the iron man suit with the infinity stones on his hand.

    Its a copyright violation when material is made that violates existing copyright. It isn’t copyright infringement to take data from media, or to create derivative works.

    And if they won’t pay an artist’s rates, there’s no way they’d pay whatever Disney would charge them

    Disney has lawers. Small artists don’t.

    AI is a nazi-built, kitten blood-powered puppy kicking machine built from stolen ambulance parts. Even if stealing those ambulance parts is a lesser sin than killing those kittens, it’s still a problem that needs to be fixed. Of course, AI will never be good, so we need to get rid of the whole damn thing.

    Banning AI doesn’t stop the Nazis from running the government or influencing the populus, it doesn’t stop them burning the planet, it doesn’t stop them from pirating work and otherwise exploiting artists. Hell, politicians have been doing all of these things without repercussions for a century. If you want the rich and powerful to stop pirating and freebooting artist’s work, maybe the first step is to ban that (or rather, enforce it) rather than a technology two steps removed?

    • _g_be@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      1 month ago

      But we’re AI users going to pay?

      In your head is AI being used solely by common people for fun little prompts? If you build this machine that replaces the artist, corporations can and will use it that way.

      Big movie studios will use it to generate parts (and eventually all) of a movie. They can use this as leverage to pay the artists less and hire fewer of them. Animators, actors, voice actors.

      you want the rich and powerful to stop pirating and freebooting artist’s work, maybe the first step is to ban that (or rather, enforce it) rather than a technology two steps removed?

      If a movie studio pirated work and used it in a film, that’s against copyright and we could sue them under current law.
      But if they are paying openAI for a service, and it uses copyrighted material, since openAI did the stealing and not the studio then it’s not clear if we can sue the studio.

      Logically we would pursue openAI then, but you’re arguing that we shouldn’t because it’s “two steps removed”.

      Seems like it’s being argued that because of the layer of abstraction that is created when large quantities of media is used, rather than an individual’s work, that it’s suddenly a victimless crime. That because what’s being done is not currently illegal it must not be immoral either.

      • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        1 month ago

        Big movie studios will use it to generate parts (and eventually all) of a movie. They can use this as leverage to pay the artists less and hire fewer of them. Animators, actors, voice actors.

        Only if its profitable, and given that AI output is inherently very limited, it won’t be. AI can only produce lower quality, derivative works. In isolation, some works might not be easy to distinguish, but thats only on a small scale and in isolation.

        If a movie studio pirated work and used it in a film, that’s against copyright and we could sue them under current law.
        But if they are paying openAI for a service, and it uses copyrighted material, since openAI did the stealing and not the studio then it’s not clear if we can sue the studio.

        You can sue the studio. In the same way, you would sue the studio if an artist working there (or even someone directing artists) creates something the violates copyright, even by accedent. If they publish a work that infringes on copyright, you can sue them.

        Seems like it’s being argued that because of the layer of abstraction that is created when large quantities of media is used, rather than an individual’s work, that it’s suddenly a victimless crime.

        By that logic, anything that takes inspiration, no matter now broad, or uses anothers work in any way, no matter how transformative, should be prevented from making their own work. That is my point. AI is just an algorithm to take thousands of images and blends them together. It isn’t evil, any more than a paint brush is. What is, is piracy for commercial use, and non-transformative copyright infringement. Both of these are already illegal, but artists can’t do anything about it, not because companies haven’t broken the law, but rather because an independent author trying to take, for example, Meta to court is going to bankrupt themselves.

        Edit: Also notable in companies using/not using AI, is the fact that even transformative and “”“original”“” AI work cannot be copyrighted. If Disney makes a movie thats largely AI, we can just share it freely without paying them.