Comment by zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.ee on Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski’s style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski’s art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

pirating photoshop is a well-understood part of many peoples’ workflows. that doesn’t make it legal or condoned by adobe

I don’t know what this has to do with anything. Nothing was “pirated”, either.

Not at the point of generation, but at the point of training it was. One of the sticking points of AI for artists is that their developers didn’t even bother to seek permission. They simply said it was too much work and crawled artists’ galleries.

Even publicly displayed art can only be used for certain previously-established purposes. By default you can’t use them for derivative works.

At the point of training it was viewing images that the artists had published in a public gallery. Nothing pirated at that point either. They don’t need “permission” to do that, the images are on display.

Learning from art is one of the previously-established purposes you speak of. No “derivative work” is made when an AI trains a model, the model does not contain any copyrightable part of the imagery it is trained on.

Of course they need permission to process images. No computer system can merely “view” an image without at least creating a copy for temporary use, and the purposes for which that can be done are strictly defined. Doing whatever you want just because you have access to the image is often copyright infringement.

People have the right to learn from images available publicly for personal viewing. AI is not yet people. Your whole argument relies on anthropomorphizing a tool, but it wouldn’t even be able to select images to train its model without human intervention, which is done with the intent to replicate the artist’s work.

I’m not one to usually bat for copyright but the disregard AI proponents have for artists’ rights and their livelihood has gone long past what’s acceptable, like the article shows.

If I run an image from the web through a program that generates a histogram of how bright its pixels are, am I suddenly a dirty pirate?

If you run someone’s artwork through a filter is it completely fine and new just because the output is not exactly like the input and it deletes the input after it’s done processing?

There is a discussion to be made, in good faith, of where the line lies, what ought to be the rights of the audience and what ought to be the rights of the artists, and what ought to be the rights of platforms, and what ought to be the limits of AI. To be fair, that’s a difficult situation to determine, because in many aspects copyright is already too overbearing. Legally, many pieces of fan art and even memes are copyright infringement. But on the flipside automating art away is too far to the other side. The reason why Copyright even exists, at least ideally, is so that the rights and livelihood of artists is protected and they are incentivized to continue creating.

Lets not pretend that is just analysis for the sake of academic understanding, there is a large amount of people who are feeding artists’ works into AI with the express purpose of getting artworks in their style without compensating them, something many artists made clear they are not okay with. While they can’t tell people not to practice styles like theirs, they can definitely tell people not to use their works in ways they do not allow.

Bring publicly viewable doesn’t make them public domain. Bring able to see something doesn’t give you the right to use it for literally any other reason.

Full stop.

My gods, you’re such an insufferable bootlicking fanboy of bullshit code jockies. Make a good faith effort to actually understand why people dislike these exploitative assholes who are looking to make a buck off of other people’s work for once, instead of just reflexively calling them all phillistines who “just don’t understand”.

Some of us work on machine learning systems for a living. We know what they are and how they work, and they’re fucking regurgitation machines. And people deserve to have control over whether we use their works in our regurgitation machines.

They were not used for derivative works. The AI’s model produced by the training does not contain any copyrighted material.

If you click this link and view the images there then you are just as much a “pirate” as the AI trainers.

The models themselves are the derivative works. Those artists’ works were copied and processed to create that model. There is a difference between a person viewing a piece of work and putting that work to be processed through a system. The way copyright works as defined, being allowed to view a work is not the same as being allowed to use it in any way you see fit. It’s also innacurate to speak of AIs as if they have the same abilities and rights as people.

i’m not making a moral comment on anything, including piracy. i’m saying “but it’s part of my established workflow” is not an excuse for something morally wrong.

only click here if you understand analogy and hyperbole

if i say “i can’t write without kicking a few babies first”, it’s not an excuse to keep kicking babies. i just have to stop writing, or maybe find another workflow

The difference is that kicking babies is illegal whereas training and running an AI is not. Kind of a big difference.

did you click the thing saying that you understand analogies?

You’re using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That’s not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain. Kicking a baby is not the same as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don’t map to each other.

You can’t dodge flaws in your argument by adding a “don’t respond unless you agree with me” clause on your comment.

You’re using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That’s not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain

actually that’s exactly what i was using it for.

Kicking a baby is not the same^[1] as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don’t map to each other.

if you read carefully, you’ll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you’re continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you’ll see that i implied i wasn’t making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies

You can’t dodge flaws in your argument by adding a “don’t respond unless you agree with me” clause on your comment.

i didn’t intend to. i did it so i wouldn’t have to waste my time arguing with those who don’t understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you’ll excuse me, i’m going to stop

edit: okay, i’ve been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don’t understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment

yes. analogous doesn’t mean “the same”. it means "able to draw demonstrative parallels between ↩︎

Was he paid for his art to be included?

His work was used in a publicly available product without license or compensation. Including his work in the training dataset was, to the online vernacular use of the word, piracy.

They violated his copyright when they used his work to make their shit.

The product does not contain his work. So no copying was done, therefore no “piracy.”

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back - Decrypt(decrypt.co)

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Community stats

Community moderators