AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[VHawkwinter]

I'm not aware of any of the fair use exceptions that would apply to AI.

Why Anthropic’s Copyright Settlement Changes the Rules for AI Training

Anthropic's settlement came after a mixed ruling on the “fair use” where it potentially faced massive piracy damages for downloading millions of books illegally. The settlement seems to clarify an…

www.joneswalker.com

The settlement follows Judge William Alsup's nuanced ruling that using copyrighted materials to train AI models constitutes transformative fair use (essentially, using copyrighted material in a new way that doesn’t compete with the original) — a victory for AI developers. The court held that AI models are "like any reader aspiring to be a writer" who trains upon works "not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different."

Alsup ruled AI training is transformative fair use, but pirating all those books to do it was not fair use.

 

[Maxperson]

You are incorrect. The design is his design. The house was never his.

Yeaaaaahh, so you don't have to own the house to have created it. It never had to be his in order for him to have created it.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

The architect does not own or control the houses built to the design.
The architect’s drawings/designs are protected by copyright though.
The architect will have a legitimate claim if a builder uses the drawings without compensating the architect.

(Usual disclaimers apply…)

Just to be clear -- the building itself is copyright, not just the drawings. You cannot copy a building without permission if it is not in the public domain.

No Falling Water knockoffs allowed for another 30 or so years ...

 

[Maxperson]

but you aren't the creator!

You are telling a thing to create your desires. You have placed a multitude of orders, just like a grumpy restaurant patron who keeps sending the plate back

Wrong. I'm using it to build my creation. Not one order has been placed for fulfillment. Direction has been made to a tool. Not a person. Not a chef. Not a builder. A tool.

Edit: You are even acknowledging my position with your response. You use the word "thing." Things cannot create.

 

[bsss]

Yeaaaaahh, so you don't have to own the house to have created it. It never had to be his in order for him to have created it.

Please see my later reply to the same quibble. The house was never his creation either.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, this is just not how AI art works. If it built an image for which you specified every pixel exactly, then your argument would have merit. However, you would not be using an AI because -- by definition -- they are using intelligence, not "just following direction".

Your prompt for the engine is a fraction of the input that goes into creating the image. The majority of the information in the generated picture is defined by the model itself. Are you a part of the creative process? Of course! But no more so than someone who gives a detailed description of a picture they want a human artist to draw.

Take your prompt for an image -- if you gave that to a human artists and they drew it exactly as you said, no one would doubt, morally and legally, that they were the creator. So it makes no sense for you to claim that simply by giving the same instructions to a computer, suddenly you become the creator.

Now, as all artists know, a client who is good at describing what they need is a great asset -- we're not knocking your ability to describe what you want done -- but it doesn't make you the creator. It makes you a good describer.

So are we back to the part of the loop where it’s claimed you are not the creator because the one doing the actual image creation is the creator. But you are part of what’s creating that image, as previously discussed with fairly wide agreement, philosophically creation for that image gets attributed to those directly having a hand in making it. Your prompt certainly was a piece of the image creation process. So you are at least partial creator?

 

[FrogReaver]

Ideas do not create. Creators create. You can pat yourself on the back for having the idea of a good dish, but someone else created it. "But I want to be credited as the creator too!" is not a compelling argument.

So who did create the image that the ai spit out?

 

[Maxperson]

The other is chef I have a vision for a dish I want to make but no skill to make it. Give me something like X. Okay that wasn’t quite it, instead change X and Y and let’s try again. Nope still not quite it, remove this ingredient and add this other one. That came out perfect! That’s at a collaboration to create something.

It's even worse than that. The AI is a tool.....a thing. Things cannot create, therefore if I and the tool make something new, there can be no creator other than me.

 

[bsss]

So who did create the image that the ai spit out?

Not you.

 

[Maxperson]

So, this is just not how AI art works. If it built an image for which you specified every pixel exactly, then your argument would have merit. However, you would not be using an AI because -- by definition -- they are using intelligence, not "just following direction".

Your prompt for the engine is a fraction of the input that goes into creating the image. The majority of the information in the generated picture is defined by the model itself. Are you a part of the creative process? Of course! But no more so than someone who gives a detailed description of a picture they want a human artist to draw.

Take your prompt for an image -- if you gave that to a human artists and they drew it exactly as you said, no one would doubt, morally and legally, that they were the creator. So it makes no sense for you to claim that simply by giving the same instructions to a computer, suddenly you become the creator.

Now, as all artists know, a client who is good at describing what they need is a great asset -- we're not knocking your ability to describe what you want done -- but it doesn't make you the creator. It makes you a good describer.

Tools and things cannot create. I'm not a part of the creative process. I am the creative process. The tool is just a thing used to get me to my creative vision.