D&D General DMs Guild and DriveThruRPG ban AI written works, requires labels for AI generated art

[Zaukrie]

The snobbery and judgementalism in this thread is amazing, and likely not helping you make your point...

I believe it's theft, but also inevitable.... No idea how we get the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If it's style that's being copied, I don't see a problem.

It's possible to do it because of artistic theft/copyright violation, which is essentially the same thing. That you don't see a problem is on you, and isn't demonstrative of a real issue. At very best you're undoubtedly violating terms, because people who let you see their art don't let you use it for commercial purposes, which is exactly what you're doing.

You demonstrate this failure to understand basic problems further by your insistence on this "Theft/fraud is just conversion!" nonsense.

It's not theft. It's conversion. Conversion is the civil tort version of theft.

You can keep saying this, as the UK police drag you away, and put you in a cell, and you go in front of the judge, and get a criminal conviction, but it's not going to change the facts. You had the intention to permanently deprive people of their property. You're not getting off with a civil case.

Conversion isn't something that actually is used that much in UK law (mostly where it is, it's with businesses and with questionable decisions rather criminal intent). This is theft/fraud. Trying to pretend it's anything is shenanigans of silliest and most internet kind.

(I should note that conversion technically exists in the UK, but that's not going to prevent criminal charges being brought against you.)

As I said, this is all way above my paygrade. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts and legislatures.

All current signs suggest it's going to go extremely badly for the AI companies. Even if they manage to survive in US courts (unlikely, it seems), in the EU courts? GOOD LUCK.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's the elitist part. What you are doing is like saying that someone who uses synthesizers to make music isn't making music because they aren't playing the instruments themself.

No I'm not saying that, because with a synthesizer you're still playing the keys. Typing in "Play a track that sounds like Slash's intro to Sweet Child of Mine" and having that play back is what I'm talking about, and specifically saying how that doesn't make you a musician. And it's insulting to musicians to say that someone who does nothing more than enter prompts deserves an equal spot at the table with other musicians.

Let me put it like this. You can use AI without the simplest understanding of how art/music composition works. "I'm a musician, but I have no idea what notes are, or what harmony is, or how to read sheet music, or know how to play or sing literally anything."

You're telling a machine to do the work for you. How is that any different than telling a worker to do the work, and then claiming you did it?

 

[ECMO3]

No I'm not saying that, because with a synthesizer you're still playing the keys.

not really. You can play it likethat but you can also have the synthesizer doing all kinds of music on its own.

Typing in "Play a track that sounds like Slash's intro to Sweet Child of Mine" and having that play back is what I'm talking about, and specifically saying how that doesn't make you a musician.

I think that is a slippery slope, especially when Slash is using an electric guitar

 

[Sacrosanct]

not really. You can play it likethat but you can also have the synthesizer doing all kinds of music on its own.


I think that is a slippery slope, especially when Slash is using an electric guitar

It's not a slippery slope because that's exactly the kind prompt being used in AI art. Good lord...

 

[Maxperson]

It's possible to do it because of artistic theft/copyright violation, which is essentially the same thing. That you don't see a problem is on you, and isn't demonstrative of a real issue. At very best you're undoubtedly violating terms, because people who let you see their art don't let you use it for commercial purposes, which is exactly what you're doing.

You demonstrate this failure to understand basic problems further by your insistence on this "Theft/fraud is just conversion!" nonsense.

Dude. You're the only one here bringing up fraud. That's no part of anything I said or example I gave. I also never indicated that I don't see a problem with conversion or copyright violations. Not sure why you think I don't see any problems with those things.

You can keep saying this, as the UK police drag you away, and put you in a cell, and you go in front of the judge, and get a criminal conviction, but it's not going to change the facts. You had the intention to permanently deprive people of their property. You're not getting off with a civil case.

So what. I'm not in the U.K. How about we go to Singapore and check the laws there. I'm sure they are even more severe, if they even take artistic expression into account at all.

If you come here to America and convert something, you aren't going to be dragged away, though you might be sued and have to pay damages.

All current signs suggest it's going to go extremely badly for the AI companies. Even if they manage to survive in US courts (unlikely, it seems), in the EU courts? GOOD LUCK.

We will see. I'm still not seeing that having an AI learn from looking at an artist's stuff is neccesarily theft OR conversion. If it was, then human artists couldn't look at another artist for inspiration(learning) without being tossed in jail or fined heavily.

 

[Maxperson]

No I'm not saying that, because with a synthesizer you're still playing the keys. Typing in "Play a track that sounds like Slash's intro to Sweet Child of Mine" and having that play back is what I'm talking about, and specifically saying how that doesn't make you a musician. And it's insulting to musicians to say that someone who does nothing more than enter prompts deserves an equal spot at the table with other musicians.

And I'm saying that if I specify to the AI what it is that I want and tweak it further afterwards, I'm "playing the keys." If the AI is achieving my vision as I direct it to, then it's my art.

You're telling a machine to do the work for you. How is that any different than telling a worker to do the work, and then claiming you did it?

Someone sold "art" created by a chimp for tens of thousands of dollars. If getting a chimp to do the work for you is art, why not AI?

Chimpanzee’s artwork auctioned for $25,000

Monkey business proved to be lucrative yesterday when paintings by Congo the chimpanzee sold at auction for more than $25,000. The three abstract, tempera...

www.seattletimes.com

 

[SkidAce]

Ona lighter note, I think human creators are safe, ay least for now.

clucka clucka dooodle do

oh my...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you come here to America and convert something, you aren't going to be dragged away, though you might be sued and have to pay damages.

I'm sorry, I don't believe US police officers are going to make that subtle distinction. Especially if the people accused of this are of certain backgrounds. I won't say any more about that, let we get into "politics", but this is high-falutin' nonsense that doesn't typically apply to real life unless everyone involved is wealthy and no-one wants the criminal law to be involved.

And an American comparing Britain to Singapore is just next-level hypocrisy, I don't even know what to say to that lol.

If it was, then human artists couldn't look at another artist for inspiration(learning) without being tossed in jail or fined heavily.

There's a huge difference in that you can prove that a company did it, and further, those companies actually offered people paid products where they could type in [Artist Name] and it would emulate the style of that artist, directly using data pulled without permission from that artist's work. This isn't human inspiration. This is a machine mathematically crunching how to emulate an artist's style.

If the AI is achieving my vision as I direct it to, then it's my art.

No. That's a purely self-deluding point of view. It's equivalent to Pope Sixtus IV saying he painted the Sistine Chapel.

AI art produced from data sets involving unowned art doesn't look like it's possible to copyright, either, so you don't even own it on that level.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry, I don't believe US police officers are going to make that subtle distinction. Especially if the people accused of this are of certain backgrounds. I won't say any more about that, let we get into "politics", but this is high-falutin' nonsense that doesn't typically apply to real life unless everyone involved is wealthy and no-one wants the criminal law to be involved.

You don't know America that well.

And an American comparing Britain to Singapore is just next-level hypocrisy, I don't even know what to say to that lol.

There was no comparison. None at all. I was making a comment about using some other country's laws like you are trying to do. UK law doesn't have any bearing on what I'm talking about here in California.

There's a huge difference in that you can prove that a company did it, and further, those companies actually offered people paid products where they could type in [Artist Name] and it would emulate the style of that artist, directly using data pulled without permission from that artist's work. This isn't human inspiration. This is a machine mathematically crunching how to emulate an artist's style.

I don't see how it matters. Being inspired by art from someone else isn't a crime, or even a tort. And again, style isn't able to be copyrighted. Emulating a style is fine.