Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9089744" data-attributes="member: 7035894">Well, no. It's counterintuitive, but from the AI's perspective, the signature is simply part of the style that it is aping - with the Fazetta example, it can't easily tell the difference between his signature and his style of painting gorgeously sculpted muscles. I really don't think this is the case - here the specifics are very important not just legally, but potentially ethically as well.For example, when studying an author, a very typical assignment is to ask students write their own piece in the style of that author - a pastiche. Similarly, art teachers routinely ask students to paint something in the style of Picasso, or whatever. Music teachers, same, with compositions. This is done to help students learn and understand what makes those artists interesting and distinct. I don't think anyone has a problem with that sort of copying, legally or ethically.But what about if you publish the work in some way? After the Beatles broke, huge numbers of bands immediately starting aping everything from their suits to their haircuts to George Harrison's 12 string Rickenbacker, not to mention their style of musical composition. Again, mostly totally okay legally. Lots of folks looked down on The Monkees creatively, and maybe even ethically, but they weren't getting sued by EMI. On the other hand, if you get too close and copy something that is distinct enough, you can get into legal trouble, as several of the Beatles would themselves eventually find out. But that is a huge grey area and subject to continual litigation.Similarly, I don't think using AI to copy an artistic style is a cut and dry legal or ethical issue - it is going to come down to how exact the copy is, and would probably have to be litigated on a case by case basis. The blanket legal issues seem to be coming from a different kind of copying, in how AIs are trained. But even here, it isn't cut and dry. For example, what about an AI trained completely on material that is in the public domain? And what makes how an AI "trains" in an artistic style different from how a human "trains" in an artistic style, given that we don't fully understand the former, and are considerably farther from understanding the latter?I don't think these are semantic questions at all; I think they get right at the heart of why this issue is so confounding and why well-intentioned people can come to radically different conclusions.Personally, I don't see much ethically wrong with the WotC artist in this case using AI to enhance their own art; I suspect they viewed it it as similar to using Adobe or Grammarly, and I do as well. I do think that companies training AIs, since they are intended for commercial purposes, should work out a fair compensation for artists that they are using, or stop using them, though I recognize that my reasoning for requiring this of an AI and not a human commercial artist might not be entirely logically coherent. And I think that these events are moving at such a rapid pace that all of our current beliefs are going to seem woefully outdated very quickly.</blockquote>

Verification