• RyanHeffronPhoto@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    @Gutless2615 Of course individuals can train models on their own work, but if they train it on other artists work, that too is an unauthorized use.

    Honestly whether AI outputs can be copyrighted is really a separate issue from what I am concerned about… what matters in these cases is where/ how they obtained the inputs on which they trained the models. If a corporation or individual is using other artists works without authorization they are also committing theft, irrespective of any copyright infringement.

    • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And while we’re at it let’s throw out mashup artists, collages, remixes and fair use altogether, huh? You’re just incorrect here, fair use exists for a reason, and applying the four factor fair use test to generative art comes out on the side of fair use nine times out of ten. What’s more, what you’re arguing for will only make it harder for small artists who get spurious accusations lobbed their way or automated take downs from bad “ai detector” software and have to drag out in progress files and lawyer money to argue they didn’t use generative tools in their workflow. There are better ways to make sure artists can still get paid - and, spoiler alert: it’s not just the artists that are going to get hit. We need to embrace more creative solutions to the problems of AI than “copyright harder”