undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaiappreciator3y ago0 comments

AI is far more productive, and easier in modifying source pictures, than photography. Controlnet is not a mere tint, it can generate 20 artstyle variations of the source image in 30 seconds. No artist will have any income if this those AI outputs are copyrightable without cost.

I don't think past-decisions are that important here. There'll definitely be new laws around AI generated content, that set clear standards. Those standards have to consider the social impact of copyright and the livelihood of artists. The whole point of copyright is not some abstract golden moral standard, but something that keeps artists and writers employed.

That's why I think pay-for-copyright is the best balance in terms of liberty for AI art but preserving the incomes of traditional artists.

0 comments

orbital-decay3y ago

This is the same as saying that the generative art (which has been a thing for decades) provides infinite variation. This is only technically true: the "infinite" variations of the procedurally generated art are all constrained by the original creator's intent, which is exactly what gives such art value.

The generative art is not set in fixed pixels, but instead is represented in a fuzzy form (equations, algorithms etc) that slightly varies each time you look at it. The value of it is also constrained by the author's intent and work. Only humans can be subject to copyright, so it at least makes common (if not legal) sense.

ML models are the same as the generative art that previously existed - they only add the captured essence of the prior data to the mix of human artistic intent and hard algorithms.

tylersmith3y ago

What is the value of artists having incomes if the same art can be generated instead?