this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
224 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37747 readers
217 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Copying art for personal, non-commercial use is not theft, but copying someone's art and then profiting (using their image without permission to enrich yourself) is theft.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No.

  • Copying someone's art without permission is copyright violation, not theft.
  • These AIs aren't copying anyone's art, so it's not even copyright violation.
[–] whelmer@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's your opinion. The contrary opinion would be that copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property, which many people view as of equal substantiality to physical property.

You can disagree with the concept of intellectual property but clearly there's an alternative to your point of view that you can't just dismiss by declaration.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Take your opinion to a court of law and see how far it gets. They actually pay close attention to what words mean there. If copyright violation was theft why do they have two different sets of laws to deal with them?

[–] whelmer@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I'm sure you're aware that the manner in which legal bureaucracies define terms is a form of jargon that differentiates legal language from actual language.

They have separate categories of laws to deal with them because physical property is different than intellectual property. The same reason they use a different category of law to deal with identity theft.

Breaking Copyright is a contract/license violation, not theft. Depending on where you live, breach of contract is handled very differently than theft in most jurisdictions.