Support NeoGAF

[MHubert]

This thread isn't about to which degree it must suck for artists or other creators to have their work or style reproduced by an AI, or whether or not you should feel bad for them. This is about answering the most basic question head-on: is it theft?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, not really. Here's why:

I want to keep this post short so I suggest two possible lenses, lets call those lenses hard-theft and soft-theft respectively:

• Hard-theft: Stealing as according to law. This definition of stealing relates to any form of theft that can be defined and ruled through a lawful logic as in copyrighted material etc.
• Soft-theft: Stealing as according to principle. This might include 'burrowing' an idea to the dismay of the originator, but is by definition not unlawful. We see this sometimes in academia and in the art community this can create a lot of drama.

While these two definitions can be fluid depending on legal area they are both defined by being either lawful or unlawful, and more importantly, both of these definitions are dependent on the final product being in such a way that it, or substantial parts of it, can be traced back to another creator than the producer.

This creates a whole world of new problems for ai generation since the same model can in some instances either be totally traced back to a particular artist/creator's style or technique, and in some cases not at all while still being based on the same dataset. In other words, if what is stolen is the data, then it's absurd to think that it only steals when you 'catch it', but on the other hand, it's absurd to accuse it of stealing when or if it produces something that no human has ever created or conceived, where it is more or less impossible to trace the human originator.

These are some pretty banal points so feel free to add, adjust or found something new.

 

[nush]

It's transformative art, that is legal.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

How is the A.I Code works?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

As long as the AI does some tweaks to it so it's not a 100% copy, it seems fair game to me.

It'd be like the first person to draw a bowl of fruit trying to sue every person after they copied their idea even if the apple and orange are on different sides of the bowl. Nope. The other works are different.

 

[MHubert]

As long as the AI does some tweaks to it so it's not a 100% copy, it seems fair game to me.

It'd be like the first person to draw a bowl of fruit trying to sue every person after they copied their idea even if the apple and orange are on different sides of the bowl. Nope. The other works are different.

I agree. If we are going to categorize it as stealing we kind of have to re-evaluate what that word even means - which won't be easy.

How is the A.I Code works?

It's fine

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I agree. If we are going to categorize it as stealing we kind of have to re-evaluate what that word even means - which won't be easy.

It'll be tough because even for other art, there's laws that says there's wiggle room. Like for music I think the first 8 notes are open for everyone. And no song or book titles can be copyrighted or else you'd run out of words. It might not be exactly that but pretty darn close I believe.

For artistic stuff it can still be protected. But it'll be a tough slog. But I remember an example some company made bottlecap art (I think) and someone did their own collection on Etsy and there were literally 100 bottlecaps which all were pretty close. I dont think any of them were even 100% copies, but considering there were so many that were tiny tweaks I think the judge ruled it was a blatant copy based on quantity. It sounded like if the Etsy woman only copied a small number it would had slid. But the before and after examples of pages worth of art (including the text caption on it too) were so close, it was holistically deemed theft.

 

[HoodWinked]

cosmically it is stealing as the effort from the A.I. user is extremely low to essentially devalue the original's works.

strange thing is that take the music industry a song like blurred lines took far more human effort and doesn't even really sound like the marvin gaye song and yet the estate was awarded millions. and even more heinous is that the estate isn't even in the custody of the creators, just some degenerate family members.

though i have no clue how the heck they would even pass laws or regulate this sort of thing. the grey area stuff is always a shit show to figure out.

 

[MHubert]

It'll be tough because even for other art, there's laws that says there's wiggle room. Like for music I think the first 8 notes are open for everyone. And no song or book titles can be copyrighted or else you'd run out of words. It might not be exactly that but pretty darn close I believe.

For artistic stuff it can still be protected. But it'll be a tough slog. But I remember an example some company made bottlecap art (I think) and someone did their own collection on Etsy and there were literally 100 bottlecaps which all were pretty close. I dont think any of them were even 100% copies, but considering there were so many that were tiny tweaks I think the judge ruled it was a blatant copy based on quantity. It sounded like if the Etsy woman only copied a small number it would had slid. But the before and after examples of pages worth of art (including the text caption on it too) were so close, it was holistically deemed theft.

Yea I'm not 100% clear on how copyright actually works, and obviously that might vary depending on geography, but I'm sure there must be some kind of more or less arbitrary rules to how much a product must differ from another in design within the frame of reason of course. Basically what we have now are laws that doesn't adequately describe the reality (future) that ai is going to give us. That's why I found it interesting to differentiate between a soft and a hard form of theft - because I think future laws will have to land somewhere in the middle.

This is what excites me so much about technology like ai - it necessitates a whole new way of thinking about basic concepts.

 

[Sakura]

It is a difficult question.
If I were to take someone's artwork, make some "tweaks" and throw it into my game I'm making, I'm pretty sure I could be sued even though it isn't a 100% copy, so I'm not sure whether it is a 1 to 1 copy or not is the be all end all.
The AI is using art people made without their consent, to generate "new" art, and this art can be used for commercial purposes, resulting in measurable loss to the artists whose artwork was used in training the AI. I could see a legal case being made on grounds like that, but I'm not sure what the result would be.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Yea I'm not 100% clear on how copyright actually works, and obviously that might vary depending on geography, but I'm sure there must be some kind of more or less arbitrary rules to how much a product must differ from another in design within the frame of reason of course. Basically what we have now are laws that doesn't adequately describe the reality (future) that ai is going to give us. That's why I found it interesting to differentiate between a soft and a hard form of theft - because I think future laws will have to land somewhere in the middle.

This is what excites me so much about technology like ai - it necessitates a whole new way of thinking about basic concepts.

It'll be interesting how it shakes out.

Reminds me of 15-20 years ago when people would be doing streaming feeds off shady sites and the cable company couldnt come after you because it had to do with a digital medium. I dont remember exactly what it was, but it had to do with cable companies scaring people with warnings popping up on their browser. But in reality they couldnt do anything because it wasnt a physical medium.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It is a difficult question.
If I were to take someone's artwork, make some "tweaks" and throw it into my game I'm making, I'm pretty sure I could be sued even though it isn't a 100% copy, so I'm not sure whether it is a 1 to 1 copy or not is the be all end all.
The AI is using art people made without their consent, to generate "new" art, and this art can be used for commercial purposes, resulting in measurable loss to the artists whose artwork was used in training the AI. I could see a legal case being made on grounds like that, but I'm not sure what the result would be.

Considering so much art can surely be traced to another person in the world who has done it before (or pretty darn close), does that mean everyone can do a cycle of suing everyone?

For example, at some point some dude drew a mean looking green troll holding a big club. Does that mean every fantasy artist after that who drew something pretty similar could had been sued by the first guy who drew it? Lets' say that guy never cared (which seems so). Could a modern day troll drawer (who copied someone else's art for inspiration) also be allowed to sue another modern artist drawing a troll even though the guy suing wasnt even the originator to begin with?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I don't think the end product is what matters.

Is how these A I.work.

I think for example if you are an artist you can pull out your art form being in the database these A.I use.

So, is not about stealing, is about who is making money with it.

 

[MHubert]

It'll be interesting how it shakes out.

Reminds me of 15-20 years ago when people would be doing streaming feeds off shady sites and the cable company couldnt come after you because it had to do with a digital medium. I dont remember exactly what it was, but it had to do with cable companies scaring people with warnings popping up on their browser. But in reality they couldnt do anything because it wasnt a physical medium.

Definitely! I'm imagining all kinds of legal horrors just around the corner, just like you point out with ISP's more or less acting as bullies (not saying they are in the wrong) on behalf distribution companies. In my part of the world the legal system still hasn't conformed to this reality, simply because categorizing something copied for private use as theft is incompatible with how our legal system functions on a basic premise.
One thing is the use of copyrighted material, another is how text generation will disrupt the learning sector when it will be more or less impossible to check whether or not a written piece of work comes from the mind of a student or a machine.

 

[Sakura]

Considering so much art can surely be traced to another person in the world who has done it before (or pretty darn close), does that mean everyone can do a cycle of suing everyone?

For example, at some point some dude drew a mean looking green troll holding a big club. Does that mean every fantasy artist after that who drew something pretty similar could had been sued by the first guy who drew it? Lets' say that guy never cared (which seems so). Could a modern day troll drawer (who copied someone else's art for inspiration) also be allowed to sue another modern artist drawing a troll even though the guy suing wasnt even the originator to begin with?

I think it is different.
Trolls have existed for hundreds of years, in all sorts in iterations, so I don't think anyone would be suing.
Regardless, AI cannot work without using actual art that somebody else has already drawn. It's different than me looking at art someone else has drawn and using it for inspiration or ideas. It would be like me going to deviantart, or wherever artists post their stuff, grabbing someone's art, editing it in photoshop or something, and then turning around and selling it as art that I made.
I think there could be legal grounds to sue. I'm not saying it would work out in the artist's favour, just that I think there is a case to be made.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[Sakura]

What a weird combination...

By the way, if let's say AI art is more restricted in one country (e.g. USA), but not in another (e.g. China, Indonesia), won't companies just outsource the job to countries where it's legal/less restricted anyway? Especially if it's cheaper than to hire someone in your own country...

If they want to make money in the US they would still have to play by US rules when it comes to IP etc.

 

[Fully engaged]

I think the best use for this tech would be to train it on your own art style and then get it to generate objects in your personal art style.

 

[daveonezero]

I never saw copying data as stealing.

 

[Wildebeest]

Technically, the accusation is plagiarism. Here are a couple of examples to see if you are OK with it.

1. You earned a degree in a field legitimately, but now are aware that many recent graduates used an AI language model to write what you had to write by paying someone to write your shit for you while you slept off your hangovers, sorry what you had to laboriously write legitimately without using any stimulants. Plagiarism detection cannot touch them.
2. You have a very embarrassing medical condition, and an AI medical model scraped your data as part of its training. A writer for a hit medical procedural TV show asks an AI to create a realistic character with an embarrassing medical condition, and it pumps out someone who is pretty much exactly you but with a different name.

 

[dr_octagon]

OP to answer your question, not really.

There are 2 lenses:

Hard-theft: Stealing as according to law. This stealing relates to any form of theft that can be defined and ruled.

Soft-theft: Stealing as according to principle or borrowing is by definition not unlawful.

Both of these definitions are dependent on the final product being in such a way that it, or substantial parts of it, can be traced back to another creator than the producer.

If what is stolen is the data, then it's absurd to think that it only steals when you 'catch it'. It's absurd to also accuse it of stealing when or if it produces something that no human has ever created or conceived.[/CODE]

 

[Happosai]

I'd say it's okay unless A.I.s start pulling 'art' from Butch Hartmann's iPad...then it's plagiarism.