Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
mrttao
Well-known member
Ah... Tuesday
Unfortunately, Adobe have a monopoly for many a good reason -- Photoshop and other CC suite apps are the go-to because they're very high quality and very capable compared to their competitors.
Yes, Coral Painter, for example, is better at painting realistic forms of art, such as oil painting, compared to Photoshop, but Photoshop is not only capable of painting but also editing, retouching, et cetera. It's basically an all in one, and even when an artist paints a concept in Painter, they typically port it over to Photoshop for use in another works and workflows and for advanced editing.
Photoshop is basically indispensable... which is why Adobe has the balls to try to pull shit like this.
Yes, Coral Painter, for example, is better at painting realistic forms of art, such as oil painting, compared to Photoshop, but Photoshop is not only capable of painting but also editing, retouching, et cetera. It's basically an all in one, and even when an artist paints a concept in Painter, they typically port it over to Photoshop for use in another works and workflows and for advanced editing.
Photoshop is basically indispensable... which is why Adobe has the balls to try to pull shit like this.
the grave yard of history is filled with indispensable companies, countries, and people.
Yeah, I remember a lot of companies from the 80's and 90's that were giants like Google and Microsoft that quickly died within two/three years, or they lingered on as legacy names under different brands after being bought, but Adobe is like Microsoft and Apple -- they've gone the distance and won.
People are pissed at Adobe as they are with Apple and Microsoft, but they're not going anywhere any time soon.
Some maybe, some no. The patents/copyright office is also in the Constitution, so I've no idea honestly.
Eh, I'm actually in favor of them figuring out if X's art was in Y's AI model. Because using art in an AI model seems to me to be copyright infringing, in principle if not legally. I very much support artists needing to be paid if their work is used in an AI model.
Doomsought
Well-known member
The AI is a medium, then those art works are samples used in a derivative work. No new legislation is needed.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Hmm, that opens another can of worms though. I always get a chuckle at the people protesting that AI is copyright infringement because humans create their art in the exact same way, they look at other art and incorporate the ideas into their own. If it's a derivative work for the AI to create a new piece after studying other artists' works, is it also copyright infringement for a student who studied other artists' works in art school? Or a writer who read something before writing, or an actor.
"Steal from the best" has been the advice of successful creators from time immemorial for a reason, and any law that prohibits an AI from learning from other words can be easily twisted to step on human artists as well, giving big media a dandy excuse to keep down the competition and wage lawfare against ideas they don't like.
Denzel Washington discusses his acting craft: 'I steal from the best'
Preparing to direct "A Journal for Jordan," a bittersweet love story opening on Christmas Day, Denzel Washington says he took a "master class."
www.foxnews.com
It's going to be used by companies to go after fan art, though.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Probably, though I suspect clever people in the Copyleft community are working on ways to "subvert" that as we speak.
Eventually, I think we'll reach a point where traditional IP laws become more and more unenforceable — with the only way to really catch and punish violators requiring the government to set up a far larger, far more draconian surveillance state (e.g., something resembling Kazakhstan's measures on steroids) than even the likes of Razorfist would be okay with. Because ultimately, that's what I believe it'll take; even then, that'll probably push more people into the "Cypherpunk" camp that devise other ways to compensating creators outside the traditional IP regime.
bintananth
behind a desk
There's also the prospect of art schools demanding royalties from their former students.
Technical drafting is probably safe but I wouldn't put it past Autudesk to demand a cut of revenue from those who use their software on top of the already painful pricetag.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Honestly, I wonder if that might just catalyze software piracy instead?
Not only because of obscene base prices or brazenly demanding a portion of users' revenue, but also because of the way they're cheating their customers right now. While they could technically do business with open-source software providers instead (and lots of them will), Autodesk's plethora of cool features and former customers' hard feelings might push them to pirate Autodesk software out of spite.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
One of the big things about most 'utility' software, is that over time, Open-Source enthusiasts will replicate more and more of the capabilities they have, and put it online for free. In this day and age, once someone has solved a coding problem and put the solution up on an open-source site, that's available for everyone else to work with in the future.
Over time, more abusive companies will find themselves getting edged out by free, if less capable, versions. I wouldn't be surprised if some medium-sized companies who want things like payroll software just start paying open-source developers to keep developing and trouble-shooting software, because it'll be cheaper than paying a license to a company with a patented version.
There may be factors that make this harder than I understand, I don't know just how sophisticated the coding for this stuff has gotten, but time is not in such companies' favor.
Over time, more abusive companies will find themselves getting edged out by free, if less capable, versions. I wouldn't be surprised if some medium-sized companies who want things like payroll software just start paying open-source developers to keep developing and trouble-shooting software, because it'll be cheaper than paying a license to a company with a patented version.
There may be factors that make this harder than I understand, I don't know just how sophisticated the coding for this stuff has gotten, but time is not in such companies' favor.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
A rather hypocritical take coming from the self-admitted anarcho-capitalist.
I'm not backing the style thing. I am backing the use of the image itself in an AI model. That should dodge the fan art thing.
No. An anarcho-capitalist can definitely believe in intellectual property rights? Even Rothbard argued in favor of them (he argued against patents as they prevent independent discovery, but also that simply taking an idea from another without permission was simply theft. He was very in favor of copyrights).
sander093
Well-known member
That's probably been the goal from the start.
Remember PIPA, SOPA. Well we've come back around to it again but this time it will be labled something about protecting artists from AI.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Except what you're talking about is such a massive expansion of intellectual property rights, that it would allow corporations to own things like particular styles of art. Even if that isn't your intention, that's what you're arguing in favor of; that works that are so derivative that they resemble the original only in terms of its style, infringe on its copyright. Not exactly something that's congruent with the principles of a free market.
... That's not what I was for. I was in favor of copyright infringements if your artwork was used for AI training, not for something vague like 'style'.
Specifically, all that would be needed is a small change that says "Using an artwork to train a data model is a violation if one does not have copyright permission" or something similar, with a note that fair use does not apply to use in training data models (yes, an AI is transformative, but fair use is more for humans transforming a work).
Note also that I'd want the violator to be the person who created the model, not someone who used the model.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Even ignoring the ownership debate, there's still the question of how far you can go to enforce IP protections without infringing on the NAP in other ways?
As I said above, I think traditional IP enforcement will become increasingly unenforceable by "normal" means, leaving the government to either give up and let the private market come up with alternative compensation methods... or go full Kazakhstan mode by creating a larger, more unforgiving surveillance state than anything Rothbard would find acceptable.
Sure, there may be a happy "middle ground" in theory, but if you ask me, the scummy behavior of big companies seeking to squash smaller competitors and copyleft activists coming up with more and more "tech-savvy" ways to "decentralize" the means of production — 3D printing, CNC machining, and so on — in response will make compromise between two sides who go out of their way to antagonize the other impossible in the long run.
In which case, I believe Libertarians will be faced with a choice: Give up on the traditional IP regime and argue for free-market methods of compensating and giving due credit to creators, or let corporations and the government have broad powers to crush IP violators by letting them ban the sharing of certain files online, unmask and take anonymous violators to court, and maybe go after 3D printing and CNC machining on the basis of them allowing hobbyists to manufacture patented goods illicitly (among other things). The tools to do all that are there and getting better as we speak, so unless Libertarians are prepared to expand the government's enforcement powers far beyond just IP to encompass lots of other technologies and mediums of exchange... then ultimately, I'd say it's a pretty easy choice.