Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CypherLH t1_j67q5pq wrote

Reply to comment by purgatorytea in Google not releasing MusicLM by Sieventer

Yep, the anti-AI artists are literally trying to cut of their own noses to spite their face. They will be cutting their own throats if they get their way. They should be embracing this technology as a way to augment/expand their work and welcoming all the new people showing an interest in art because of the accessibility of the AI tools.
The annoying thing is they are spreading this shit on tiktok and elsewhere, indoctrinating young budding artists to hate "Evil AI" that is stealing all their works and trying to suck out their humanity. (literally, my 11 year old is spouting this stuff at me because of shit she is seeing online)

4

wavefxn22 t1_j67v35u wrote

It’s not evil it’s a tool, that evil people can use as well as good people.. it needs copyright restrictions so you can’t just straight up steal someone’s unique style that they spent a lifetime developing . But it also shouldn’t be so restricted that we can’t make anything at all

1

visarga t1_j68qfux wrote

Styles, by definition, are broad categories. If they were copyrightable, then the same rule would need to apply to both humans and AI. We can never know when a human has used AI or just looked at AI for inspiration. So we have to assume any human work might have AI in it.

If human works would be exempt from the strict rules AI has to follow what's to stop the big companies to hire people to white wash the style copyrights? What companies need is to license some images in that style. The images can be produced for hire at the lowest price.

2

wavefxn22 t1_j69828s wrote

They aren’t necessarily broad categories. You can ask ai to do something in the style of a specific artist. Say, van gough. His style was not a broad category, it was very distinct. And even he had styles within his styles, different periods.

Ai can be broad or specific, when it gets too specific as in people asking for “in the style of van gough” then we need some copyright protections.

Picked van gough as an example because he killed himself thinking he was worthless. He’d be even worse off today

1

visarga t1_j6c2z5z wrote

I disagree, copyrighting styles is absurd, countless possibilities banned in one go? We'll get to the point where humans fear creating anything because it will inevitably resemble some style somewhere.

2

wavefxn22 t1_j6d8crl wrote

I don’t think you understand what I said; there’s a range. A work in the style of Van Gogh, is a limited style range that should have copyright protections. A work in the style of Impressionism however is fair use.

1

visarga t1_j6n30bh wrote

I don't think even Van Gogh can claim ownership of squiggly lines that look like fire or the colour palette of white-blue-gold. They pre-existed and were rediscovered in many ways in by many artists.

Can we agree that a style used by 3 or more artists doesn't belong to anyone and is open for AI to use? We just need to make a list of all styles that are generic enough.

0