Mgrecord t1_j5o513j wrote on January 24, 2023 at 11:39 AM

Reply to comment by natepriv22 in CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism by iingot

But isn’t the “style” or “essence” what’s actually copyrighted? I’m not sure Fair Use will cover this.

natepriv22 t1_j5o72qn wrote on January 24, 2023 at 12:03 PM

No, the final output is what's copyrighted. It's impossible to copyright style because it's too much of an abstract.

Example: Disney copyrights drawings of Mickey Mouse. Mickey mouse is a character that resembles a mouse, walks upright, has little mouse ears, has a boopy nose, red pants, and yellow shows.

This is a character, that Disney has come up with and which is unique. If someone were to draw something according to these exact specifications, then it is very likely that they would come up with a drawing closely or almost completely resembling Mickey Mouse. By trying to redistribute something so obviously similar, you are in danger of breaching someone's copyright.

On the other hand a style could be cartoons, or lets make it at the simplest level possible, drawing only with circles.

While you may have been the first to use a style, you have no copyright claim over it. It's a very abstract thing, but its more far removed from the artist. The style is a medium to produce a creation, it's more like a tool, but not the ultimate product. If you and Disney both started drawing with circles, you would ultimately come to very different products, no matter how similar the goal may be (draw a mouse using only circles).

In other words, styles are almost mathematical arrangements of colors, movements, dots, etc. You use this mathematical formula to produce a character for example. This character is unique, it's very likely only you could have come up with this. The style is very likely to be discovered by other people. Trying to copyright a style would be like trying to copyright a math formula.

TLDR: sorry for the messy writing, but I was trying to put all my thoughts together into one. For these reasons, AI can never truly plagiarize or infringe copyright on its own. Styles are non copyright able and that is almost exclusively what matters to the AI. Arranging math to try and satisfy your output desire. Unless it has a reference point it will pretty much never be able to come to the same conclusion you have come to.

Extra: imagine a world where style is copyrighted instead of just the product or output. It would be the destruction of creativity and art. Imagine if Disney was able to smartly copyright a cartoon or 3d cartoon style. They would be the only ones able to create cartoons and 3d cartoons in the industry, gatekeeping and locking everyone else out for risk of lawsuits.

Now that would be a true dystopia...

natepriv22 t1_j5o7jzl wrote on January 24, 2023 at 12:08 PM

Just to add:

If I made it really confusing by being all over the place:

Style = like math, discovered

Art product or output = like an idea, invented

Creativity combines the use of a style, to produce a product or output that expresses something. Without the product or output, what can a style express?

Imagine trying to explain Van Goghs style and styles without his product or output. It would be very mathematical and scientific = turbulent lines + bright colors + lowering of clarity filter

M_Mich t1_j5ork5f wrote on January 24, 2023 at 2:56 PM

and if expressionism could be copywrited, it wouldn’t have become a style of are. it would have been limited to the first artist to do it and then everyone else would have been sued.

Mgrecord t1_j5o8cl6 wrote on January 24, 2023 at 12:17 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The technology is going to move much faster than the lawsuits!

Fafniiiir t1_j5wym5z wrote on January 26, 2023 at 3:14 AM

Human beings are not ai, I don't think that the two can just be compared.
A human being being influenced by another artist is not the same as an ai, and a human being can't copy another artist as accurately, broadly and quickly as an ai can.

Even if you practice Van Goghs work your entire life your work will never actually look like his there will always be noticeable differences.
There's a lot of artists who even do try to directly copy other artists styles and it's always very apparent and like a worse copycat.

The problem with ai too which is unique to it compared to humans is that it can be fed with an artists work and spit out finished illustrations in that style in seconds.
What is the point of hiring the artist who's work was input into the ai for it to learn from it?
The artist is essentially being competed out of their own work with no way of combating it or keeping up with it.
Not to mention that it also competes them out of their own search tag, when you search for some artists you literally get page after page of ai generations instead of the actual artists work.

Things like fair use take this stuff into consideration too, the damages or even potential damages caused to the person.
And ai is fundamentally different than humans in this regard, another human artist can never do what an ai and can't be judged the same.

natepriv22 t1_j5xrs8o wrote on January 26, 2023 at 8:01 AM

>Human beings are not ai, I don't think that the two can just be compared.

Absolutely they can be compared though, they are two forms of intelligence, one of those is built on the principles of intelligence of the other.

>A human being being influenced by another artist is not the same as an ai, and a human being can't copy another artist as accurately, broadly and quickly as an ai can.

It's not the exact same sure, but its broadly similar. You don't store 100% of the info you learn and see because it would be too much data. So you remember processes, rules, and outcomes much better, just like an AI would.

>Even if you practice Van Goghs work your entire life your work will never actually look like his there will always be noticeable differences. There's a lot of artists who even do try to directly copy other artists styles and it's always very apparent and like a worse copycat.

I mean, the average person and I'm pretty sure the both of us too would not be able to distinguish the original from the copied one, unless we had more info. You can do a simple test online, and let's see if you manage to distinguish the two. If you do get a high score, then congrats! You are better at spotting copied art than the average human is.

Furthermore, what you're describing is exactly how AI works. Unless you use an Img2Img model, which is not what the majority of AI art is, then you would never, or it would be close to impossible for you to produce the same output, just like a human. Again, you could test this right now. Just go on an AI art app like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion, and type in "Van Gogh Starry Night", let's see what outputs you will get out of this.

>it can be fed with an artists work and spit out finished illustrations in that style in seconds.

First of all not exaclty, as I've said before, the model never contains the original input, so it's only learning the process, like a human.

Second of all, you can do the same thing! It'll just take you more time. Your friend gives you 100 pictures of a new art style called "circly" which is art purely made with circles. He will give you days, weeks or months, however much you need, to output something in this new style. He wants a picture of New York only made with circles. So you learn this style and create the new drawing or painting for him. You did almost the exact same thing an AI did, except it took you longer which is normal as a human being.

>What is the point of hiring the artist who's work was input into the ai for it to learn from it?

What is the point of hiring a horse carriage driver, when the concept of how a carriage works, was used to create the "evil car"?

First this is a loaded and emotional question. All kinds of art was used without discrimination, no one was specially selected.

Secondly, again, the model will not be able to output the same thing. It can draw in the same style, but the output will not be the same, it just mathematically won't be. So there is economic value in the original work too.

If a process or job can be automated, and there can be a benefit for humanity, why should we stop this development. Where were you when the horse carriage was being replaced? Where are you, fast food workers are getting automated too?? Why is it ok for others but not for you? And if it's ok for no one, do you think we should regress and go back in the past?

>Not to mention that it also competes them out of their own search tag,

I literally have never met a person who searches the art from someone outside of their official channels. Even if they do, then that's a marketing challenge. But what's the difference with popular artists that were being flooded with copies from fiver then?

A style is copyrightable btw, and thank gosh for that. So if they're getting flooded with "copies of their style" that's a lie. It's not their style, it's the style they use and maybe even discovered. But they have no copyright claim. Imagine a world where Disney could copyright drawing cartoonish styles... or DC comic styles... is that what you want?