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.

  • Pulse@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?

    Downloading to view != downloading to fuel my business.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, and that’s such a ridiculous leap of logic that I can’t come up with anything else to say except no. Just no. What gave you that idea?

      • Pulse@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because this thread was about the companies taking art feeding it into their machine a D claiming not to have stolen it.

        Then you compared that to clicking a link.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, because it’s comparable to clicking a link.

          You said:

          By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?

          And that’s the logic I can’t follow. Who’s downloading and selling Rutkowski’s work? Who’s claiming credit for it? None of that is being done in the first place, let alone being claimed to be “ok.”

          • Pulse@dormi.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because that is what they’re doing, just with extra steps.

            The company pulled down his work, fed it to their AI, then sold the AI as their product.

            Their AI wouldn’t work, at all, without the art they “clicked on”.

            So there is a difference between me viewing an image in my browser and me turning their work into something for resell under my name. Adding extra steps doesn’t change that.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The company pulled down his work, fed it to their AI, then sold the AI as their product.

              If you read the article, not even that is what’s going on here. Stability AI:

              • Removed Rutkowski’s art from their training set.
              • Doesn’t sell their AI as a product.
              • Someone else added Rutkowski back in by training a LoRA on top of Stability’s AI.
              • They aren’t selling their LoRA as a product either.

              So none of what you’re objecting to is actually happening. All cool? Or will you just come up with some other thing to object to?

              • Pulse@dormi.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But they did.

                (I’m on mobile so my formatting is meh)

                They put his art in, only when called out did they remove it.

                Once removed, they did nothing to prevent it being added back.

                As for them selling the product, or not, at this point, they still used the output of his labor to build their product.

                That’s the thing, everyone trying to justify why it’s okay for these companies to do it keep leaning on semantics, legal definitions or “well, back during the industrial revolution…” to try and get around the fact that what these companies are doing is unethical. They’re taking someone else’s labor, without compensation or consent.

    • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, but you can download Rutkovski’s art, learn from it how to paint in his exact style and create art in that style.

      Which is exactly what the image generation AIs do. They’re perhaps just a bit too good at it, certainly way better than an average human.

      Which makes it complicated and morally questionable depending on how exactly you arrive at the model and what you do with it, but you can’t definitively say it’s copyright infringement.

      • Pulse@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You keep comparing what one person, given MONTHS or YEARS of their life could do with one artists work to a machine doing NOT THE SAME THING can do with thousands of artists work.

        The machine is not learning their style, it’s taking pieces of the work and dropping it in with other people’s work then trying to blend it into a cohesive whole.

        The analogy fails all over the place.

        And I don’t care about copyright, I’m not an artist or an IP lawyer, or whatever. I can just look at a company stealing the labor of an entire industry and see it as bad.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The speed doesn’t factor into it. Modern machines can stamp out metal parts vastly faster than blacksmiths with a hammer and anvil can, are those machines doing something wrong?

          • Pulse@dormi.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The machine didn’t take the blacksmiths work product and flood the market with copies.

            The machine wasn’t fed 10,000 blacksmith made hammers then told to, sorta, copy those.

            Justify this all you want, throw all the bad analogies at it you want, it’s still bad.

            Again, if this wasn’t bad, the companies would have asked for permission. They didn’t.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not the aspect you were arguing about in the comment I’m responding to. You said:

              You keep comparing what one person, given MONTHS or YEARS of their life could do with one artists work to a machine doing NOT THE SAME THING can do with thousands of artists work.

              And that’s what I’m talking about here. The speed with which the machine does its work is immaterial.

              Though frankly, if the machine stamping out parts had somehow “learned” how to do it by looking at thousands of existing parts, that would be fine too. So I don’t see any problem here.

              • Pulse@dormi.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                And that’s where we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

                A company hiring an engineer to design a machine that makes hammers, then hiring one (or more) people to make the machine to then make hammers is the company benefiting from the work product of people they hired. While this may impact the blacksmith they did not steal from the blacksmith.

                A company taking someone else’s work product to then build their product, without compensation or consent, is theft of labor.

                I don’t see those as equitable situations.

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  At least now you’re admitting that it’s a difference of opinion, that’s progress.

                  You think it should be illegal to do this stuff. Fine. I think copyright duration has been extended ridiculously long and should be a flat 30 years at most. But in both cases our opinions differ from what the law actually says. Right now there’s nothing illegal about training an AI off of someone’s lawfully-obtained published work, which is what was done here.

                  • Pulse@dormi.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not a fan of our copyright system. IMO, it’s far to long and should also include clauses that place anything not available for (easy) access in the public domain.

                    Also, I’m not talking about what laws say, should say or anything like that.

                    I’ve just been sharing my opinion that it’s unethical and I’ve not seen any good explanation for how stealing someone else’s labor is “good”.

        • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Speed aside, machines don’t have the same rights as humans do, so the idea that they are “learning like a person so it’s fine” is like saying a photocopier machine’s output ought to be treated as an independent work because it replicated some other work, and it’s just so good and fast at it. AI’s may not output identical work, but they still rely on taking an artist’s work as input, something the creator ought to have a say over.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What makes it even trickier is that taking AI generated art and using it however you want definitively isn’t copyright infringement because only works by humans can be protected by copyright.

        • Pulse@dormi.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But that’s not what they did, converting it into a set of instructions a computer can use to recreate it is just adding steps.

          And, yes, that’s what they’ve done else we wouldn’t find pieces of others works mixed in.

          Also, even if that was how it worked, it’s still theft of someone’s else’s labor to feed your business.

          If it wasn’t, they would have asked for permission first.