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.

  • SmoochyPit@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If an image is represented as a network of weighted values describing subtle patterns in the image rather than a traditional grid of pixel color values, is that copy of the image still subject to copyright law?

    How much would you have to change before it isn’t? Or if you merged it with another representation, would that change your rights to that image?

    • whelmer@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t matter how you recreate an image, if you recreate someone else’s work that is a violation of copyright.

      Stealing someone’s style is a different matter.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        if you recreate someone else’s work that is a violation of copyright.

        Only if the work is copyrighted, and your copy does not constitute fair use…

        I could create a faithful reproduction of the Mona Lisa (or… I mean, someone could, I sure couldn’t), and it’s not violating copyright, because the Mona Lisa is not copyrighted.

        • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I could create a faithful reproduction of the Mona Lisa

          You could, but Stable Diffusion couldn’t. All it can do is output what it’s been fed. It doesn’t know composition, or colour theory. It doesn’t understand that something is a human, or a fabric, or how materials work, it just reproduces variations of what it’s been fed. Calling it “intelligence” is disingenuous: it doesn’t “know” anything, it just reproduces what’s built into it’s database, usually without the artist’s permission.