this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
264 points (94.3% liked)

Furry Technologists

1310 readers
1 users here now

Science, Technology, and pawbs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The guy who used Midjourney to create an award-winning piece of AI art demands copyright protections.

Excuse me while I go grab my popcorn.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 106 points 1 month ago (7 children)

First off, stop calling him an AI artist.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

The term is apparently prompt-fondler now.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 20 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Calling someone a prompt "engineer" should be punishable by law.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

meanwhile startups: prompt coder/wizard!

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago

please call them rockstars i want to see them suffer the way real programmers did

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Yeah, he is neither is those words. I wouldn't even say the 'I' applies.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

But...

The AI is the artist!

Not sure what this other guy is doing though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 61 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

One of the reasons I like AI art is that it's pretty settled law that something produced by purely "mechanical" means can't itself have copyright, since copyright requires both originality and a human author.

It seems like a reasonably compromise, the AI was created by hoovering up the commons, so anything it creates should belong to the commons. I expect a lot of lobbying in the future to try and change it though.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And if AI work would be copyrighted by the "prompt artist" then all the artists whose work is in the training set can sue the prompter for profiting of their work without licensing fees. It would be a legal clusterfuck so it was pretty wise to side step the whole issue.

[–] Lexam@lemmy.ca 60 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I'm in the same boat. Every time someone reads one of my comments and doesn't pay me for it, that's money out of my pocket. It's a hard life being an internet commenter these days.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AFreeLarryHoover@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

AI art might not be real, but Sonic giving birth to Borat is an extremely cool concept that people should be celebrated for drawing

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Dude, you can’t end it in such a rad way and expect us to despise the prompt input guy.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh no, the consequences of your own actions! That art competition should just add a rule "only copyrightable works"

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Apparently, the competition was a year before that ruling.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 5 points 1 month ago

And he's still crying about it?

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 32 points 1 month ago

This is actually the art bit, right? He’s doing conceptual art, like that Banksy that shredded itself upon sale.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The "artist":

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Famous AI 'Prompter' Says He's Losing Millions of Dollars From People Stealing His Stolen Work."

Seems like you did this to yourself, bud. You're just mad you didn't get paid enough for stealing.

[–] Repelle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

“Famous” is accurate, but change to “Infamous” and it’s perfect.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sag@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago

If he is considered "Artist" I am too.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How is he losing millions of dollars? If you're just trying to get into the art fraud money laundering scheme thing then make an NFT and find an idiot. But just the creation of a piece (be it traditional, digital, or "ai") doesn't entitle you to a payout. And if you're just complaining about the dissemination of the piece you asked someone else's computer to generate for you without a kick back link tax, well--that's not how copyright, the internet, or normal human correspondence works.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ah, good ol' music industry math. "1,000 people downloaded a picture that I created, and I wanted to charge $1,000 a piece, so I lost $1,000,000." In reality of course charging $0.02 would've stopped most sales.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah, articles are including the image because they can. If a judge had instead ruled that AI generated works were copyrightable (and to the prompter, not the designer of the tool, owner of the hardware, or even the tool itself) the end result would be that very few orgs would include his piece instead just opting for generating their own (now copyrightable) image to use as an example. He'd still get nothing, but then significantly fewer people would see his "work."

[–] morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm collecting all his tears to cook a big pot of pasta. Not sure how anyone would make "millions of dollars" from a single artwork anyway.

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago

Money laundering.

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

its probably fictionally calculated like sales are to piracy. just because someone pirated a game/software doesnt mean they would have bought said thing at asking price had the piracy option not existed.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

This is the schadenfreude I needed to get through my day

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 17 points 1 month ago

[Nelson Laugh]

[–] Canadian_Cabinet@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago

How much did the real artists lose out on in order to train the AI?

[–] OmegaMouse@pawb.social 16 points 1 month ago

Lol, lmao even

[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

lol get fucked loser. (the "artist", not OP)

[–] CoolGirl586@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

LMAO!!!!

Next.

[–] nick@midwest.social 10 points 1 month ago
[–] drdiddlybadger@pawb.social 10 points 1 month ago

He is not being the neighborly neighbor Mr Rogers wanted him to be.

[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago

Read headline, ok. Look for Onion source... fuck.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago

Oh I sure hope he sets a bad legal precedent for AI "art".

[–] blackjam_alex@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

He's losing imaginary, A.I generated money.

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

I can generate Mandelbrot pictures that no one else has ever seen. That doesn't make me an artist.

load more comments
view more: next ›