- cross-posted to:
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like they’re reading too much into this.
That linked X post from the White House at the end leaves me speechless.
Utterly inhumaneWe as the people of the united States have to do something. If you aren’t part of a movement yet join one, anyone, most of them are communicating with each other at this point.
I wonder how Nintendo will react when it’s their turn 😆
Ugh, why are they quoting that blowhard David Gerard
Edit: Lotta David Gerard fans here
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin
Is this fashion comeback ? Style transfer was popular 10 years ago.
If Disney can’t sue for this, then what exactly would be too far? We’re a few steps from being able to animate our own movies in Disney style.
Too far would be anything outside of fair use. If a user generates an image of a specific copyrighted character, then attempts to make money off of that image, they could be sued.
You can’t copyright a style, but there’s still a lot of legal grey area here.
It’s also worth noting that OpenAI has an indemnification clause in their Terms of Use. This means that if someone else goes after OpenAI for something that went viral and was created by a specific user, OpenAI can then turn around and bill that user for all legal fees incurred by them (whether they win or lose the case).
If anyone is into using AI for anything, I would strongly suggest that they avoid using (or at least publishing/posting about) any of OpenAI’s tools especially while all of these legal issues are still being sorted out.
There is another aspect of this also. I could generate Ghibli style images a few years ago using better image generation models like stable diffusion or Midjourney. OpenAI is so lagging behind in terms of image generation it is comical at this point. But they get all the media coverage for these things as if they are inventing something out of thin air.
Most governments ignored the IP issues when other models were already doing these violations. Professionals are not using OpenAI. OpenAI only makes it so that these products reach big audiences. Then they become extremely accessible with the downside being that they are dumbed down. Thus, losing a lot of functionality.
OpenAI is so lagging behind in terms of image generation it is comical at this point.
You’re the one lagging behind. OpenAI’s new image model is on a different level, way ahead of the competition
How so?
- Autoregressive model
- Multimodal with the LLM
- Can keep consistency between images
- Much better at text rendering
- Can combine images, like you have one image and you upload a picture of a jacket and say “put this on him” and it does it
- Can upload a picture of yourself and say “put me on the beach”, and then for example if you don’t like it you can tell it to do a different type of beach, and then say “and put me on a white horse and give me some nice beach wear” for example.
It understands what you’re telling it, and can generate images from vague descriptions, combine things from different images just by telling it, modify it and understand the context - like knowing that “me” is the person in the image, for example.
Edit: From OpenAI - “4o image generation is an autoregressive model natively embedded within ChatGPT”
It is really sad that the most advanced model can only aspire to make derivative shit for techbro loosers,
Okay so how does that compare to whatever competition you’re referencing
No other model on market can do anything like that. The closest is diffusion based where you could train a lora with a person’s look or a specific clothing, then generate multiple times and / or use controlnet to sorta control the output. That’s fast hours or days of work, plus it’s quite technical to set it up and use.
OpenAI’s new model is a paradigm shift in both what the model can do and how you use it, and can easily and effortlessly produce things that was extremely difficult or impossible without complicated procedures and post processing in Photoshop.
Edit Some examples. Try to make any of this in any of the existing image generators
- https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jl36h6/gpt_was_also_able_to_help_me_make_a_comic_ive/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jkl5m2/i_work_in_ecommerce_the_new_gpt_image_update_has/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jlewya/by_god_what_have_i_done/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jm8ddg/im_not_the_first_to_figure_this_trick_out_am_i/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jjsfkb/starting_today_gpt4o_is_going_to_be_incredibly/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jn2kpy/i_created_a_character_with_chatgpt_and_send_her/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1jkaaxh/gpt4o_image_generation_is_absolutely_insane/
All diffusion and language models are autoregressive. That just means that the output is fed back in as input until the task is complete.
With diffusion models this means that it is fed an image that is 100% noise and it removes some small percentage of the noise and then then the denoised image is fed back in and another small percentage is removed. This is repeated until a defined stopping points (usually a set number of passes).
Combining images and using one image to control the generation of another has been available for quite a while. Controlnet and IPAdapters let you do exactly that: ‘Put this coat on this person’ or ‘Take this picture and do it in this style’. Here’s an 11 month old YouTube video explaining how to do this using open source models and software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmwZGC8UVHE
It’s nice for non-technical people that OpenAI will sell you a subscription in order to access an agent that can perform these kinds of image generation abilities, but it’s not doing anything new in terms of image generation.
I know them, and used them a bit. I even mentioned them in an earlier comment. The capabilities of OpenAI’s new model is on a different level in my experience.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1jlj8me/4o_vs_flux/ - read the comments there. That’s a community dedicated to running local diffusion models. They’re familiar with all the tricks. They’re pretty damn impressed too.
I can’t help but feel that people here either haven’t tried the new openai image model, or have never actually used any of the existing ai image generators before.
you know enough about the model for me to immediately distrust your opinion on the matter. why don’t you head back to ycombinator or whatever hole you crawled out of
This is what billionaires and major corporations are doing now and have been doing for a long time. Do you remember Titan sinking? What was so incredible is that the founder and CEO of Oceangate was acting like A: No one has ever gone to the Titanic before, and B: submarine travel is somehow a brand new thing that was just being invented by HIM.
This was utter bullshit on so many levels. James Cameron even spoke about how horrendous his assessment of the situation was, saying that the Titanic site is actually one of the riskier shipwrecks to go down to, which is why it needs to be approached with caution (which Oceangate did not care about), and that submarine travel is a very mature science and what the idiot CEO was doing wasn’t simply a bad idea in general, but he believed he could violate the laws of physics.
You can break the laws and rules of society, but you cannot break the laws of physics. If you jump off the top of a skyscraper, no amount of arm flapping will make you fly.
These critiques are getting insufferable. They’re cute dumb filters.
Figures. The wealthy could never fully buy power with just wealth, there was always someone smarter that was a threat. Now, they can just buy intelligence, thanks to AI, and crush everything else with their sheer weight.
Is this the great filter? The ultimate fate of all species?
If you need to use AI, be aware that there are MANY free models and training options. No reason to be locked into proprietary service.
What is this article even talking about? It’s making no sense.
They’re trying to make some type of argument that a private studio should have exclusive rights to a specific style of art and that by openai allowing users to generate art in that style, we are slipping into anti-democratic authoritarianism.
My opinion is that you can’t own “styles” of art and that there’s nothing wrong here. Legally speaking I can copy any art style I want.
Yeah they want corporations to own styles so the rich can be more powerful, the rich push this sort of propaganda out endlessly
deleted by creator
first let’s get something out of the way
the actual way that copyright works is that a few giant megacorps buy up everything and they end up owning copyrights to the vast majority of recognizable content.
so for example in 2019 over half of the movies released in theaters was owned by Disney. The same company that unilaterally has the ability to change US federal law when convenient for them.
studio ghibli is no different- they’re a subsidiary of Nippon Television which has a $2B+ annual revenue
so keep in mind when you advocate here for stronger copyright protections, you are essentially saying that the biggest companies in the world deserve more money.
2nd- the “style” is not copyrightable. anybody can mimic the style. and guess what? if I make a cartoon and I make it look like studio ghibli style… people are still gonna recognize it as “studio ghibli” style. they are basically getting free marketing. they are not losing out here.
Anyone who doubles down this hard to defend AI art theft machines fucking hates human artists, who are a branch of intellectuals. Nazis are known to openly hate, abuse the rights of and mistreat intellectuals. Fuck kava.
You may or may not be correct in hating me but do not let my comments bring down the good name of kava
As for “doubling down so hard” I’d flip the message and ask you why you are simping for mega corps? simping for mega corps is about as fascist as you can get- a populist ideology idolizing elites
An AI is not doing anything a human wouldn’t do. You look at a bunch of content. You learn from it and incorporate it in new synthesis.
It’s not fundamentally different. So unless you can make a meaningful statement (beyond mild personal attacks) that illustrates the difference between the two, you will convince no-one
I’m not entirely sure what this style even is - wouldn’t this same argument apply to Apple’s “Memoji” that has been out a few years?
Thanks for that explainer. I thought the verbiage in the article was a little over the top.
However there is a point at which the “style” of the art is the thing that is copyrightable, sort of by implication.
The standard for proving a copyright violation where a defendant claims a transformative use or a derivative work is “substantial similar.”
For as long as I can remember that includes the overall presentation of the work, and it’s hard to describe that as anything other than a “style.”
The article draws a comparison that allowing copyright protection for styles would be like allowing copyrights for entire genres. I don’t think that’s right. Nobody could copyright all “landscape paintings” as a genre, but look at landscape works by Katsushika Hokusai, and that style, to me, is creative enough to warrant protection, if it were made originally in America today and not already in the public domain. And he didn’t invent woodblock prints or even woodblock prints of landscapes, but the way he did it is so unique as to be insperable from the copyrighted work itself and arguably deserving of protection simply for its advancement of the art.
If you made a woodblock print in the same style but used it to portray a scene typical in anime, rather than a landscape, that’s clearly transformative and derivative, but not substantially similar. If you use the style to make prints of waves breaking around Mt. Fuji, that’s substantially similar. So like, as to dude’s anime style, if you use the same style to make landscapes, certainly that’s not infringing, as it’s not substantially similar.
I also don’t see the threatening outcome the author suggests as worrisome. There are still exceptions for blatant copying that apply, mainly parody and fair use.
As you have described the situation my question is if it would be similar to copyright Donald duck, despite not having drawn all possible poses and situations?
That’s already the case. There would be two copyrights for a cartoon for Donald duck, and possibly, in fact likely, many others.
A copyright is essentially a right of enforcement. You don’t have to register anything or file anything in order to gain that right. It’s a right to sue someone to enjoin further use and potentially to recoup money damages if you can prove loss.
The standard for whether something is copyrightable at the outset is whether it is the product of a modicum of creativity, and reduced to a tangible medium of expression.
So far one cartoon of Donald duck, each drawn frame of the show would have its own copyright. Also, the character would have a copyright. The dialogue of the script would have another copyright. And the test for whether a particular character is something that can be copyrighted is to ask whether the character is separable from the overall work and whether the character is “well delineated.”
Donald duck is certainly the product of creativity, it is reduced to a tangible medium of expression when it is drawn on paper, and it is the main character of the show and has its own personality and behavior. So it is pretty clearly of deserving protection. Although at this point in time, I believe some of Disney’s earliest characters are now in the public domain, Even Mickey mouse, which people like my IP professor in law school said was never going to happen. This is because I believe in 1984 there was a law called the copyright act of 1984 but was colloquial referred to as the Mickey mouse copyright act. It was championed by Sonny Bono, who I believe was friends with Walt Disney personally, and which many said had the sole purpose of extending Mickey mouse’s copyright for another 25 years or whatever it was. My memory is a little fuzzy on this. My professor figured that Disney was such a powerful institution that anytime Mickey mouse was about to fall into the public domain, Congress would stop it.
A doctrine sort of related to your question is called scen a faire. It is a French phrase which I have no doubt spelled wrong because I am on mobile. It means that elements essential to a scene of the kind which would be common to all scenes of that type, are not copyrightable. So this would include some background characters such as those that, despite being drawn in a creative way, are more so the product of the scene itself rather than any creativity. For example, if there is a scene in a cartoon where the character gets onto a train and hands the ticket to a ticket taker, the ticker taker character is probably not copyrightable.
I see it as enabling people to make images in a style they admire and would like to draw but don’t personally have the skill. To me the concept of copyright is the only difference between AI art generators and say, springy leg braces that let you slam dunk like Kareem Abdul Jabbar. I understand there are business ramifications some people might object to, but I don’t get the moralistic part of the outrage. Maybe somebody can help me understand by explaining it rationally without screaming or calling me names, but spitting rage at me is pointless.
edit: from the abundance of downvotes and lack of explanation I take it people know they’re supposed to be outraged but don’t know why. The telltale mark of meme culture, wear it proudly!
AI does not know or create anything. Without stolen training data what would your fancy LLM actually be able to do?
It’s not my LLM, but like most software developers I admit I “stole” the same training data to learn programming.
The moralistic outrage is that people still have an outdated concept of intellectual property, and a blanket fear of corporations owning technological progress.
The truth is, no one can actually own an idea or style. But we have laws that try to make it a real thing. Because of regulatory capture, copyright truly only benefits corporations with lots of money, not all the little indie artists that actually would need it.
Hell, most these indie artists make their money drawing and selling fanart, which is the most literal definition of copying. Yet no one worries about that.
An insult to life itself.
How dare they not respect intellectual property 😢😢😭😭😭😭
You can eat at McDonald’s and call it food, but that doesn’t make it true.
