PCG Article Class Action Lawsuit filed by artists against AI Image Generators

[mainer]

Class-action filed by artists against wave of AI image generators | PC Gamer

I thought this was an interesting article affects a relatively new technology of image creation, and most of us here have at least some level of interest in AI Image generation.

But the question is, are we also potentially dealing with copyright infringement when using these programs? Artists in any media/medium have a right to be compensated for someone using their creations, especially if that "someone", either individual or corporation is making a profit from their work. They also have a right to say if, or when, or how their work will be used. So are artists allowed the choice to "opt in or opt out", or are they given no choice?

A quote from early in Jacob Ridley's article from the lawsuit which illustrates my point:

"Stable Diffusion and other image-generating AI products could not exist without the work of painters, illustrators, photographers, sculptors, and other artists."
"...The creators of these image generators violated the rights of at least thousands of artists when they created their various products. While proponents of AI-generated images have claimed the creation and use of these products is perfectly legal, no court has yet addressed the question."

These early forms of AI generation tools are amazing, but are we abusing other's artists work, with no compensation or credit, just to create our own work? AI generation tools are in their infancy at this point, but I really think that these issues must be addressed.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

This is a really good point. As far as I know with current technology, AI has to start with something (or some things) to create something. Are those "some things" copyrighted? Great point there.

 

[Johnway]

TDLR: The product itself is fine. What you feed it to develop its knowledge and skills is the issue. - Is it transformative enough to actually be considered original? is it ok to use the artists work without prior permission, consent or awareness to develop its knowledge ok? is it ok to profit from it?

If i understand it, ML can only learn to make art if you feed it reference material. its highly likely that some of the art ingested by the ML probably doesn't have approval and that's where copy right comes into play. Hell, an artist simply can say "i don't give you permission and i don't have to give a reason". Lets face it, there are ML for Music as well and they can only use royalty free stuff because of copyright reasons. I assume many artists already have copyrights to their work unless it was someone else and even then the owner probably wouldn't consent in the first place. I think there is also the issue of confusion/mimicking products causing confusion and loss of income.

Edit on the flip side, can you copy right a style? i mean there's nothing stopping me from mimicking another artist. Whether i can sell it is a different story and i guess you're skating on thin ice. its like saying KFC style fried chicken. its not KFC, but its pretty close and for less the price! Then of course there are other factors like heritage and culture. You see it every where these days like the whole cornish pasty, champayne or the balti curry idea.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Edit on the flip side, can you copy right a style? i mean there's nothing stopping me from mimicking another artist. Whether i can sell it is a different story and i guess you're skating on thin ice. its like saying KFC style fried chicken. its not KFC, but its pretty close and for less the price! Then of course there are other factors like heritage and culture. You see it every where these days like the whole cornish pasty, champayne or the balti curry idea.

This part is whats rolling round in my head, every artist probably slightly plagiarizes others styles, we call it influence. What stopped me on that track was that these AI's have been trained without permission on copyrighted works to produce their art.

Shutterstock recently announced that it would create an AI art tool in partnership with OpenAI (opens in new tab), the makers of DALL-E and ChatGPT. This tool would allow for the site's users to create AI images, but Shutterstock has said it will also pay artists for their contribution in both training and the creation of images. Basically, if an artist's artwork is used by the AI tool in any way, they will receive some compensation.

Quote from the PCG article. Seems fair to me that if your art work has been used to train an AI you should get some form of compensation for your work. A small fee based on how much an artists work is used in an iteration would seem a good way to go to me.

But what happens 10 generations of material later when an artists original work is no longer needed? At some point there's already enough AI material far enough removed from the original work in their style that can be used instead. Who decides where that line is?

 

[ipman]

Yes it's a really complex issue, and early days. I can understand the artists' point of view. Their art does come partly from their influences, their culture and their own personal experiences and development. I would consider it plagarism if the content or style were similar. Although again if the AI work recognises the original artist that may be considered a homage. To me at present it's little more than a novelty trick.

The thing is to become an artist in any medium that person learns from everyone who went before, from contemporaries and is also tuned into the zeitgeist, they then take the next step, the leap, they create something that is unique in content and style, that's when they truely become an artist in their own right with something to express that has meaning.

Also of course artists may feel threatened that they may become redundant, and AI plagarism will effectively stop the production of new and relevant culture that has inherent meaning to the wider population. Culture is also a system in which we are all embedded, and if it doesn't go beyond pastiche then it may fail to evolve.

Nick Cave has commented on ChatGPT songs written in his style. 'Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite'. 'It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self'.

from>

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...to-chatgpt-song-written-in-style-of-nick-cave

 

[ZedClampet]

Class-action filed by artists against wave of AI image generators | PC Gamer

I thought this was an interesting article affects a relatively new technology of image creation, and most of us here have at least some level of interest in AI Image generation.

But the question is, are we also potentially dealing with copyright infringement when using these programs? Artists in any media/medium have a right to be compensated for someone using their creations, especially if that "someone", either individual or corporation is making a profit from their work. They also have a right to say if, or when, or how their work will be used. So are artists allowed the choice to "opt in or opt out", or are they given no choice?

A quote from early in Jacob Ridley's article from the lawsuit which illustrates my point:

"Stable Diffusion and other image-generating AI products could not exist without the work of painters, illustrators, photographers, sculptors, and other artists."
"...The creators of these image generators violated the rights of at least thousands of artists when they created their various products. While proponents of AI-generated images have claimed the creation and use of these products is perfectly legal, no court has yet addressed the question."

These early forms of AI generation tools are amazing, but are we abusing other's artists work, with no compensation or credit, just to create our own work? AI generation tools are in their infancy at this point, but I really think that these issues must be addressed.

I'm almost 100 percent positive that this will end up falling under "fair use" guidelines, For instance, you could find a painter you like, take 10 of their paintings, cut pieces out of each and then put them together to create a new painting, and this would be considered legal under fair use guidelines. It's kind of similar to found poetry.

Furthermore, the AI is only taking "inspiration" from these artists. It will be a hot day in Hell for artists if it is found that you can't use another's work for learning/inspiration purposes.

If the AI were simply copying, stroke for stroke, someone's art, that would be a serious issue, but the AI isn't doing anything that artists themselves haven't been doing for centuries.

What is really at stake here is hurt feelings and leaky wallets, but this is only the beginning of that problem as AI makes its inevitable advance.

 

[Frindis]

I think it will be hard if not impossible to make strict rules when it comes to those types of AI generators, especially since as time goes by people will be able to use something like GitHub to make their own AI generator easier or just pay some AI company the money for doing so.

What happens when you take that digital picture and paint it on a canvas? It will become problematic to say with confidence that "yes, that was an AI-generated picture." It will be more like distinguishing between what is good and what is bad art. I don't think this is something that will go away even if every artist in the world protest.

Interesting we are talking about this while Warner Bros has secured a patent for their nemesis system. Perhaps these AI generators can be seen as a fresh middle finger in the face of all greedy companies out there.

 

[Pifanjr]

I imagine this will be judged according to the same standards as other text- and datamining (TDM) cases.

In the US, TDM of copyrighted materials has so far been (mostly?) judged as fair use, as the copyrighted materials are only copied and stored for the small amount of time it takes to analyse it.

In the EU it seems to be allowed to do TDM on copyrighted works unless the copyrighted holder has explicitly excluded their works from being used for TDM.

I suspect this lawsuit will not go in the artists' favour.

 

[Brian Boru]

If this lawsuit wins, it will be a nightmare to administer.
"That pic has a bit of the house I painted"
"Oh no it doesn't"


AI is going to be a huge disruptor in very many fields. There will be angry people all over, as there have been with almost every significant advance in how we make our world work.

My guess is it'll go as @ZedClampet posted above, fair use in most cases.

Maybe if someone else wears a meat suit to a celeb event, Lada Gaga could have a case—but such will I hope be a very seldom incursion on personal expression.

 

[ZedClampet]

If this lawsuit wins, it will be a nightmare to administer.
"That pic has a bit of the house I painted"
"Oh no it doesn't"


AI is going to be a huge disruptor in very many fields. There will be angry people all over, as there have been with almost every significant advance in how we make our world work.

My guess is it'll go as @ZedClampet posted above, fair use in most cases.

Maybe if someone else wears a meat suit to a celeb event, Lada Gaga could have a case—but such will I hope be a very seldom incursion on personal expression.

Ah, now I'm thinking wistfully of a meat suit. Imagine I go back to work wearing a meat suit, and every time I feel a bit hungry, I start pulling meat off to eat. Not only would I get more comfortable and interesting to look at as the day went along (feel free to change "interesting" to something more accurate), but I'd be more sociable, which is good in a team environment, as I walked around inviting people to pull off hunks of meat. "Hey, Beth, you hungry?" "Why, such a gentleman you are!"

 

[Brian Boru]

Pity we can't do 2 Haha icons

 

[ZedClampet]

Pity we can't do 2 Haha icons

Did you see the first version I wrote? I quickly decided that was too much.

 

[Brian Boru]

Did you see the first version I wrote? I quickly decided that was too much.

I did. Upon mature reflection—got herself to do that bit—good decision!

 

[ipman]

I think another way of looking at this. Think of your favourite film director, or favourite author. You've watched all their films maybe a few times, read all their books.

Now imagine an AI program scans all those works and creates a mix of various elements from all their works without really understanding; their references, life history, what they are trying to convey and the context.

Would you consider that AI pastiche to have any relation to the director or author?

Or would it be a Frankenstein creation mashed together?

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I'm almost 100 percent positive that this will end up falling under "fair use" guidelines

I know the Fair Use act protects people for making backup copies of the stuff they own. I also know it protects some instances of using other works within your own work. But do you know if those protections also extend to commercial works? Like can you use other people's work in something you sell, or is it only for personal and educational use? I'm not sure how much you could get away with selling derivative works for a profit.

 

[ZedClampet]

I know the Fair Use act protects people for making backup copies of the stuff they own. I also know it protects some instances of using other works within your own work. But do you know if those protections also extend to commercial works? Like can you use other people's work in something you sell, or is it only for personal and educational use? I'm not sure how much you could get away with selling derivative works for a profit.

There are too many variables to answer that question. Just because a work is commercial doesn't mean it can't be derivative. How else would AAA studios be able to make their low effort garbage? Sorry, got side-tracked.

It's true that it's slightly less likely to be considered fair use if you are doing a commercial project, but fair use still exists even in those cases. It would take an attorney or two to sort it out and probably a judge.

But look at Andy Warhol. He used copyrighted stuff in a lot of his works. A lot of artists have done this. No one claimed Warhol had to pay Coca Cola because he used their logo in his art.

 

[Pifanjr]

Here's the four criteria that need to be considered to determine whether something falls under "fair use" in the US:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I assume the main question would be what the effect of AI generated art is/will be on the value of art.

 

[mainer]

A lot of excellent thoughts & insights here! I think that eventually, it will come down to a "fair use" ruling like @ZedClampet stated, as there are so many variables involved, and so many artists involved that proving copyright infringement is going to most likely be impossible (I can't even imagine the size of the databases). It's good that these questions are being addressed now while the AI technology is still new, but regardless of the outcome of these lawsuits, some level of controversy will remain.

While I'd like to see these AI programs succeed, I'm also a bit sympathetic to the artists point of view. For me, much of it comes down to profit. Is company that created the AI program, or an individual using that program, making a profit from use of (normally) copyrighted images? @Pifanjr made a good point in posting of the criteria of the "fair use" laws (at least in the US, that may vary depending upon the country):

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The two things that really sticks out to me are, "...whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes". And, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole".

Profit and the amount of an image used are going to be key points (in my opinion).

 

[ZedClampet]

A lot of excellent thoughts & insights here! I think that eventually, it will come down to a "fair use" ruling like @ZedClampet stated, as there are so many variables involved, and so many artists involved that proving copyright infringement is going to most likely be impossible (I can't even imagine the size of the databases). It's good that these questions are being addressed now while the AI technology is still new, but regardless of the outcome of these lawsuits, some level of controversy will remain.

While I'd like to see these AI programs succeed, I'm also a bit sympathetic to the artists point of view. For me, much of it comes down to profit. Is company that created the AI program, or an individual using that program, making a profit from use of (normally) copyrighted images? @Pifanjr made a good point in posting of the criteria of the "fair use" laws (at least in the US, that may vary depending upon the country):

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The two things that really sticks out to me are, "...whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes". And, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole".

Profit and the amount of an image used are going to be key points (in my opinion).

You could make a perfectly good AI using public domain paintings and photographs, IMO. If there's a problem here, it's that the people creating the AI were lazy. Even though I think it's okay for AI to scan anyone's art, if I were actually making an AI for commercial use, I think I would have gone to great lengths to avoid doing that. Or maybe I'm just fooling myself with hindsight. I dunno. But I feel like I would have properly covered all the bases if I was genuinely serious about making it commercial.

 

[Johnway]

This part is whats rolling round in my head, every artist probably slightly plagiarizes others styles, we call it influence. What stopped me on that track was that these AI's have been trained without permission on copyrighted works to produce their art.

i had a think about it as well As others have mentioned its about the creative process and the money lost.

i doubt i can explain it properly but i'll try anyway:

I think arts are perfectly fine with people stealing other people art styles. part of the reason? its very rare someone can actually mimick another artist 100%. Even if you excperienced the same journey/processes as the artist, the style won't be perfect. More often, artists learn and mimick 100s of styles to form their own unique style. What most artists are more concerned about is actual plagiarism of work. if i copied someone's style most people would notice very quickly and most times its apparent its an inferior copy.

i won't bore you with the arty mentality like how art isn't just about the end product, its also about the journey etc, but its part of the reason why artists are hacked off. But public don't bloody care about any of that (i doubt ordinary people care about WIP except for other artists learning or offering to help).

So we're down to the product itself. The problem is that its a bloody gray area we just don't know enough of how it actually works. is it splicing bits and pieces of an artist(s) artwork and pasting into a picture like some collage and (somehow) its a coherent piece of art? is it crafting something entirely new and unique and just mimicking a style etc? i think theres a good bet that its the former. The challenge is how can you be sure its your work being copied? Unless you have a very distinct style like say Kim Jung Gi, its near impossible to prove who got copied where. Lets say if i went to artstation and shown 100 pictures all at once you'll be hard pressed most of the time to identify who's art is whos unless they were famous. Especially if its digital painting on photoshop/painter.

Speaking of Kim Jung Gi, if he was still alive and still producing work and i copied his style and said that " i drew a Kim Jung Gi style artwork piece! I'm not Kim Jung Gi and its not original, but hey, its yours for $100!" i think he would have grounds to ask for a C&D as i use his name, reputation to make money for myself by pass off my work as if i was him.

i bring up Kim Jung Gi partly because someone had the audacity to feed artwork into an AI in the hopes to mimik his style not even a week after his sudden death. Many artists didn't see this as art preservation, they saw it as a morbid way to make money off his style. That said we've been copying the artists from history so there you go. Speaking of mortality, it probably is loss of money and copyright from living artists or their estates etc.

 

[Johnway]

But look at Andy Warhol. He used copyrighted stuff in a lot of his works. A lot of artists have done this. No one claimed Warhol had to pay Coca Cola because he used their logo in his art.

i think it boils down if it impacts that company negatively in any shape or form. Again depends on the company etc i suppose. I mean nintendo is C&D happy if someone makes a fan game and use their assets etc. That said they haven't demanded every hentai artist to take their work offline etc but i bet they wouldn't hesitate if they found a way. or maybe they are:

Bowser penis hit with copyright takedown

The fan artist suspects Nintendo is behind the notice

www.polygon.com

then again apparently they also own the rights to mario brothers adult film to prevent it happening.

 

[ipman]

i had a think about it as well As others have mentioned its about the creative process and the money lost.

i doubt i can explain it properly but i'll try anyway:

I think arts are perfectly fine with people stealing other people art styles. part of the reason? its very rare someone can actually mimick another artist 100%. Even if you excperienced the same journey/processes as the artist, the style won't be perfect. More often, artists learn and mimick 100s of styles to form their own unique style. What most artists are more concerned about is actual plagiarism of work. if i copied someone's style most people would notice very quickly and most times its apparent its an inferior copy.

i won't bore you with the arty mentality like how art isn't just about the end product, its also about the journey etc, but its part of the reason why artists are hacked off. But public don't bloody care about any of that (i doubt ordinary people care about WIP except for other artists learning or offering to help).

So we're down to the product itself. The problem is that its a bloody gray area we just don't know enough of how it actually works. is it splicing bits and pieces of an artist(s) artwork and pasting into a picture like some collage and (somehow) its a coherent piece of art? is it crafting something entirely new and unique and just mimicking a style etc? i think theres a good bet that its the former. The challenge is how can you be sure its your work being copied? Unless you have a very distinct style like say Kim Jung Gi, its near impossible to prove who got copied where. Lets say if i went to artstation and shown 100 pictures all at once you'll be hard pressed most of the time to identify who's art is whos unless they were famous. Especially if its digital painting on photoshop/painter.

Speaking of Kim Jung Gi, if he was still alive and still producing work and i copied his style and said that " i drew a Kim Jung Gi style artwork piece! I'm not Kim Jung Gi and its not original, but hey, its yours for $100!" i think he would have grounds to ask for a C&D as i use his name, reputation to make money for myself by pass off my work as if i was him.

i bring up Kim Jung Gi partly because someone had the audacity to feed artwork into an AI in the hopes to mimik his style not even a week after his sudden death. Many artists didn't see this as art preservation, they saw it as a morbid way to make money off his style. That said we've been copying the artists from history so there you go. Speaking of mortality, it probably is loss of money and copyright from living artists or their estates etc.

There have been some very good art forgers out there which have fooled people into believing they are real, eg Venus by Lucas Cranach the Elder which was purchased for £6M.

Galleries and auction houses have to employ art fake detectives to protect themselves and their customers and while old masters are harder to fake, at an exhibition of Modiglianis in Genoa it turned out 20 out of 21 were fakes.

Although AI is also being used to tell the difference between real and fakes as well.

But that's very different to what we are discussing here.

So AI fakers are just part of a long tradition of con artists only it allows anyone to create their own fakes. Apps like Midjourney scan all the images by a known artist on the Web and uses algorithms to copy patterns in those works in order to create a new image in a similar style. That's plagarism.

The Andy Warhol argument is misleading, he was taking popular everyday products, marketing styles and saying this is also art. It's a conceptual statement about modern society and the nature of advertising.

But real artists can use AI to produce real unique art, and artists have always used the latest tech in their artistic process.

Like this piece by Jason Allen

 

[Pifanjr]

So AI fakers are just part of a long tradition of con artists only it allows anyone to create their own fakes. Apps like Midjourney scan all the images by a known artist on the Web and uses algorithms to copy patterns in those works in order to create a new image in a similar style. That's plagarism.

It's only plagiarism if you don't credit the artist. The question is whether the (creator of the) tool, like Midjourney, is the one responsible for crediting the artist or the person using the tool.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

It's only plagiarism if you don't credit the artist. The question is whether the (creator of the) tool, like Midjourney, is the one responsible for crediting the artist or the person using the tool.

I think the obvious answer is that the user of the tool is responsible. They're the ones who make the decision to use someone else's work.

 

[Pifanjr]

I think the obvious answer is that the user of the tool is responsible. They're the ones who make the decision to use someone else's work.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people who generate images with AI tools have no idea how those tools work or that those tools might have been trained on copyrighted material. I'm pretty sure a lot of the users therefore aren't making an informed decision about using someone else's work.