Nightshade, the free tool that ‘poisons’ AI models, is now available for artists to use
The tool's creators are seeking to make it so that AI model developers must pay artists to train on data from them that is uncorrupted.
You're viewing a single thread.
The tool's creators are seeking to make it so that AI model developers must pay artists to train on data from them that is uncorrupted.
That's not something a technical solution will work for. We need copyright laws to be updated.
You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF. The EFF is a digital rights group who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
A few quotes:
and
Yeah, that's what I'm saying - our current copiright laws are insufficient to deal with AI art generation.
They aren't insufficient, they are working just fine. In the US, fair use balances the interests of copyright holders with the public’s right to access and use information. There are rights people can maintain over their work, and the rights they do not maintain have always been to the benefit of self-expression and discussion. We shouldn't be trying to make that any worse.
Yep. Copyright should not include "viewing or analyzing the picture" rights. Artists want to start charging you or software to even look at their art they literally put out for free. If u don't want your art seen by a person or an AI then don't publish it.
Copyright should absolutely include analyzing when you're talking about AI, and for one simple reason: companies are profiting off of the work of artists without compensating them. People want the rewards of work without having to do the work. AI has the potential to be incredibly useful for artists and non artists alike, but these kinds of people are ruining it for everybody.
What artists are asking for is ethical sourcing for AI datasets. We're talking paying a licensing fee or using free art that's opt-in. Right now, artists have no choice in the matter - their rights to their works are being violated by corporations. Already the music industry has made it illegal to use songs in AI without the artist's permission. You can't just take songs and make your own synthesizer out of them, then sell it. If you want music for something you're making, you either pay a licensing fee of some kind (like paying for a service) or use free-use songs. That's what artists want.
When an artist, who does art for a living, posts something online, it's an ad for their skills. People want to use AI to take the artist out of the equation. And doing so will result in creativity only being possible for people wealthy enough to pay for it. Much of the art you see online, and almost all the art you see in a museum, was paid for by somebody. Van Gogh died a poor man because people didn't want to buy his art. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a Pope. You take the artist out of the equation and what's left? Just AI art made as a derivative of AI art that was made as a derivative of other art.
You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF. The EFF is a digital rights group who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
MidJourney is already storing pre-rendered images made from and mimicking around 4,000 artists' work. The derivative works infringement is already happening right out in the open.
Something being derivative doesn't mean it's automatically illegal or improper.
You are expressly allowed to mimic others' works as long as you don't substantially reproduce their work. That's a big part of why art can exist in the first place. You should check out that article I linked.
I actually did read it, that's why I specifically called out MidJourney here, as they're one I have specific problems with. MidJourney is currently caught up in a lawsuit partly because the devs were caught talking about how they launder artists' works through a dataset to then create prompts specifically for reproducing art that appears to be made by a specific artist of your choosing. You enter an artist's name as part of the generating parameters and you get a piece trained on their art. Essentially using LLM to run an art-tracing scheme while skirting copyright violations.
I wanna make it clear that I'm not on the "AI evilllll!!!1!!" train. My stance is specifically about ethical sourcing for AI datasets. In short, I believe that AI specifically should have an opt-in requirement rather than an opt-out requirement or no choice at all. Essentially creative commons licensing for works used in data sets, to ensure that artists are duly compensated for their works being used. This would allow artists to license out their portfolios for use with a fee or make them openly available for use, however they see fit, while still ensuring that they still have the ability to protect their job as an artist from stuff like what MidJourney is doing.
I actually did read it, that’s why I specifically called out MidJourney here, as they’re one I have specific problems with. MidJourney is currently caught up in a lawsuit partly because the devs were caught talking about how they launder artists’ works through a dataset to then create prompts specifically for reproducing art that appears to be made by a specific artist of your choosing. You enter an artist’s name as part of the generating parameters and you get a piece trained on their art. Essentially using LLM to run an art-tracing scheme while skirting copyright violations.
I'm pretty sure that's all part of the discovery from the same case where Midjourney is named as a defendant along with Stability AI, it isn't its own distinct case. It's also not illegal or improper to do what they are doing. They aren't skirting copyright law, it is a feature explicitly allowed by it so that you can communicate without the fear of reprisals. Styles are not something protected by copyright, nor should they be.
I wanna make it clear that I’m not on the “AI evilllll!!!1!!” train. My stance is specifically about ethical sourcing for AI datasets. In short, I believe that AI specifically should have an opt-in requirement rather than an opt-out requirement or no choice at all. Essentially creative commons licensing for works used in data sets, to ensure that artists are duly compensated for their works being used. This would allow artists to license out their portfolios for use with a fee or make them openly available for use, however they see fit, while still ensuring that they still have the ability to protect their job as an artist from stuff like what MidJourney is doing.
You can't extract compensation from someone doing their own independent analysis for the aim of making non-infringing novel works, and you don't need licenses or permission to exercise your rights. Singling out AI in this regard doesn't make sense because it isn't a special system in that regard. That would be like saying dolphin developers have to pay Nintendo every time someone downloads their emulator.
It's sad some people feel that way. That kind of monopoly on expression and ideas would only serve to increase disparities and divisions, manipulate discourse in subtle ways, and in the end, fundamentally alter how we interact with each other for the worse.
What they want would score a huge inadvertent home run for corporations and swing the doors open for them hindering competition, stifling undesirable speech, and monopolizing spaces like nothing we’ve seen before. There are very good reasons we have the rights we have, and there's nothing good that can be said about anyone trying to make them worse.
Also, rest assured they'd collude with each other and only use their new powers to stamp out the little guy. It'll be like American ISPs busting attempts at municipal internet all over again.
The issue is simply reproduction of original works.
Plenty of people mimic the style of other artists. They do this by studying the style of the artist they intend to mimic. Why is it different when a machine does the same thing?
No, the issue is commercial use of copirighted material as data to train the models.
It's different because a machine can be replicated and can produce results at a rate that hundreds of humans can't match. If a human wants to replicate your art style, they have to invest a lot of time into learning art and practicing your style. A machine doesn't have to do these things.
This would be fine if we weren't living in a capitalist society, but since we do, this will only result in further transfer of assets towards the rich.
It's not. People are just afraid of being replaced, especially when they weren't that original or creative in the first place.
Honestly, it extends beyond creative works.
OpenAI should not be held back from subscribing to a research publication, or buying college textbooks, etc. As long as the original works are not reproduced and the underlying concepts are applied, there are no intellectual property issues. You can't even say the commercial application of the text is the issue, because I can go to school and use my knowledge to start a company.
I understand that in some select scenarios, ChatGPT has been tricked into outputting training data. Seems to me they should focus on fixing that, as it would avoid IP issues moving forward.
AI image creation tools are apparently both artistically empty, incapable of creating anything artistically interesting, and also a existential threat to visual artists. Hmm, wonder what this says about the artistic merits of the work of furry porn commission artist #7302.
Retail workers can be replaced with self checkout, translators can be replaced with machine translation, auto workers can be replaced with robotic arms, specialist machinists can be replaced with CNC mills. But illustrators must be where we draw the line.
Disney lawyers just started salivating
Seems like Disney is as eager to adopt this technology as anyone
A few goofy Steamboat Willie knock offs pale beside the benefit of axing half your art department every few years, until everything is functionally a procedural generation.
They're playing both sides. Who do you think wins when model training becomes prohibitively expensive to for regular people? Mega corporations already own datasets, and have the money to buy more. And that's before they make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us.
Regular people, who could have had access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off and with less than where we started.
Who do you think wins when model training becomes prohibitively expensive to for regular people?
We passed that point at inception. Its always been more efficient for Microsoft to do its training at a 10,000 Petaflop giga-plant in Iowa than for me to run Stable Diffusion on my home computer.
Regular people, who could have had access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility
Already have that. It's called a $5 art kit from Michael's.
This isn't about creation, its about trade and propagation of the finished product within the art market. And its here that things get fucked, because my beautiful watercolor that took me 20 hours to complete isn't going to find a buyer that covers half a week's worth of living expenses, so long as said market place is owned and operated by folks who want my labor for free.
AI generation serves to mine the market at near-zero cost and redistribute the finished works for a profit.
Copyright/IP serves to separate the creator of a work from its future generative profits.
But all this ultimately happens within the context of the market itself. The legal and financial mechanics of the system are designed to profit publishers and distributors at the expense of creatives. That's always been true and the latest permutation in how creatives get fucked is merely a variation on a theme.
instead be left worse off and with less than where we started.
AI Art does this whether or not its illegal, because it exists to undercut human creators of content by threatening them with an inferior-but-vastly-cheaper alternative.
The dynamic you're describing has nothing to do with AI's legality and everything to do with Disney's ability to operate as monopsony buyer of bulk artistic product. The only way around this is to break Disney up as a singular mass-buyer of artwork, and turn the component parts of the business over to the artists (and other employees of the firm) as an enterprise that answers to and profits the people generating the valuable media rather than some cartel of third-party shareholders.
We passed that point at inception. Its always been more efficient for Microsoft to do its training at a 10,000 Petaflop giga-plant in Iowa than for me to run Stable Diffusion on my home computer.
You don't need industrial level efficiency or insane overhead costs, that's why it's a big deal. It's something regular people can do at home.
Already have that. It’s called a $5 art kit from Michael’s.
An art set from Michaels can only do so much. Having access to the most cutting edge tools and techniques has always propelled artists and art forward. Imagine not having access to digital art tools, computer animation, digital photography, digital sculpting, and interactive media tools to expand artistic expression, and allow for the creation of new forms, styles, and genres of art that weren't possible before?
Copyright/IP serves to separate the creator of a work from its future generative profits.
But all this ultimately happens within the context of the market itself. The legal and financial mechanics of the system are designed to profit publishers and distributors at the expense of creatives. That’s always been true and the latest permutation in how creatives get fucked is merely a variation on a theme.
Fighting their fight for them won't help in the end, don't make it easier for them.
AI Art does this whether or not its illegal, because it exists to undercut human creators of content by threatening them with an inferior-but-vastly-cheaper alternative.
It isn't necessarily a competitor or a threat, the tools are open source and free for all artists to use to enhance their creative process, explore new possibilities, and imagine novel outcomes. You can use it to help you reach new audiences, and discover new forms of expression. It's not a zero-sum game like you suggest.
The dynamic you’re describing has nothing to do with AI’s legality and everything to do with Disney’s ability to operate as monopsony buyer of bulk artistic product. The only way around this is to break Disney up as a singular mass-buyer of artwork, and turn the component parts of the business over to the artists (and other employees of the firm) as an enterprise that answers to and profits the people generating the valuable media rather than some cartel of third-party shareholders.
That would still leave the baby-disneys with way more money than your average Joe, solving nothing. Training models isn't so expansive that they wouldn't enough have the money to train their own, that cost is only prohibitive to the working man.
copyright laws need to be abolished
That would make it harder for creative people to produce things and make money from it. Abolishing copyright isn't the answer. We still need a system like that.
A shorter period of copyright, would encourage more new content. As creative industries could no longer rely on old outdated work.
That would make it harder for creative people to produce things and make money from it
no, it would make it easier.
it would be harder to stop people from making money on creative works.
You write a book, people start buying that book. Someone copies that book and sells it for 10 pence on Amazon. You get nothing from each sale.
You write a song and people want to listen to it. Spotify serves them that song, you get nothing because you have no right to own your copy.
That's how free/libre and open-source software has worked since forever. And it works just fine. There is no need for an exclusive right to commercialise a product in order for it to be produced. You are basically parroting a decades old lie from Hollywood.
Yeah, you don't need exclusive rights for it to be produced. But artists, especially smaller artists, need that right to do silly things like paying for food and rent.
no, they don't
you can still sell your book
you can still sell your song.
but your song can be a remix. your book can be a retelling of a popular story.
you can still make money. you just can't stop other people from making money. that is all copyright does, and it is wrong. it destroys culture.
I don't think you understand how copyrights work. If they are abolished, everybody is free to redistribute your creation without compensation or even acknowledgement. The moment you put it out there, it's instantly public domain.
That means we'd have no more professionally produced movies, series, books, songs, games, etc., but would be stuck with what's essentially fan art.
Sure, there are talented artists out there who produce music as a hobby, youtubers who make great videos and such, but it would be the end of commercial productions.
That means we'd have no more professionally produced movies, series, books, songs, games, etc., but would be stuck with what's essentially fan art.
we had professionally produced songs and books and games and plays before copyright. you are making that up.
I don't think you understand how copyrights work
They are idealizing a pay-the-creator system. They are arguing for a system that is kinda coming together with patreon-like stuff.
You seem to be arguing that people will just buy the cheapest identical copy. Which is hard to argue against, but there are people out there that pay creators that give their work for free. Copyright law certainly protects creators. But it's cool to see some creators monetizing on open-licensed work.
I think you replied to the wrong comment
Yeah, kinda. I forgot which side of the argument the reply I replied to was on. I guess you can just flip the "you"s and "they"s. Or am I still off-base?
Yeah, just make your own Spotify, how difficult is that?
Relatively simple actually, without copyright. Download Spotify, rename app to Spudify, re-upload to app store. Done, easy peasy. Hardest part about it would be decompiling the existing app, which is definitely possible and may not even be necessary.
The real truth is, however, that in this hypothetical world there would be no Spotify to copy and there would be much, much less music available to stream on Spudify.
Yeah cuz musicians and artists only ever do it for the money...no other reason ever, nope.
If they can't afford to do it, then you're relegating creativity to only those wealthy enough to be able to afford to do it.
The vast majority of art throughout human history was paid for by somebody, or sold by the artist. Van Gogh dies a poor man because people didn't want to buy his paintings when he was alive. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a Pope. Just because you think your have an intrinsic right to the work of somebody else doesn't mean you do.
without copyright standing in your way, it is a cinch.
That would be an update, not sure it would be a good thing. As an artist I want to be able to tell where my work is used and where not. Would suck to find something from me used in fascist propaganda or something.
As an artist I want to be able to tell where my work is used and where not.
that would be nice. a government-enforced monopoly isnt an ethical vehicle to achieve your goal.
I'm open for other ideas, until then I take laws. I don't see anything wrong with people making rules for interactions.
rules are ok. laws are unjust.
Rules that are not enforced don't make any sense whatsoever.
wrong
Truly a "Which Way White Man" moment.
I'm old enough to remember people swearing left, right, and center that copyright and IP law being aggressively enforced against social media content has helped corner the market and destroy careers. I'm also well aware of how often images from DeviantArt and other public art venues have been scalped and misappropriated even outside the scope of modern generative AI. And how production houses have outsourced talent to digital sweatshops in the Pacific Rim, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, where you can pay pennies for professional reprints and adaptations.
It seems like the problem is bigger than just "Does AI art exist?" and "Can copyright laws be changed?" because the real root of the problem is the exploitation of artists generally speaking. When exploitation generates an enormous profit motive, what are artists to do?
What is a "which way white man" moment?
They dutifully note that, this is the next best thing.
