No standard is empty talk.
At the end of last year, the Artstation users collectively boycotted the AI incident, which once aroused widespread attention inside and outside the circle. It is not difficult to see that the rapid development of AI painting in the past year has changed the attitude of most painters towards this technology. made a quick transition.
Today, the anger of the painters towards AI has not subsided with the departure of station A, and it may even have just begun. Stability AI and Midjourney, the two eye-catching painting AI brands last year, became the target of public criticism.
Recently, led by three well-known painters in the industry, some painters filed a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney and artist platform DeviantArt in California, USA. The lawyer they hired was named Matthew
Butterick, who was responsible for the November GitHub Copilot class action (the case accused GitHub Copilot of infringing the copyrights of many GitHub programmers).
The allegations allege that the above-mentioned AI tools were trained using the LAION-5B dataset, which contains hundreds of millions of copies of copyrighted images, and that these so-called open-source content are actually without the consent of the original authors, let alone On Compensation to Original Authors.
It can be seen from the lawsuits of the painters that these painting AIs have used their respective achievements to develop their own paid applications, such as DreamStudio launched by Stability AI. This is even more unacceptable for original authors who have already been impacted.
At present, according to the law firm’s allegations in the lawsuit, these AI tools violate the artist’s copyright, violate the Digital Millennium Act and platform service-related contracts, and even violate the California Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
It sounds like the painter has a lot of reason, but many people expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of their lawsuit. The case entrusted lawyer Matthew Butterick to express his views on the unreasonableness involved in AI painting in his blog. After the news of the collective lawsuit attracted attention, some users who supported AI painting found this blog. This article was “judged”, and some people even refuted and corrected the concept of the article word by word.
For example, Matthew Butterick’s claim that AI tools are “21st century collage tools that violate artists’ rights” is more accurately an emotional statement. Others pointed out that enough evidence is needed to prove that an artist’s work has been plagiarized and spliced. In the face of AI-painted works, even if comparison and measurement can be carried out, it may be difficult to achieve a level sufficient to attract legal attention. standard.
Some people even think that painters will only “strike hard” against some smaller AI tools, but they dare not face up to big Internet companies such as Google and Microsoft whose AI models may also involve infringement.
But no matter which side is justified, such cases can be said to be inevitable, and perhaps a clearer line between painters and AI painting may be needed after all.
This article is transferred from: https://www.yystv.cn/p/10375
This site is only for collection, and the copyright belongs to the original author.