- luciole (he/him) ( @luciole@beehaw.org ) English10•9 hours ago
We all know what it means when Midjourney churns out pictures that look like your art: their model got trained on your stuff. I think it’s time for Jason Allen to go full uroboros and sue Midjourney for using his art without permission.
- Lime Buzz ( @SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org ) English14•11 hours ago
They’re so close to figuring it out but don’t have that much self awareness, or perhaps just have cognitive disonance about it.
- Gamma ( @GammaGames@beehaw.org ) English1•10 hours ago
Hahahahaha
- FormallyKnown ( @FormallyKnown@feddit.dk ) English8•15 hours ago
“All Allen could copyright was what he did to the image himself” - so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable? Does that mean midjourney has the copyright of all the images created with it?
- TranscendentalEmpire ( @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee ) English10•12 hours ago
so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable?
I think if he “trained” the model on art he himself created you might have an argument.
The image gatcha does not create a new copyright. There might be a copyright in the text of a complex prompt (do you feel lucky in court?) Mere “sweat of the brow” does not generate a new copyright in the US, so e.g. retouching work on a photo does not generate a new copyright and photos of a public domain artwork do not create a new copyright.
This doesn’t touch on the old copyrights of the stuff Midjourney trained on to make its computer-mediated collages. Those copyrights still exist.
Does the computer-mediated collage launder the previous copyrights? The answer is “do you feel lucky in court?”
- o7___o7 ( @o7___o7@awful.systems ) English8•13 hours ago
It’s Tornado Cash, but for pictures of Garfield with a machete.
North Korea: “AUGH MY EYES”