The guy who used Midjourney to create an award-winning piece of AI art demands copyright protections.
Excuse me while I go grab my popcorn.
- NigelFrobisher ( @NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone ) 1•4 minutes ago
This is actually the art bit, right? He’s doing conceptual art, like that Banksy that shredded itself upon sale.
- nick ( @nick@midwest.social ) 2•30 minutes ago
Fuck him.
- Count Regal Inkwell ( @VinesNFluff@pawb.social ) 6•3 hours ago
[Nelson Laugh]
- Lexam ( @Lexam@lemmy.ca ) 14•4 hours ago
I’m in the same boat. Every time someone reads one of my comments and doesn’t pay me for it, that’s money out of my pocket. It’s a hard life being an internet commenter these days.
- sag ( @sag@lemm.ee ) 12•7 hours ago
If he is considered “Artist” I am too.
- tacosanonymous ( @tacosanonymous@lemm.ee ) 31•9 hours ago
First off, stop calling him an AI artist.
- DragonTypeWyvern ( @DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social ) 1•2 hours ago
Calling someone a prompt “engineer” should be punishable by law.
- TheDorkfromYork ( @TheDorkfromYork@lemm.ee ) 1•4 hours ago
You can make art using AI. I’ve seen artists use it to clean up line art, color, shade, fill in backgrounds, and more. AI is just a tool. Lots of people only use text prompts, which I agree is hardly controlling, but that is only a single way to interact with AI. You can do a lot with these models.
- RobotToaster ( @RobotToaster@mander.xyz ) 21•8 hours ago
One of the reasons I like AI art is that it’s pretty settled law that something produced by purely “mechanical” means can’t itself have copyright, since copyright requires both originality and a human author.
It seems like a reasonably compromise, the AI was created by hoovering up the commons, so anything it creates should belong to the commons. I expect a lot of lobbying in the future to try and change it though.
- Boomkop3 ( @Boomkop3@reddthat.com ) 14•9 hours ago
Oh no, the consequences of your own actions! That art competition should just add a rule “only copyrightable works”
Apparently, the competition was a year before that ruling.
- Boomkop3 ( @Boomkop3@reddthat.com ) 2•5 hours ago
And he’s still crying about it?
- unmagical ( @unmagical@lemmy.ml ) 8•8 hours ago
How is he losing millions of dollars? If you’re just trying to get into the art fraud money laundering scheme thing then make an NFT and find an idiot. But just the creation of a piece (be it traditional, digital, or “ai”) doesn’t entitle you to a payout. And if you’re just complaining about the dissemination of the piece you asked someone else’s computer to generate for you without a kick back link tax, well–that’s not how copyright, the internet, or normal human correspondence works.
- OmegaMouse ( @OmegaMouse@pawb.social ) 11•9 hours ago
Lol, lmao even
- Canadian_Cabinet ( @Canadian_Cabinet@lemmy.ca ) 6•8 hours ago
How much did the real artists lose out on in order to train the AI?
- morgunkorn ( @morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de ) 8•9 hours ago
I’m collecting all his tears to cook a big pot of pasta. Not sure how anyone would make “millions of dollars” from a single artwork anyway.
- Dudewitbow ( @Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ) 3•5 hours ago
its probably fictionally calculated like sales are to piracy. just because someone pirated a game/software doesnt mean they would have bought said thing at asking price had the piracy option not existed.
- The Doctor ( @drwho@beehaw.org ) 4•8 hours ago
Money laundering.
- drdiddlybadger ( @drdiddlybadger@pawb.social ) 5•9 hours ago
He is not being the neighborly neighbor Mr Rogers wanted him to be.
- The Doctor ( @drwho@beehaw.org ) 2•8 hours ago
Waah.
- ProgrammingSocks ( @ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social ) 3•9 hours ago
Oh I sure hope he sets a bad legal precedent for AI “art”.