What insults and name calling? Shit, If I had known that you were this fragile I wouldn't have bothered to respond properly and just called you retarded.
Owning something and owning the copyright to something isn't the same. You cant just make insane claims about something and expect me to engage with it. You are fully capable of taking photos that you own with the current copyright framework or photographers wouldnt be a profession and nothing would have pictures of anything.
The people that is stealing art designed their algorithm to not contain proof that they stole art. If they are legally required to prove what training data they used in order to get a copyright then they will design the AI around that. That would immediately disqualify most of the current AIs because they have all been fed stolen art but I am sure they have the tech and capital to start over. And you know, Fuck em.
no no. You are not REQUIRED to break other peoples copyright in order to produce something with a camera. It is something you CAN do if you want to. AI literally cant function without a library of other peoples photos.
Someone else brought this up in this thread and it is the only circumstance should be able to copyright an AI artwork. If you own the copyright to every single piece of art in the training data. If I take 10.000 photos that are mine and feed them into an AI that produces more photos that are entirely based on my work then it should be copyrightable.
Yeah, Absolutely.
https://youtu.be/nIoXOplUvAw?si=NsMPxjkNfcCfuf6I
This guy. I haven't done the most recent tutorial he has made because he actually goes back and redoes the beginners tutorial to keep up with the most recent version but the earlier versions of this was great for me.
I would argue that the artist produces the copyright and transfers it to you. If the artist isn't human and cant produce copyrights then it cant sell it to you. A lot of argumentation here is that we should treat AI like we treat a human artist. That is an insane line to go down because that would make any AI work effectively slavery.
The argument was basically "that is how humans learn too". I accepted that analogy because it doesn't change my conclusion that AI can't be copyrighted. Had the discussion been about something else I wouldn't have accepted that argument.
Yeah, that shrug you did about how it would be nice if AI didn't steal art is part of the problem. Shrugging and saying joink doesn't work when you want to copyright stuff.
Human learns by assimilating other people work and working it into their own style, yes. That means that the AI is the human in this and the AI owns the artistic works. Since AI does not yet have the right to own copyrights, any works produced by that AI is not copyrightable.
That is if you accept that AI and humans learn art in the same way. I don't personally think that is analogous but it doesn't matter for this discussion.
Because photographs don't require other people photographs to work. It just requires the labour of the engineers at Nikon and you payed them by buying the camera.
Use an AI algorithm with no training set and see how good your tool is.
Then why does all AI need to harvest the work of millions of artists in order to create one mediocre painting? Millions upon millions of hours of blood sweat and tears is hidden behind that algorithm. Thousands of people starting to draw when they are 5 and never stopping in order to get as good as they are.
All big AI services refuse to disclose the training set they use and those that we know anything about absolutely uses copyrighted material from artist that didn't consent to be part of the training set.
This is what fuels my contempt for AI. People that uses literal billions of dollars of stolen time and talent and then pretend that actually having ideas is the important bit.
When these people are strong and healthy they need to foster the next generations so that the party has a good idea who their successor should be so that there party doesn't fall into shambles and infighting every time one of them dies or retires.
The problem is that they don't do that. It is in their interest that there are no viable alternatives to them because good alternatives to them threaten their power. Until they are suddenly 80 that is and nobody knows how to replace them so they have to sit on their thrones and hold on for as long as possible.
Did you use the youtube tutorials from the doughnut guy?
I tried to learn blender by just using it and googling the issues but gave up several times. Then I bit the bullet and went trough a proper video tutorial. Most of them run at increments of 10-20 minutes and each one reaches enough to be useful on its own.
Another tip is to do lots of tiny things you can reasonably make in a weekend before doing big things.
Good. If you use stolen art to generate it then you dont get to copyright it. If you want to copyright you should provide the whole training set and proof of ownership of each image.
I wonder if daily wire will make her pay that fine for being banned that Steven chowder ranted about.