Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back - Decrypt
Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.
Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back
More popular than Picasso and Leonardo Da Vinci among AI artists, Greg Rutkowski opted out of the Stable Diffusion training set. The community just created a LoRA to mimic his style.Jose Antonio Lanz (Decrypt)
like this
trashhalo
in reply to trashhalo • • •Re: Stolen. Not stolen comments Copyright law as interpreted judges is still being worked out on AI. Stay tuned if it's defined as stolen or not. But even if the courts decide existing copyright law would define training on artists work as legitimate use. The law can change and it still could swing the way of the artist if congress got involved.
My personal opinion, which may not reflect what happens legally is I hope we all get more control over our data and how it's used and sold. Wether that's my personal data like my comments, location or my artistic data like my paintings. I think that would be a better world
like this
snowe, fox_the_apprentice, VerbTheNoun95, vldnl, lobelia581, Storksforlegs, jursed, StrandedRez, yessikg, dunidane, vanquesse, Cade, CroatianTapDancer, SmoochyPit, nickwitha_k (he/him), wanderingmagus, nanometre, doeknius_gloek, Pseu, Rozaŭtuno, catwitch, splangy, joe_vinegar, Fearofthefamiliar and Binette like this.
Dizzy Devil Ducky
in reply to trashhalo • • •like this
6mementomori, Herbsti72, SodaRayne, Rozaŭtuno, fourohfour, OhShitSon, splangy, ArxCyberwolf, trashhalo, gencha, yessikg, feeltheglee, thelionsredmane, Pigeon, Samus Crankpork, pine, wizardbeard, CallumWells and Jenga like this.
Melody Fwygon
in reply to trashhalo • • •AI art is factually not art theft. It is creation of art in the same rough and inexact way that we humans do it; except computers and AIs do not run on meat-based hardware that has an extraordinary number of features and demands that are hardwired to ensure survival of the meat-based hardware. It doesn't have our limitations; so it can create similar works in various styles very quickly.
Copyright on the other hand is, an entirely different and, a very sticky subject. By default, "All Rights Are Reserved" is something that usually is protected by these laws. These laws however, are not grounded in modern times. They are grounded in the past; before the information age truly began it's upswing.
Fair use generally encompasses all usage of information that is one or more of the following:
In most cases AI art is at least somewhat Transformative. It may be too complex for us to explain it simply; but the AI is basically a virtual brain that can, without error or certain human faults, ingest image information and make decisions based on input given to it in order to give a desired output.
Arguably; if I have license or right to view artwork; or this right is no longer reserved, but is granted to the public through the use of the World Wide Web...then the AI also has those rights. Yes. The AI has license to view, and learn from your artwork. It just so happens to be a little more efficient at learning and remembering than humans can be at times.
This does not stop you from banning AIs from viewing all of your future works. Communicating that fact with all who interact with your works is probably going to make you a pretty unpopular person. However; rightsholders do not hold or reserve the right to revoke rights that they have previously given. Once that genie is out of the bottle; it's out...unless you've got firm enough contract proof to show that someone agreed to otherwise handle the management of rights.
In some cases; that proof exists. Good luck in court. In most cases however; that proof does not exist in a manner that is solid enough to please the court. A lot of the time; we tend to exchange, transfer and reserve rights ephemerally...that is in a manner that is not strictly always 100% recognized by the law.
Gee; Perhaps we should change that; and encourage the reasonable adaptation and growth of Copyright to fairly address the challenges of the information age.
like this
Sternhammer, teo8192, Swedneck, joe_vinegar, atan, flora_explora, trashhalo, arrowfunc, Bulborb, itsAllDigital, mobyduck648, Virulent, oomphaloompha, Tordoc, festus, wizardbeard, Harrison [He/Him], Even_Adder, liminalDeluge and giloronfoo like this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Melody Fwygon • •Edit: I made the classic blunder of US centrism here, my bad
@Melody Fwygon all questions of how AI learns aside, it's not legally theft but philosophically the topic is debatable and very hot button.
I can however comment pretty well on your copyright comments which are halfway there, but have a lot of popular inaccuracies.
Fair use is a very vague topic, and they explicitly chose to not make explicit terms on what is allowed but rather the intents of what is to be allowed. We've got some firm ones not because of specific laws but from abundance of case evidence.
These are basically all the same category and includes some misinformation about what it does and does not cover. It's permitted to make copies for purely informational, public interest (ie. journalistic) purposes. This would include things like showing a clip of a movie or a trailer to make commentary on it.
Education doesn't get any special treatment here, but research might (ie. making copies that are kept to a restricted environment, and only used for research purposes, this is largely the protection that AI models currently fall under because the training data uses copyrighted data but the resulting model does not).
"Easily confused" is a rule from Trademark Law, not copyright. Copyright doesn't care about consumer confusion, but does care about substitution. That is, if the content could be a substitute for the original (ie. copying someone else's specific painting is going to be a violation up until the point where it can only be described as "inspired by" the painting)
This is a very very common myth that gets a lot of people in trouble. Copyright doesn't care about whether you profit from it, more about potential lost profits.
Loaning is completely disconnected from copyright because no copies are being made ("digital loaning" is a nonsense attempt to claiming loaning, but is just "temporary" copying which is a violation).
Personal copies are permitted so long as you keep the original copy (or the original copy is explicitly irrecoverably lost or destroyed) as you already acquired it and multiple copies largely are just backups or conversions to different formats. The basic gist is that you are free to make copies so long as you don't give any of them to anyone else (if you copy a DVD and give either the original or copy to a friend, even as a loan, it's illegal).
It's not good to rely on it being "non-profit" as a copyright excuse, as that's more just an area of leniency than a hard line. People far too often thing that allows them to get away with copying things, it's really just for topics like making backups of your movies or copying your CDs to mp3s.
... All that said, fun fact: AI works are not covered by copyright law.
To be copyrighted a human being must actively create the work. You can copyright things made with AI art, but not the AI art itself (ie. a comic book made with AI art is copyrighted, but the AI art in the panels is not, functioning much like if you made a comic book out of public domain images). Prompts and set up are not considered enough to allow for copyright (example case was a monkey picking up a camera and taking pictures, those pictures were deemed unable to be copyrighted because despite the photographer placing the camera... it was the monkey taking the photos).
like this
Binette, ag_roberston_author, giloronfoo and not_amm like this.
Harrison [He/Him]
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •giloronfoo likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Harrison [He/Him] • •like this
Harrison [He/Him] and giloronfoo like this.
Storksforlegs
in reply to trashhalo • • •There’s a lot of disagreement here on what is theft, what is art, what is copyright… etc
The main issue people have with AI is fundamentally how is it going to be used? I know there isnt much we can do about it now, and its a shame because there it has so much potential good. Everyone defending AI is making a lot of valid points.
But at the end of the day it is a tool that is going to be misused by the rich and powerful to eliminate hundreds of millions of well paying careers, permanently. MOST well paying jobs in fact, not just artists. What the hell are people supposed to do? How is any of this a good thing?
like this
Lemmings_together_strong, trashhalo, Freeman, dandelion, yessikg, Binette, CarrotIsland and Jenga like this.