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.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, he is neither is those words. I wouldn’t even say the ‘I’ applies.

    • TheDorkfromYork@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 months 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.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        All this is true, but none of it is relevant to a guy who’s demanding copyright protections and royalties for something Midjourney spat out.

        • TheDorkfromYork@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I agree, but I wasn’t sure if this comment was generally anti-AI or understanding of the nuance. For the record, AI scares me.

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months 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.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      And if AI work would be copyrighted by the “prompt artist” then all the artists whose work is in the training set can sue the prompter for profiting of their work without licensing fees. It would be a legal clusterfuck so it was pretty wise to side step the whole issue.

  • Lexam@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months 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.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 months ago

    Oh no, the consequences of your own actions! That art competition should just add a rule “only copyrightable works”

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is actually the art bit, right? He’s doing conceptual art, like that Banksy that shredded itself upon sale.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Famous AI ‘Prompter’ Says He’s Losing Millions of Dollars From People Stealing His Stolen Work.”

    Seems like you did this to yourself, bud. You’re just mad you didn’t get paid enough for stealing.

  • unmagical
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months 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.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Ah, good ol’ music industry math. “1,000 people downloaded a picture that I created, and I wanted to charge $1,000 a piece, so I lost $1,000,000.” In reality of course charging $0.02 would’ve stopped most sales.

      • unmagical
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, articles are including the image because they can. If a judge had instead ruled that AI generated works were copyrightable (and to the prompter, not the designer of the tool, owner of the hardware, or even the tool itself) the end result would be that very few orgs would include his piece instead just opting for generating their own (now copyrightable) image to use as an example. He’d still get nothing, but then significantly fewer people would see his “work.”

  • morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months 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.