I'm not sold on your argument. I'm not an artist but I don't see how an artist using Nightshade is breaking the law. From an anti-AI point of view, you illegally took my artwork and used it. How is it my fault you didn't understand what you were stealing?
Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal.
Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that gray area is where things do get dicey.
The "blatantly illegal" part is the part I'm not understanding. I drew something, I did some processing on it, I put it online, someone grabbed it and used it without my permission. I'm not clear on the illegal part.
> Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue
I think poking around HN or just this thread alone would tell you that at least people here don't support that.
I wonder how your original claim balances with something like freedom of speech/expression? Ultimately it’s art and perhaps the Nightshade-modified version is a component of what makes the piece art?
Duty of Care, additionally from an alternative perspective there are a number of laws covering the transmission of data that is intended to cause harm to another system.
(I understand that this is not a popular point, but I really want to emphasize that I am talking about what is _currently legal_ right now, not at all about the ethicality of large companies using people's data. The latter is a much harder topic.
This is mainly about what the law considers to be legal or not legal and is trying to avoid the more emotional side of the topic.)
I'm not sold on your argument. I'm not an artist but I don't see how an artist using Nightshade is breaking the law. From an anti-AI point of view, you illegally took my artwork and used it. How is it my fault you didn't understand what you were stealing?
Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal.
Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that gray area is where things do get dicey.
The "blatantly illegal" part is the part I'm not understanding. I drew something, I did some processing on it, I put it online, someone grabbed it and used it without my permission. I'm not clear on the illegal part.
> Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue
I think poking around HN or just this thread alone would tell you that at least people here don't support that.
1 reply →
I wonder how your original claim balances with something like freedom of speech/expression? Ultimately it’s art and perhaps the Nightshade-modified version is a component of what makes the piece art?
1 reply →
Why is it my responsibility to ensure my data doesn’t inadvertently harm your model that I have zero knowledge of?
Duty of Care, additionally from an alternative perspective there are a number of laws covering the transmission of data that is intended to cause harm to another system.
(I understand that this is not a popular point, but I really want to emphasize that I am talking about what is _currently legal_ right now, not at all about the ethicality of large companies using people's data. The latter is a much harder topic.
This is mainly about what the law considers to be legal or not legal and is trying to avoid the more emotional side of the topic.)