Comment by harimau777
14 days ago
I'd say that any use of an AI trained on people's creations without (real) consent and compensation should not be protected.
14 days ago
I'd say that any use of an AI trained on people's creations without (real) consent and compensation should not be protected.
Is it fair to say, then, that artists who have trained on the work of prior artists should also not be able to protect their works unless they have directly received consent and have compensated all the artists whose works they have viewed and potentially learned from over their lifetime?
There's some big differences:
Artist are human
There is a dramatic difference between learning from or being inspired by an artist and incorporating it wholesale into an LLM
Artists can use human judgement and knowledge of social norms to decide what art is or is not appropriate to utilize. (e.g. a painting in the museum versus someone's tribute to a dead loved one on DeviantArt)
There's a big difference both in the amount of learning and the amount of output between an AI and a human.
There's a big difference between an artist and a megacorporation.
Andy Warhol did in fact compensate the artists whose work he incorporated into his art. So there is definitely precident.