Computational Art

Technology General Discussion
21

Great observation :+1: :+1:

1 Like
22

I think the main distinction is: we as human had limited memory capacities, we can have vague impression of something in our mind, the full copy of the artwork could only be in your head a little then they can disappear in fleeting moments, leaving inspiration.

The machine is different, it took full copies of the artworks and will always remember them. The trained model is an item, created from artworks ( it can’t exist without having artworks fed into it). If the artwork the trained model created from are copyrighted artwork, the trained model itself should be a copyright violation.

If someone create a device using patented parts without licensing them, would anything directly cteated from it be considered legal?

Now if those machines only use public domain or artworks that hot paid for permission from artists, then it might be different. And it would still better than the current practice of blatantly generating arts in the style of living or recently deceased artists.

5 Likes
23

@Crazycat - are you sure you’re not a lawyer? Good analysis.

1 Like
24

I wish :joy:, I had agrument with AI art advocators before ( in a civil manner) and ours opinions was so wildy different that no one can agree with the other.

AI art supporter : human can view references for their art , it’s fair use, so machine should be able to use it, too. The result was different from the source so nothing was copied.

My argument:

  • AI art model is an object with inhuman capabilities and shouldn’t have the same rights as human, including fair use.

  • The human reference process is indirect with eyes and would be forgotten anytime, while the machine process is directly copying the source datas. If the source data was directly used by human (ie photobashing), the human must get permission from the data owner, maybe pay for it and leave credit. The machine doesn’t get permission or give anyone credit.

  • The trained model is an object that was created from copyrighted art, so the machine itself is illegal. No matter how different the results created by it look, it was created from an illegally trained model that shouldn’t be distributed or commercialized.

5 Likes