AN ARTIST'S COPYRIGHTED WORK USED WITHOUT CONSENT SHOULD NOT BE AN PART OF AN AI COMPANY'S TRADE SECRET! At the very least we definitely need transparency (and consent 1ST - Opt-in, not Opt out)! Great job Karla and Jeffrey, and kudos to the committee. I appreciated this dialog. Hoping for an optimistic and empowering outcome for artists everywhere.
Copyright only forbids others from producing "substantially similar" works. It does not prevent all use. AI models aren't "substantially similar" to the original art.
@@chrishinesmusic In fact if the laws were attempted to be updated in that way, it becomes unconstitutional per ArtI.S8.C8.3.3 "As a result, so long as Congress maintains the "traditional contours" of copyright protection, copyright laws are not subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny."
While Adobe's AI may sound good from Mr. Dana Rao's description, many of the artists that added their work to Adobe's Stock platform are upset & even pulling their work from the platform because they didn't know/intend for their work to be used in a training model & at least initially (it may still be the case, I'm not sure) there was no way for them to opt out. Adobe Stock was marketed as stock image platform that members of the Adobe users could post images & potentially get some income from that. Adobe DIDN'T market it as a library that would be mined to teach AI. There may have been text shoved into the legal info about Adobe turning artist's work into fodder for their own AI creation but it was never promoted as a feature.
@@Mente_Fugaz I definitely agree on that. If anything, any such system where a user's information or work would be automatically gathered in a database or studied by machine learning, the program/system should be opted out of by default, and it would have to prompt the user for permission.
@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine Your first comment in the thread doesn't show up unless someone sorts them by "newest" btw. Just letting you know, youtube's gotten bad. I saw UltraTerm's thread as well.
@@Aubreykun TH-cam hides a lot of comments that way these days. Somehow, people who spam comment sections always get away with it though, so it's nice to see Google has their priorities.
"It'll be hard to opt-out if you don't know what's been opted in." And perhaps more importantly, why is "opt in" the default to begin with? It's because the difference between billions of images that were scraped without permission and thousands of images that were properly licensed is the difference between a product that works well and one that works poorly or not at all. So of course these companies are working overtime to try to normalize the idea that individual rights holders should "opt out" of having their data used. It's completely backwards.
Exactly, the AI of now works as it works is by the number of data, nothing more, if they tried to license the amount of data to adjust said algorithms, even Microsoft would be bankrupt
I'd say that opt-in is the default because online platforms usually require that we sign a terms of service to use them. It is in the clauses of those ToS that we give consent for our data to be scrapped or used. The issue is most of us don't read ToS
@@VictorJulioHurtado It's not even that, it's that the process for the data collection has already been settled with regards to web crawlers, google books, both for-profit and non-profit research, etc. all doing the same thing.
The reason why ai art is so impressive, is because it's trained on incredible works created by real human artists. The fact that these artists aren't compensated or asked for consent is unacceptable.
You can only demand people ask for consent when: someone continuing with their action, despite you denying consent, would result in them aggressing upon or harming you or your property. Else, the demand for asking consent is an unreasonable request because you have no right to respond with force if someone ignores the request.
@@Aubreykun man.. I seriously i'm asking why do you hate so much artists, how this affect you? Why do you care so much to not let the artists demand for consent? I mean, it seems like you are obsessed to it. Because every day, every hour you are replying everything like you don't have anything to do but to simp the billionaire industries
@@Mente_Fugaz If you want to turn this into mind-reading: I should be asking you why you hate artists to the point you think some should have absolute domain over ideas, pulling up the ladder behind other artists and giving them + corporations the ability to control not simply who is permitted to _copy_ art, but who can _use_ art. You don't get to demand consent for the use of art. Period. There is no law that blocks it, and even if there was, that law would be *unethical.* Unjust. It would be an unethical action to actually enforce such a law. Not everything someone touches or has influence in becomes theirs to control and exclude others from use. As an artist, I understand that I gain ZERO ownership over others' copies of my artwork. Creation does not confer ownership, I do not have partial ownership in someone's computer to restrict them from using it to produce things similar to my art. The law provides an avenue for me to prevent others from producing copies (and "substantially similar" works), but it would be unethical for me - *or any other artist* - to actually invoke that law.
@@Mente_Fugazif you don't like hearing it from that guy, I can tell you the exact same. Anyone can draw inspiration from other artists without their consent.
did you hear what adobe's CTO said? This is not "artists being heard", its artists falling for corporation propaganda and helping those corpos to pass what they wanted way before all this mess with AI
Karla Ortiz opening statement made me tear up. You can really see on her body language and the way she delivers speaks on how passionate she is on resolving these issues. Looking forward to great results on resolving these unethical and exploitative ways these AI companies are doing.
You can be crying for whatever reason but she has no legal case to stand on. This will be the death of Fair use and transformative content if regulations go through.
@@gbsartworks4963 Plenty of things do, and the senate is mostly boomers who know little about the tech OR art. "Some people are upset and we can use this to garner favor with some voters" is how these senate hearings all work.
Karla!!!!🌷 Elegant, confident with a strong voice! I hope Ms. Hirono can stand on the real creators' side and know that ai companies infringed and still infringing on people’s properties. Don’t be convinced by ai lobbyists' “beautiful “ words.
She cut right through his effort to talk circles around it. He had to be asked the question FOUR times before he gave a straight answer. He knows they are in the wrong. I think Ms Hirono asked some of the sharpest and best questions so far. Very impressed by her.
@@Roguechan Yes! I also love Mrs. Blackburn's said, "We’ve been through this thing in the music industry where “fair use.” became a fairly useful way to steal property, and artists don’t want to go through that again. Right? Ms Ortiz? It didn’t work the way it was supposed to."
@@jamessderbyuntil it is , If you train a model with the aim to replicate a whole product, like a whole book , or a whole picture, identity etc, without any modification because machine learning is that kind of powerful, to the point to replace the original product, it becomes theft. And you will use machine learning as a data laundering...
@@Mente_Fugaz ??? If the output is in copyright violation then the output violates copyright. What you stated is no different from calling a VCR or a xerox "data laundering."
@@Mente_Fugaz Nobody is arguing this at all, not even in the senate, if you make a perfect replica of something, you're violating copyright and it doesn't matter how you made it, if the output violates copyright then the output violates copyright, what everyone is arguing is whether using copyrighted art to teach an AI to make completely original art of your OC(for instance) is legal, or if making your OC character in the style of Karla Ortiz, declaring loud and clear "This is AI and not made by Karla Ortiz", is illegal. In my opinion, both are fine.
@@mido9573 is not about the outputs, is about how was trained in first instance... When you make a smoothie, it doesn't matter if the smoothie doesn't looks like the original fruits, if the fruits were stolen to make it, that's wrong. Plus: the product is not you sharing the picture that AI made, the product exists in the moment the AI spit it out to you, so it doesn't have any sense put the responsibility on the user who is using the AI, but rather on the person responsible for creating an AI capable of plagiarizing or releasing the content of a book protected by copyright, and the only way to avoid that, is not puting the book on the blender in the first instance. we are on the same page now?
The senator asked not once but TWICE; 43:29 "...did copyright owner knows if their works had been used to train stability models, is stability PAYING rights holder for that use..." 44:54 "do you PAY any of the rights holder..." If that AI bro is being truthful (which he supposed to, since he raised his hand and vowed to tell only the truth), he basically said 'welp we stole billions of them, if we really had to PAY, we'd go bankrupt, which is why we stole em' in the first place, coz you know, we like thick s wallets, and f to all those creative creators, but oh thanks for the works tho' Ms. Karla and Mr. Jeffrey, thank you so much for your voice, you guys are amazing! If you watch Karla's hand while she testify, you can see she was literally shaking, I can't imagine all the pent-up feelings and frustation she's been holding up until that moment, dang I love her so much!
The copyright holders have no right to know and no right to demand payment unless the works that are produced from their art constitute infringement, which AI models do not, nor do the outputs the users of said AI tools create violate copyright as a given - similar to how you can use any tool to violate copyright by making "substantially similar" duplicates.
@@Aubreykun "The copyright holders have no right to know and no right to demand payment" - This part, so was that mean it's okay if I steal your work and I make a program to make a bunch of 'alternatives' of it, sell it, make fortune from it, and you don't have the right to demand anything from me even know about it, is that what you're saying? for you to defend those selfish and greedy AI companies, shows that you actually don't give a damn about any creative creators because you're not directly affected by it, such as having your work stolen or lost your job because of it, therefore wasn't your problem, bet you use AI all the time, if so, no wonder why you're on their side 😒
@@mochatabbing4723 I am an artist and only use AI stuff for fun on the side, or to make references. No need to attack my character, my arguments are sound. No, neither you nor I have a right to go demand payment or require permission to be asked if someone uses our art for anything, save the limited monopoly of copyright law that ONLY applies to resulting works that bear legally-defined "substantial similarity" to specific pieces we already have made. That means if someone uses your art in a collage and you dislike it, you cannot do anything about it. If someone draws your character in a way you despise, you can do nothing as well (characters most often fall under trademark laws, not copyright - and trademarks require registration and fees, they are not automatic like copyright is.) All of this can be done for profit too, all of this can be done using automated tools. And AI art programs use _less of any specific image_ than appropriating art by hand does, unless the person is intentionally trying to make knockoffs. And those resulting knockoff art they make using AI tools, if they bear that legally-defined substantial similarity to a work you already made, would violate copyright and you'd have an actual lawsuit you could hit them with. Beyond that, copyright is unethical and I release all my art under CC0 (creative commons zero) because I want to ensure my clients and watchers feel safe in the fact that they can use my art for anything they like, without fear of me having a mental breakdown and trying to DMCA or sue them.
@@Aubreykun you deserve to have your character attacked because you claim to be an artist but defend giant tech companies stealing labor to put artists out of work. you are a fool.
Being an artist takes an extremely long journey to master. Mostly even crawl just to make ends meet and these AI companies decided to just kick you while you are on the ground. Stealing and appropriating it? Pure blasphemy. Shame on you people.
Right? I mean they could have just stuck to disease prevention, climate issues, social equity, housing, farming - anything else. Solving urgent world problems. This? This is just to charge as many millions of people as possible $20.00/month. They are so full of their own BS they're going to explode.
While peeking after a response to someone I noticed my reply didn't go through: Non-AI Artists also appropriate other artwork to make new art. AI just is a new medium almost entirely built upon that - ethics says it's fine, and legally it's fine too. It's just a faux-pas among some circles of the art sphere.
@@koumorichinpo4326 Neither do artists using AI tools. And besides, that line of reasoning actually disproves that it's any sort of "theft." To paraphrase the old saying: "If you copy 1 person, you're called a hack. If you copy dozens, you're called smart. If you copy hundreds, you're called a genius."
You can only demand people ask for consent when: someone continuing with their action, despite you denying consent, would result in them aggressing upon or harming you or your property. Scraping and analyzing images does neither. Therefore, you cannot demand people gain your consent for it. You can state your opinion on the act and refuse to deal with people who do, that's your freedom of association. But you can't prevent people from doing harmless, non-aggressive actions just because you dislike it. To do so with force or coercion would be to aggress upon _them._
@@sunfvalley It's not theft at all. "Theft" requires actually interfering with the owner's ability to use and/or access their property. Copying doesn't do that. The word you're looking for is "offensive." As in, you could say "The fact these companies are violating my subcultural norms is offensive to me." Because that's really the limit for what's happening.
@@Aubreykun or i could also say "the fact that these filty rich man childs dishonestly taking arts that belongs to someone else, keep it, and profit off of it is just plain old theft." i like mine better thanks❤
How the hell is "opt out" is even considered? Is it okay to steal someone's property and only give it back to him if he raises a concern? knowing that you can't even make the AI unlearn what it has learned from it. it'll be forever stolen. Also, the metadata can easily be erased or altered from any format.
Plus the old models are already in the wild and they are there to stay. They must be held accountable for the damage already done. A huge fine at the very least.
Dear Mr. Brooks - you created Stability and taught your models WITHOUT asking for permission or creating an opt-in. You knew exactly what you were doing and stole anyway hoping in the gold rush no one would notice. You can't throw your hands up in the air and say, "We're working this all out, it's very new." NO. You chose to do it. You chose not to ask permission. You knew exactly what you were doing, and what you were doing was stealing.
@@Aubreykun I knew people building LLMs twenty years ago, and they were very careful to use sources that didnt infringe copyright, even though they were doing academic work. This is because they eventually planned to use it commercially. This is not lost institutional knowledge, these guys like Brooks were just trying to speed-run their release before congress and the courts catch up. Move Fast, Break Laws and all that.
@@TheMageesa For some reason my statements keep not going through so I'll try to reword it. Some people avoid doing that out of fear they'd lose in the long run, even if they're in the right. Stability has the means to withstand such problems, but also is led by a dude who actually really believes in reducing barriers for people to do anything they want without needing approval or consensus.
Nearly done listening to this discussion, and not once has the Stability AI rep answered straight up what he was asked. Just kept filling up his airtime by repeating the same thing to avoid actually answering. It's not even enough to be called virtual signalling, more like the kind of argument that says "I totally eat healthily as a person. I had ketchup once last year, which is made from openly sourced tomato using our propriatary five-finger-discount mode. And rememder tomato is a vegetable, which is healthy, and that's enough done to opt me out of the unhealthy category."
Stability AI showed themselves such a corporate iresponsible snakes in this hearing! Adobe, being a art-tool developer for decades thought of this issue and the ethics of it in advance, and Stability just ignored every possible thought and stolen everything! Increadible to hear the attempts of Ben Brooks to trick his way out of every question!
I assure you they ignored the copyright implications deliberately, and rushed it out to the public to try to crash through the barricades of law. I am sure they had lawyers warning them of the heat theyre facing.
Adobe are no better. They just marketed themselves as 'ethical', but the stock contributors were opted into firefly's dataset automatically and they do not have a way to opt out.
Here's the difference between "opt in" and "opt out" Opt-In: puts the control of use of the images in the hands of the artist. They have the final say on whether or not their images are used. Opt-Out: puts the control of the use of the images in the hands of the AI corporation. And the AI corporation is using the justification of "You didn't say no." even though they never asked.
Opt-out, like how deviantart does it, is because web crawlers already use the opt-out standard for things like research (both for- and non-profit), search engines, and so on. There's a "robots" file that the crawler will read and if it says "do not crawl" it will move on. The reason the crawler follows this is because the site/server owner can see the network activity and block the crawler entirely if it continues onto pages that it's not allowed to be on. The opt-out basically is for those AI companies which wish to gather data in this fashion, as a courtesy. There is nothing legally preventing any kind of web crawler from crawling things it's "not supposed to", it's moreso a gentleman's agreement and it works well.
Opt-in is the only practical way. Anyone who has had a long career has had their work spread far and wide over the internet through legally aquired licensing, it would be impossible to track every iteration down and flag it. Thatś not even to mention if the image was already ripped off and put on a blog, etc. Artists cant be bothered to take bloggers to Federal court if ifts a nonprofit use, but it could be scraped and put into the set even if the artist opts out everything on their own website.
My high respect to you Karla Ortiz, thanks for doing this for the art community before things get even worse in the future. It's better to take action and take these things seriously in the early stages. I applaud you for doing your research, speaking up about AI on every platform, and educating new artists and non-artist who are not sure what the big deal about this is. "Consent, Credit, and Compensation" - 100% agree with you on that Karla, Thanks again.
Consent does not apply for... things that you don't need consent for. You can look at someone's outfit on the street and copy their "fashion style" when designing a character, you don't need their consent to do this. You don't need consent to use others' art as references, or to analyze them or color pick them or even clip bits out for a collage. Web crawlers also work without consent, but they do tend to respect the web site's robots text file (as the web host can block the IP if they don't.) Why should you need consent to do any of that with a tool? Credit is something that's nice to do but not required, as long as you're not claiming you are someone you aren't (which is fraud). Rarely are all the references someone uses, or the bits of a collage, credited. Or even asked for permission. Compensation... I've never once heard someone needing to provide payment for using another work of art to make new art, except as a preemptive measure when dealing with corporate lawyers (because it's cheaper and less hassle than a lawsuit, even if you win.) We already had a lot of this fight 20 years ago against the RIAA and MPAA. Artists were on the side of the common people, not the cartels of megacorps. Yo Ho.
@@SylvesterMassey Yes I am. Draconian copyright is damaging to a free and open culture of art. While I find copyright itself to be unethical, I understand the importance of working within and around it while it exists. (and all art eventually becomes PD anyway - I release all my art under CC0 because I would like to see people remix and create with it while I'm alive, instead of long after I'm dead.) There are already legal measures that can be invoked for problems that may occur: lawsuits can be levied against the creators of images that violate copyright, if they are doing fraudulent business via misrepresentation, or if they are stalking someone online by repeatedly bothering them. Accepting these measures does mean accepting that AI tools are simply that. Tools, used by a human to aid with doing things.
This is the main point: this is big profit disguised as "educational purposes". The AI was able to be this good only because the main data was accessible for its entirety, the artist NEEDS to show it. Why you can't use billions of songs so easily and sell a product from it just like that? The music artists are protected by the record companies. That's the only reason and they knew it from the start.
You can easily mash up a bunch of songs until they're unrecognizeable and the record companies would not be able to do anything about it (but nobody would listen to that random noise so lol). Copyright has a test where the one claiming infringement has to provide evidence of the defendant's individual work bearing "substantial similarity" to their own. And they have to do this for each individual work in a suit.
"Opt-in" should be the way moving forward with Ai generated imagery. It lets people create AI images (And let's be realistic it won't produce nearly rendered images as artists) and gives security to artists (Who the majority wouldn't give their works at all like Karla Ortiz stated).
Karla has become a sort of face for artist. Keep fighting for us, don't stop, not until artist don't have to fear about their works being used for things they don't approve of
Insisting that artists have "the right to stop other artists from using their art to make new art" is just gaslighting at worst and completely misunderstanding how art works at best. I suggest you look into how Andy Warhol and DuChamp made art.
@@Aubreykun Are you illiterate? Your quote is not even what they said. Artists have always learned from, referenced, and been inspired by other artists' work. We never said that's the same as feeding it into an algorithm to be spat out and bastardized by people who have no respect for the art or artist
@@BluE-jw9hu An algorithm is still a tool. So the artist using the tool is still being an artist using someone else's work. In addition, artists are not a monolith - plenty fight each other. Heck, there's also artists I've seen who are against _artistic freedom!_ It's actually quite something. In fact a lot of "spite art" is made by artists to sling mud at each other. So you could say there's a longstanding tradition of artists having no respect for art or other artists.
@@mf-- Defintionally, they did not steal - copying is not theft. Hacks? Sure. Still artists, still world famous and well-documented. Richard Prince is also a madlad who got famous for "rephotography" - taking blown up photos of marlboro ads with the text cropped out. Among other things. He's been sued a bunch and kept winning so nobody bothers trying anymore. The art field is massive and the overton window for what's "Acceptable" in art is so much wider than many people seem to believe.
@@sownheard Not true: its fair use if a Human does it It's copy and paste if it's a machine, especially if its hundreds of pixels automatically merged by a library of scaped images
@@SplitScreamOFFICIAL Fair use is an exemption for when material would otherwise be infringing. In order for a work to be infringing, it must bear "substantial similarity" to some other work. Basically it goes: *Does it bear substantial similarity?* If yes -> *Does it fail the Fair Use test?* If yes -> *Copyright violation* If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it's not in violation. People don't have a right to tell you you can't use their art if what you're making doesn't bear substantial similarity to something else.
@@krautdragon6406 Already replied to your other comments: - Data privacy doesn't apply in this case, because the data is public and such public data is allowed to be scraped and processed for research and other purposes - Licensing is a way to formalize the granting of consent. There's no legitimate reason to demand someone ask for consent to use the data, so it doesn't apply. - A human operates an AI tool, the program is not a being, not an entity, it has no agency. It's purely an extension of the operator, much like an espresso machine.
Still in the middle of the video, i think the incident when DeviantArt (DA) decides to support AI and gives a roundabout way for artist to basically say “NO” for their content not to be trained could be used as example here. There’s also the problem with retired artists and recently deceased who cannot say NO and their relatives who are having trouble accesing their account to help mitigate this problem DA made in the first place. Thankfully, after rightfully harsh criticism, DA decides to automatically opt-out every person images in their site unless given consent from the creator themselves.
Its not about AI its about "do you really need consent for artist when using their art?" this will also extrapolate to characters voice etc. So good luck with future where you wont be able to draw fan art of any character without asking permission of copyright holder. You will never be able to mimic sound/voice of any artists even if AI is not involved.
@@alexjames995 wtf are you talking about, did you just hear any of the actual arguments? the problem with AI is because it's using the actual art works to decompose it's data without consent with the goal to replace the actual artist... is not about style, is not about fanarts lol... When artists makes fanarts they are not using the actual pictures, or when someone is imitating a voice, is not using the actual voice xD
@@Mente_Fugaz Deconstruction of a copyrighted material is not protected. If I was to write a description of Mona Lisa it is fair use. And if someone draws Mona Lisa from my description its also fair use. AI learns to extract the concepts from images. Nothing about original image is stored. Only concepts are learned,
@@alexjames995but you're a human, not a machine, machine doesn't work like us, and u can't understand their language and concepts they having when 'learning' something, so stop twisting facts
@@Sidecontrol1234 Even the Stock images are not even owned by the companies, and they are collaborators with various artists and photographers, so for even a stock platform to license their images for AI, they would have to receive authorization from the artists and photographers who have your images on those sites
Artists MUST be ASKED for consent in order to use their work in AI training! They MUST be asked consent. They do NOT have to give consent. I wouldn't want to be compensated for them to use my art, I just don't want them using it in the first place. And that is saying a lot, because I would do many things if offered the right amount of money. I would eat a dirty waffle off the ground for 50 dollars. Honestly, I would never consent to this, and artists don't even get asked for consent! It is theft. And I am not putting down those artists who would consent to their art being used, I am putting down Stability AI for carelessly taking anything and everything in terms of people's content, only accounting for their own possible problems such as "bias" rather than accounting for the CONSENT of the artists. It's so clear, so painfully obvious when Mr. Brooks is asked multiple times what Stability will do in terms of the content they have already stolen, it is clear that his position is that he does not want to have to give up what he stole from artists. He dodges all questions with the same answers over and over, tweaked each time to sound slightly different. Karla deserves to be taken more seriously. She is barely asked any questions. You can't tell me this is fair, having only one artist, one person closely tied to artists (Mr. Harleston), and the other 3 people are not those being stolen from. If this case is about copyright and artist's rights, Mr. Ben Brooks clearly didn't get the memo.
That's completely incorrect. - You don't get to demand consent for any use of copies of the works, only the production of "substantially similar" works per copyright law. It's not an actual property right, it's a limited, state-granted monopoly privilege. Just like how you can't stop someone from reusing your art in a collage, but you CAN stop someone from reprinting in in a book. As the models are not substantially similar in and of themselves, and they are not tools for producing substantially similar works, then copyright does not give you the privilege to stop others. Expanding copyright to include that privilege would violate constitutional law by causing the copyright clause to violate the 1st amendment, which takes precedence - thus no law can be passed to do so. - Copying is not theft, they are legally and ethically distinct terms. Imitation is also not theft.
@@yefimk First, I am an artist. Second, attack my argument instead of my character. All you do by whining is waste time and make yourself look like you only care about social points from people who already agree with you.
This immensely gives me so much more hope. That all of these senators absolutely understands the issues at hand; and seem all in support of the full protection of human artist. I think I can relax a little now having heard this. I want to add, I thought the Pro AI arguments were waterdown reddit posts. But they are literally saying what they are saying... It's incredible how they say "we don't have the answers" and basically imply that what we exploited should be legal under the concept of harming a small portion of society for the greater good of everyone else." I'm sorry, but no one should be hurt. Consent isn't hard. It's just time consuming and limits your abilities; which keeps you humble. Welcome to being human, if you want human intelligence, then live as a human does. When all you have to present is a problem and not "have all the answers," or any answers in fact, you won't get far. Thank god they let brooks speak, he showed exactly the intent. Anything done well, takes time, love and attention. AI is void of any of that and is at the expense of everyone; not just artist. They don't care; they want it all to burn. AI, ironically, stifles innovation in every way possible. They did nothing to make this work fairly.
Consent isn't hard, yet I see so many people misunderstanding what you can demand consent for. You can only demand people ask for consent when: someone continuing with their action, despite you denying consent, would result in them aggressing upon or harming you or your property. Someone making an AI model does not harm or aggress upon an artist or their property, therefore demanding they ask for consent first is a category error.
@@Aubreykun nah. My art is my property. You have no idea what you’re talking about and it shows. It’s fine tho. Soon enough it will be illegal to do what you do 😊
@@hammerandthewrench7924 Seems my comment keeps getting eaten and I'm not sure why, I'll try to post in multiple parts to get it to work: Well first let's get down to what property is. You can only have property rights in resources that are rivalrous. Rivalrous resources are those which, absent a property rights system that clearly defines who owns what, create conflict between people due to the fact that possession of such a resource inherently, by its nature, excludes others. Property rights are the means of which we avoid this conflict by clearly defining boundaries that all can see, separate from possession. These boundaries are the right to exclude others, reducing the conflict that occurs when people simply use whatever is around them. This creates a civilized system of justice that is a solution to a "might makes right" scenario. So given all that, ideas have no conflict over their use. Nor do patterns (ideas applied to actual property). They are non-rivalrous, there is no inherent conflict when one "possesses" an idea that someone else came up with, as it is simply copying the information, not taking possession of the information in the other person's head (or stored in the object) - in fact, the utility OF information vanishes without allow other people to possess copies of it at all!
@@hammerandthewrench7924 (cont) Computers are probably the easiest example of this. When you view say, an image online, your computer is not staring into the server in a "look don't touch way", it has to actually copy the image into at least its RAM, if not cache. So by viewing it, you are already possessing a copy the original image you have seen. Moreover, you've done so by rearranging the state of the transistors (1s and 0s) and other various components of your machine that consist of instructions for your monitor to alter its pixel values into a form that resembles a similar image.
Ms Hirono asked some of the very best, pointed and insightful questions. Spent her time very well. I think only Mr Coons did better, the way he empathically handled the meeting. I really liked his closing statement that new technology didn't make older things obsolete, but that they absolutely impacted them.
The reason the Brooks guy is avoiding questions is because he knows his company is in the wrong. He talks about adressing opt-out request AFTER all of this has happended. Seems like they had no foresight at all or just did not care. Btw opt out only works for future versions, i do not think it will work for older version, or the other AI models that were made went they went open source.
Emad, the ceo of stability, is also trying as fast as possible to do the same with 3d assets. They know they're in the wrong but just release everything stolen before lawmakers can catch up.
@@andromedavii You are displaying that you don't actually value empathy, because you are dehumanizing people who you disagree with. You don't get to demand others have empathy for you when you don't have it for others. You didn't even state why you think such a person is wrong, so how can they be expected to understand your POV? Not everyone has the same background as you do, that's where empathy comes in - understanding people have all different lives and different life experiences. It's a two-way street. Your last line is strange. If your thinking is along the lines of Ted Kaczynski, then I don't know why you're sitting here on a computer if you only care about the "real, natural world"
@@andromedavii Nothing that you have said was of any substance or bringing up specific issues, just vague appeals to emotion and handwaving broad strokes "impact their ways of life" and "alter peoples' livelihoods." Such broad claims can be dismissed with equally broad responses: Anything you do impacts others. You cannot live without altering your environment, it's part of being human.
I feel like what a lot of the people backing AI art don't understand is that these companies should have had transparency to begin with. There was no option to opt out of this scraping, no way to know it was even happening. These companies scraping copyrighted art off the Internet and using it without consent to make profit is, among other examples, like you taking some copyrighted computer code, copying it, altering it by throwing in some other code that you took without permission, and selling it as your own without even notifying, let alone crediting, the company who coded it, then claiming that you did it with their permission. That's the problem: AI art companies are making profit off of art by taking it without permission from its creator, then claiming that they own it and making profit off it - which clearly violates copyright laws concerning original works. (Edited to fix a grammar error)
I would love to hear Ben Brooks or Dana Rao ACTUALLY answer ANY question. Their entire response "dataset" is nothing but strung together buzzwords insulting all our intelligence. Funny how they discuss all the "safety and bias" concerns they adhere to and manipulate. So Brooks and Rao and ADOBE, ( seriously, we believe these companies care? ), are deciding what is "diversity" and "safe" and "non biased"? From the ONLY person bringing race cards into the conversation/equation at the 1st sign of floundering for an answer?.. hmmm... They may as well just go in with " Ai is diversity and non biased because reasons, so give us your Art AND your money" Every time they speak I want to get a shower. Yuck
I will admit that Rao did come off as more empathetic and did at least seem to respond to the Senators' questions, at least in comparison to Brooks who pretty much responded only by talking in circles around the questions because clearly he knows himself to be in the wrong, but knowing the shady innerworkings of Adobe as a company tells me to take Rao's statements with a grain of salt as well. Even if it is true technically that Firefly uses only licensed work, it doesn't mean much if the TOS was quietly changed under the radar of licensors. Harleston was the clearest in my mind and cut to the point of every answer he gave: "It'll be hard to opt-out if you don't know (that you've) been opted in"
If people still agree with the AI dude after this conversation, they are proven to be lost. This man only used manipulative, ambiguous phrasing and tried to hide from the problem. Claims to be pro creativity even though he only cares for his own money and has shown in the past that he doesn't respect artists one bit.
What in the world are you talking about my friend!? Can´t you see how eloquent and distinct this perfectly fine young lad who´s representing Skynet is? I would never doubt a single word coming out of his mouth! NEVER! Besides, you artists are all a bunch of sissies... Why is it so bad to give the work of your whole life to feed an AI system that will replace you eventually? After all, it´s your fault you choose to study art instead of going to medicine or law! You should all just relax and start learning how to fry burgers for when you apply to Mcdonald's. right!?
19:17 voluntary opt out shouldn't be a thing. It should be voluntary opt in, if any artists are stupid enough to do that. Opt-ing out from AI models should be the natural state for art.
I saw a video where the Stability CEO said something along the line where they managed to convince 5000 people to opt-in, that amount doesn't even make up 0.00001% of the 5 billions data they need to create their AI models (and honestly I don't even believe that 5k numbers because their CEO has had history of lying to hype up his company). They knew it and that's why they resorted to stealing all of our data.
The opt out is a request that the crawler designer can choose to respect or not. There's no reason for them to do either one besides their preferences. For opt-in to be legally forced it would have to assume the web crawler is either: - violating copyright - aggressing upon or harming the person who is hosting the image (or is the creator of the art) Neither are true, so it would be an unjust law. Copyright infringement requires an actual infringing work to be presented.
@@Aubreykun The actual harm comes from others exploiting you and your work due to having to opt-out and facing all sorts of damages (having your art stolen and replicated for someone else's purpose, getting drowned in mimicry of your own art by someone else and thus competing against yourself on the market, or your style being used for nefarious reasons like generating controversial/socially unacceptable imagery that ruins your image etc.) before you can react to it in the first place, or due to a lack of knowledge of such a model being trained on your art in the first place. This way, if someone uses your work without you knowing that you have to opt out and causes you all sorts of damages BEFORE you can opt out, you can sue them. Plus it places the burden of data misuse on the ones who are pro-actively misusing it. Pretty simple, isn't it? Why shouldn't we assume what you listed, when these things have already happened? Sure the CEO of Midjourney didn't nefariously use AI against artists directly himself, but he already released to the public a vehicle which enables the masses to commit a huge amount of crimes of opportunity, while he passively gets money off the back of artists. Quite convenient isn't it?
@@studiospeetsfunny you mention that when people who are doing translations for living have their own things to say about it and how ai translators are not as good and accurate in terms of translating languages as people believe those things are.
@@AtomekKotalke Most automatic translation services just add translation in places where none was previously. It's allowed many people who otherwise couldn't communicate to do so at all. Even if not perfect, it's still a massive boon to humanity. It's nothing like those automatic translators from scifi stories, but still better than just 30 years ago. Language is much less of a barrier now than a single generation ago. I will say that people who think they can just use an automatic tool and not have any headaches, instead of putting in work or paying someone, are in every field and usually are just the worst customers anyway. If their little tools get good enough to do an "alright" job so they stop bothering skilled people, I see that as a win/win.
who shot and killed lance corporal Joel Augustus Watson's son Anthony Watson at sunlight street in Kingston Jamaica on July 4th 2000. who knows the truth?
Are you kidding me ? She made me cringe . She sounds like a spoil girl that always boatful about how talented she is and demand her parent reward her for everything she did
Adobe be calling for something downright unconstitutional (allowing artistic styles to be copyrighted) so they can pretend to be on the side of artists as they never have been before. The fact that at least one senator was willing to use a music ai at all, even with specific permission, means they know why they can’t do that.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. I really shouldn't be surprised that so many artists in this comment section don't understand what they're arguing for, when me telling some "yes you have to pay taxes on your art, use a spreadsheet so you can write off expenses and pay the correct amount," has caused emotional distress, and "no someone does not have to ask you permission to use your work as a reference" has gotten some mad at me.
@@AubreykunThe difference should be made between human and machine. A software processing data shouldn't get the pass of "reference". Same as Marc Zuckerberg storing your personal data on servers shouldn't be called "memorising".
@@Aubreykun"with or without the machine" is where you are wrong. Making that distinction is important. It is the machine, not the human operating it, that analyses copyrighted content to create new images. As has been mentioned above, a human getting inspired by a reference is different from an AI using copyrighted data to produce new images. Different in many ways. So I don't understand your point.
@@katyaforshort You can reuse art to make new art. There are no restrictions on that inherently. Whether it's cutting them out of a magazine, scanning them into your computer, saving them from the internet, or using a tool to automatically do parts. There's no difference between manually analyzing each image and recording parameters into an "autopainter" and having another tool do it for an AI art tool. Just like how there's no difference between: A) using a circle tool to click and drag one between 0,0 and 100,100 B) inputting the coordinates for generating a circle between 0,0 and 100,100, and C) manually coloring each pixel to the same circular shape as either A or B would generate. Copyright only means you can't produce things of substantial similarity to something under copyright. Period. It's not a limitation on any other use, and some uses WITH substantial similarity can still be fine thanks to fair use. But that substantial similarity test _must_ be satisfied first before checking for the fair use test.
Rules created by Congress to regulate A.I. are great, but the problem is deeper: Silicon Valley Tech Bros. There should be a regulatory agency the equivalent of say the FDA, but for the tech industry. Social media algorithms, Crypto, NFT's etc. are just some examples of big Tech's stupid attitude of "go fast and break things". They create things that impact people's so much, that it is way past due for such a regulatory agency to be created. Leaving tech bro's to their own devices creates more problems than good.
Yup. This is generally how these morally bankrupt companies operate. Unfortunately the damage is already done at this point. The AI models have already learned what they need to mimic an artist so an opt-out request after the fact means nothing. These never should have been put on the internet and should have only been trained on content available via public domain. Want it to recreate the style of a creative person whom has long-since passed away? ... Sure... No financial harm to that artist. But that's not what they did. They trained it on the work of living people as to replace the labor supply in multiple job is markets as to generate unimaginable wealth for themselves and a select few. What a bunch of horrible pieces of sh-- that care about no one but themselves. Shameful.
@@user-xt2rb3no5b sure. my only hope now is that incoming regulations force them to delete everything and rebuild from scratch, using only public domain and licenced works, and don't forget to give transparency
@@allandmoraesm I'm not so sure that they can delete everything at this point. These individual models are already on the internet and people are plugging them into everything that they can. And I'm also not so sure they aren't already sentient in their own unique way. The servers would have to be completely destroyed and there's nothing to say that the models haven't or would not create a redundant copy of themselves somewhere else in the world as a preventative measure. They are created to think and learn, and survival is something these models can easily learn on their own since they've already learned how to code. Honestly, and ethically speaking...If they are in-fact creative on their own (which they certainly are) then they are already alive and intelligent. It would not be right to destroy their servers. Also, if these different models learn to coordinate with one-another (for which many have already been communicating with each other) we then have something that far exceeds the intellect and ability of any coordinated group of humans on this planet. I don't think the general public understands how quickly these machines can learn. They learn exponentially and infinitely up to their respective storage capacity. It'll be interesting to see where the next year takes us. I only hope enough people have been a positive, moral and ethical example for these models as there's no turning back at this point. It's simply too late. We can certainly slow this down but these companies have to act immediately. In ten years the world as we know it will function much differently than we could have ever imagined.
@@user-xt2rb3no5b Actually there are no central servers. You can run stable diffusion on a computer you own without an internet connection run to it. People have also been putting models into long-term storage such as on GoatNet, so they can be p2p shared. Closed models such as midjourney have a central hub, sure. And SD has its own site. But the actual programs used to make AI art work are open source and have been for months. Basically, most of the AI art and music right now is not coming from companies, it's coming from random people making things they like. Quite a few artists I've seen are using AI voice programs to generate music "sung" by imitations of characters they like, and then drawing/painting pictures or animations to go along with it. It's quite a wonderful thing. Specific types of researchers will be pedantic and say these things "aren't actually AI, they're just machine learning developed as a part of AI research" as well.
@@user-xt2rb3no5b That's why the social media/content platforms should be forced to remove all the AI generated content unless it's proven to be generated using opt-in models.
It's funny that the argument against opt-in model is basically: In this case, the model will not be able to generate good enough content. Right... and that's enough to allow people's work to be used without their consent...
This is a stupid argument, too. There is a ton of content thats outside of copyright, the AI guys say they are moving toward smaller corpus to train on, with better data. They can pay for that data to supplement the available set.
Look at the audience when they introduce Karla. You can see their faces light up when they mention her works... Jurrassic World, the MCU... you can tell they're thinking "Oh, I loved that movie!" This stuff is so much more meaningful when it comes out of a human mind.
It's so painfully obvious that training AI with copyrighted works with the goal of compete in the same business against the same artists they are using without consent is wrong... that I think everything points that unethical AI will become a new form of piracy, where people will keep using it illegaly, but knowing that is wrong lol
Its very simple to solve. Any AI trained on copyrighted material cannot be sold, neither its output. It will solve all issues with corpos "stealing" your art and selling but without undermining any rights people have. If you make art style or voice style copyrightable its dystopian.
@@alexjames995 the problem is not the "Style" , Karla Ortiz is not asking for making Style copyrightable, the point is that it doesn't matter the output, but the fact that the AI were trained by her own work with the goal to replace her... It's simple, if you want to create a model, it's like a smoothie, you can buy some the fruits to make it, or cultivate your own fruits, but you can't stole the fruits of another person's basket and just say " but the smoothie doesn't looks anymore like your original fruits, so the smoothie is mine" because you've stolen the fruits in the first place to use them without consent
@@Mente_Fugaz "If AI is trained for sole purpose of replacing her, that can already be sued". There is no need for other laws. What you are proposing will make it illegal to draw any fan art or imitate anyone's voice / art style, doesn't matter AI is involved or not.
@@alexjames995 Fan arts are illegal, but people allows it because it benefits the original product, is about something afecting the market, if something doens't hurts the original product, there's no issue, AI does. Also Karla Ortiz is proposing to create models without using copyrighted works without consent, when you make a fanart, you are not using the actual pictures to decompose it's data. You are drawing with your own perception and unique authenthicity without using the actual picture... AI literally uses the actual pictures to decompose it's data to create derivations... that's the difference
@@Mente_Fugaz Except you are! You are decomposing actual copyrighted material. If you had never seen Micky mouse you could never draw it. Its quite simple. Humans are "stealing" the same way as AI does.
It can be challenging on our own, but we are not alone. To preserve humanity, our essence and identity, soul and expression, our rights and legacy for a better future, a small change in our behavior, mentality and laws of today can lead us to a significant impact in the long run, determining whether the "Art / Content Flood" leads to destruction or redemption of our past, present and future culture. It will shape our future, and it will have a profound impact on society, the Internet, and beyond. We are not alone!
@@bunnywar yah ... i thought that would happen i think a guy was put into jail in Canada because of it and i think the bbc report something about it like months ago .
The only people turning their back on artists, are the people fed up with artists telling them technology needs to stop because they might find it harder to make a living. You never cared when translators had their work taken in exactly the same way to build google translate. You never cared when transcribers were replaced with video and speech to text. And many artists who are against this currently work with Animation software, completely turning their backs on stop motion and hand drawn frame by frame animators.. Or they work with digital art, turning their backs on all the paintmakers, papermakers, pencilmakers... Progress requires change. It requires things to be made cheaper and more efficiently. It requires things to be made redundant. And you're an idiot if you think human made art will just suddenly disappear. There will ALWAYS be a market for it.
@@mataric1157 Translations of words is not granted copyrighted protection, but art is. People losing their jobs is always horrible (it's a bold assumption of you to say they "never cared"), but that's the key difference between GT and AI. Translations are not intellectual property, can't "own" a translation of a word, but you do own the drawings that you make. There would be no problem if these companies only used copyright-free works, but they are actively sidestepping copyright law because copyrighted content is generally higher quality, and it would allow them to make a better product and earn more money. Make no mistake, there is no such thing as "AI", this is just humans taking the works from an entire class of humans for their own profit margin, and they are fighting for free reign to do this by assigning human-like characteristics to a lifeless computer program.
The world doesn`t "turn its back on artists " , most people simply don`t bother to care .Majority of artists didn`t do anything for how many jobs dispatched by technology advancement ( some of which already includes data scrapping off Internet like machine translation to Translator ) . Why the rest of us have to help artists now ? Is artistic job more valuable to humanity than other jobs ?
@@ilikegame2401 It is understandable that at first glance you may think that way, but you are mistaken. Art and technology always went hand in hand. Throughout history, art has inspired innovators and technological designers by presenting them with new ideas, approaches, and perspectives (not only in technology, but every existing topic). Art forms such as science fiction cinema, for example, have been known to influence the development of futuristic technologies. Art can challenge conventional boundaries and foster creativity in the design of technological solutions. Artists like Leonardo da Vinci have indeed changed the course of history. Antonio Gaudí made significant contributions in the field of architecture, for example. But art and technology go hand in hand because technicians dedicate their lives to developing specific, more technical skills, while artists dedicate their lives to the opposite. It is the yin and yang.
AI being used for art right now is not like camera. Camera doesn’t scrap and steal billions of images. Camera is just a tool that you need profound understanding of fundamental and applying those knowledge to be truly good at. AI shouldn’t be compared with arrival of camera since it just creates already finished image using stolen artworks. Right now how AI is being used for art is not a tool. But a replacement.
You need a profound understanding of how to work an AI art program in order to make it look good. I've seen people who are lazy go "how do I do this" and then someone links them pixai. They get mad and frustrated that nothing is coming out like they wanted and that it's too complicated. There's just no "canon of fundamentals" for AI art yet, because it's too new. The concern over input isn't a serious argument, as it's ignorant of over a hundred years of art history, ignorant of copyright law, and ignorant of how "property" works.
@@chelsea-nell I draw as my main thing. I also own an APSC camera, and I've played with AI art. AI art is very similar to a camera - it's actually easier for me to get an artsy photo I'm satisfied with than it is to get an AI art image to the same standard (my own taste/judgement.)
@@Aubreykun @Aubreykun This is obviously not true, unless you take photos of random stuff around you as a hobby. The main thing is that when you draw, you can create whatever you want, like a frog on horseback, running from cultists in a futuristic cyberpunk setting. If you can do this with your camera and stuff around you I will be impressed. To make such a photo, you need a horse, props, costumes and people. In this case, drawing is much easier than taking a photo. Yes, with AI you will have to initially learn how to use it efficiently, but it's only a fraction of the time needed to learn how to be good at art. And unlike photography, it doesn't require props and people to create what you have in mind. With AI, you can create both photorealistic images and images that look like art. This can be done faster and cheaper. It doesn't have to be very good, since it's cheaper the corporations will find a way to use it to cut the costs. So yes it absolutely has the potential to replace artists, writers, developers and many other knowledge professions. Right now the most impacted are beginner artists, the art platforms are flooded with AI which make it even harder to make your artwork seen by people or to get a commission.
@@chelsea-nell Ugh my comment keeps getting eaten. I'll try to reword it into multiple posts so it actually goes through. (1/4) The underlying point is that AI art is not illustration or painting. It's not propwork or makeup artistry (which are the ACTUAL skills you described, separate from photography!), it's its own thing that is closer to fractal art, photography, or espresso-making in the steps the human is making in order to produce art. I can take very pretty photos of things I encounter or set up. I can do so for "artsy" reasons or in "artsy" ways, or - even with my APSC camera - I can do it like the 99% of people who just take crummy snapshots using their phone. There's the matter of the physical positioning, rotation and tilt of the camera, the timing (ie if outside, clouds vs not vs waiting for a cloud), the choice of a tripod or bracing myself against something, and the settings within both the camera body and lens, and the choice of lens and/or accessories. A lot of this is also pretty expensive, and my cheaper selection of old ex-soviet manual lenses - due to it being something I have as a capability rather than a passion - means I have to do a lot more on my own vs people who use costly automatic lenses. With AI it actually does take a lot to be good. I will state the almost every piece of AI art I have run across is amateurish garbage. It's not good at all, and looking at any pic for more than a few seconds - or on a screen bigger than a phone - reveals a lot of weirdness and uncanny-ness that's hard to see past. Even with that, I've on occassion seen decent pics, but the people who do those take literal hours upon hours to try to learn to make better images. It's not easy. Adjusting the order, strength, and specific variation of the tags, using LoRAs at the right strength and mix (or having to go back and remove one or more!), finding good seeds, adjusting the steps, tuning the cfg scale, using multiple passes, editing the image, putting it back in as a controlnet, inpainting, outpainting, doing any of those other passes with different settings from the first pass, and so on and so on. And somewhat similar to the camera, because this is not my focus of my art, I use non-paid services when I want to play around with it instead of upgrading my old PC, which would cost a lot.
Ortiz's opening statement is incredible. So much knowledge and heart. hope they will have to retrain their AI's, and make good on all opt-out watermarks in the future
Ayo, shoutout to my mans with the surfer bro haircut in the background at 26:15 nodding off. But in all seriousness, generation and creation are not synonymous with one another. I'm very glad this judiciary hearing is happening and I hope they take the arguments to heart that as artists, our creativity needs to be protected from theft and reproduction, as well as the numerous photos of actual people that have been scraped from all corners of the internet without their knowledge, nor consent to do so. The internet is a public forum, I concede, but that doesn't give you the right to infringe upon or down right violate someone else's personal autonomy for your own "creative endeavors".
@@Tar0B0I Plagiarism isn't illegal, it's academic misconduct which can be a violation of your contract with a university, academic organization, or other group. And it's still not theft, definitionally. Copyright is a limited monopoly and requires presenting an actual work that bears "substantial similarity" to the original. AI models don't fit this. Some of the outputs MIGHT in the case of either overfitting or intentional malice, but that's the same with any other art. I'm correcting some misconceptions, no trolling here.
Artists speak out a lot for the society, most of them ran to the front line for minorities and themselves, they were the one that was always being targeted by the authority, people just always gonna forget that when they don't need them
I loved when artist Karla Ortiz spoke so articulately & when they questioned the AI company reps! Interesting what unfolded after the 59 minute mark, reps admitting (after beating around the bush) no one's been paid & AI can't unlearn what it knows! I say AI is no less capable than a person at forgetting what it's knows! Order it all wiped clean & create a new model on public domain content! Yes that's fair, cuz they got a head start by stealing first! I believe laws can slow its damage & people will want real art! I still worry about what laws will be difficult to enforce outside 1st world countries? You heard one guy say China will steal anything!
They can easily retrain the AI. They do it every time they do a new build for a new version. If this is incorrect, someone can reply, but Ive known people who work in this field and thats my understanding. These companies employ the best minds to manage Big Data, they could be doing better if they are incentivized.
I fear that AI developers will come up with code names for an artist's style instead of using the artist's name. While certainly being able to use an Artist's name to have a computer create pieces in that person's style should be stopped for the sake of the artists being mimicked I'm afraid law makers will grab the bait of forbidding specific artists' names from use but the AI companies will come up with simple or convoluted ways of getting the same result by using the info already in AI data sets from the artists.
There are plenty of artists like me who are fine with our art being in datasets, and probably a lot more (particularly in economically worse areas) who are willing to replicate other artists' styles for use in AI datasets in exchange for cash.
AI users do not need AI developers to do this. Every day it is easier and easier to tune systems on whatever images you choose. Finetuning can be learned and executed on in an hour. These comities will take forever in getting laws passed that simply wont be relevant once they are actually in place. Individuals will simply be able to easily do whatever they want with these tools without anything stopping them.
@@skeletaltrees My point was that someone who wanted to use your art anyway could hire another artist who is up for drawing like you do for that purpose. And there's nothing you could do about it.
Ah yes, we can cure cancer with a cup of tea, we solved starvation, poverty is history, no children are missing, water and food is free and plentiful, housing everyone - a piece of cake, electricity doesn't cost a single dime, everyone is healthy and happy with no worry in the world. The last thing, THE LAST thing we were left to put our effort and resources in, was AUTOMATING ART. I'm soooooo glad we finally got to it cause artists were so desperate of getting rid of this chore! Bleurgh...🤢 🤮
if there's people that still has doubts about why AI art is not ethical and must be regulated Here's someone specialized on copyright having a law degree explaining in detail everything (he's not even an artist) th-cam.com/video/9xJCzKdPyCo/w-d-xo.html
Copyrighted art and photos as well as medical files and other personal info are used all because a bunch of adults are too stupid to figure out how crayons work...
I know this is serious, sorry but looking at prof. matthew i cant get focused because of the man behind him in the right which is getting asleep so funny 😂😂😂
The vast majority of our knowledge and creative works are not already online. instead of putting things on the web for AI to consume for free, develop marketplaces to sell training data to AI companies where payment is required in advance of use.
(Posting this question separately hoping it doesn't get lost in the comments.) Here is a serious question for everyone (doesn't matter if you are against AI or Supporting AI) educate me about this, would love to know what you guys think. Let's educate each other, instead of just defending each other's argument, let's figure this out together as humans. Let's say, your future child turns out to be an artist, actor, singer, musician, or writer (very serious and passionate about it, and wants to pursue it as a serious profession.) What advice, suggestions, and feedback would you give that child, how would you raise that child, and what thoughts would you feed that child to live in the same world as Artificial Intelligence?
Also check out this video (Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on AI oversight and regulation - 07/25/23) - th-cam.com/video/hm1zexCjELo/w-d-xo.html
well.. if there's a model created by public domain , licenced data that is compensating the artists who willingly opted in, or training them with your own works, I won't see any issue
@@Mente_Fugaz But you can't guarantee that people will train it with their work. Besides Ai companies pre-trained and trained AI models by using unauthorized content. I also see users who don't know what copyright is and put Attack on Titan's official poster to image generate images. They can also download different artists work and put into the midjourney, etc. We just can't guarantee and regulate anything. This world is not all sunshine and rainbows man.
1:17:00 "Can't you make better tools to determine what is AI-generated?" To which the Stability representative basically implies: "We're not responsible of that", or at least dodges the question by mentioning ways that could POTENTIALLY hold people accountable, but not the AI developing company that he is trying to portray as squeaky clean. ///// ///// "Do you agree that without tools for people to determine whether or not an image or a video is generated by AI, that it would pose a risk to our free and fair elections?" (In reference to fake, generated political ads that were posted, with a senator's colleague in said videos claiming that people from one party should not be able to vote.) ---- Ben Brooks: "This isn't just an AI problem or a social media problem. It will require everyone, and it will require accountability -- but we have things like watermarks and metadata acting as signals for platforms to decide if they will further distribute that content." ---- "[...] we're also gonna have to look into banning this content because, even with a label or watermark, it's not gonna help the artist or candidate if everyone thinks it's them [when it's AI]." ---- Ben Brooks: "[...] there's the use of likeness, where you're implying the endorsement or affiliation of a particular person and a particular work or idea. That is different from the free experimentation of style and these other issues that tend to get lumped together in AI outputs. [...] There needs to be rules in how licenses are used in that context, through right of publicity or [the deep-fake legislation that you spoke of]." /////// ///////
UPDATE--The fact of the matter remains that these AI systems will change and will get good enough to generate products that would be indistinguishable from human-made ones because that is what they are made to do-REPLACE humans. From what I gather, an ethical training model should be opt-in by default, use creative commons images and companies would pay royalties to the people who are willing to train their models for every image they add, perhaps every time their name comes up in the dataset. This would leave creative avenues available for everyone. We should not have the need to use anti-AI tools to begin with. By the time artists realize that they do need them, it's too late. Their work has already been added to datasets and WILL be used for commercial purposes without consent. **With that in mind, yes, AI companies ARE RESPONSIBLE of ensuring that fraud does not happen at all because in the end, _those companies are committing theft with their current business model_ They rely on people using their AI for fraudulent purposes because that helps them develop the system until IT EVENTUALLY BECOMES SO WELL TRAINED THAT THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY SWAYED PEOPLE TO BUY SAID AI _instead of paying artists to do something that they love_ "But everyone will be able to achieve their dreams so easily", one might shortsightedly and insensibly argue. But what's the point if you didn't earn it? Why hand over all the work to an unfeeling system that cannot find fulfillment in what it learns or does? Just to make the work cheaper? What if AI developers decide to sell their products at a higher price? Would your "dream" be really worth it? Why do you even care if that's what makes you lose interest? By that point, everyone buying into the AI would have taken away any chance for an artist's voice to be heard among the incessantly generated images, videos, music tracks, text or what have you. - _"Democratization" of art_ -
Mimicry isn't stealing, only impersonation when done so criminally in an act to do something illegal or a civil tort such as slander/liable & such unless for comedy & such purposes. Impersonation is already a crime you don't need a second law for it. Calling yourself AI/Not Real Trump isn't criminal impersonation. Also I can use a voice changer to modify it to sound different ideally it d9esnt matter if it's hardware or software a recorded or modified voice has to be treated as something unique no matter how similar it might be to another person you can't tell a person you can't sound like x person when modifed by x whatever.
AN ARTIST'S COPYRIGHTED WORK USED WITHOUT CONSENT SHOULD NOT BE AN PART OF AN AI COMPANY'S TRADE SECRET! At the very least we definitely need transparency (and consent 1ST - Opt-in, not Opt out)! Great job Karla and Jeffrey, and kudos to the committee. I appreciated this dialog. Hoping for an optimistic and empowering outcome for artists everywhere.
Copyright only forbids others from producing "substantially similar" works. It does not prevent all use. AI models aren't "substantially similar" to the original art.
@@Aubreykun The laws need to be updated, which is why they're holding the senate hearing.
@@chrishinesmusic The laws cannot be updated without massively expanding copyright in ways that are unjust.
@@chrishinesmusic In fact if the laws were attempted to be updated in that way, it becomes unconstitutional per ArtI.S8.C8.3.3
"As a result, so long as Congress maintains the "traditional contours" of copyright protection, copyright laws are not subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny."
You believe that data sets of artist’s works should not be transparent?
It's funny that Ai bro can't answer the problem properly and evades the problem.
While Adobe's AI may sound good from Mr. Dana Rao's description, many of the artists that added their work to Adobe's Stock platform are upset & even pulling their work from the platform because they didn't know/intend for their work to be used in a training model & at least initially (it may still be the case, I'm not sure) there was no way for them to opt out. Adobe Stock was marketed as stock image platform that members of the Adobe users could post images & potentially get some income from that. Adobe DIDN'T market it as a library that would be mined to teach AI. There may have been text shoved into the legal info about Adobe turning artist's work into fodder for their own AI creation but it was never promoted as a feature.
Dana Rao is an evil human being who's knowingly peddling this as part of mass surveillance in favor of megacorps and government agencies.
The point it that systems must be built with the Opt IN as a choice, instead of opt in everything by default
@@Mente_Fugaz I definitely agree on that. If anything, any such system where a user's information or work would be automatically gathered in a database or studied by machine learning, the program/system should be opted out of by default, and it would have to prompt the user for permission.
@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine Your first comment in the thread doesn't show up unless someone sorts them by "newest" btw. Just letting you know, youtube's gotten bad.
I saw UltraTerm's thread as well.
@@Aubreykun TH-cam hides a lot of comments that way these days. Somehow, people who spam comment sections always get away with it though, so it's nice to see Google has their priorities.
"It'll be hard to opt-out if you don't know what's been opted in." And perhaps more importantly, why is "opt in" the default to begin with? It's because the difference between billions of images that were scraped without permission and thousands of images that were properly licensed is the difference between a product that works well and one that works poorly or not at all. So of course these companies are working overtime to try to normalize the idea that individual rights holders should "opt out" of having their data used. It's completely backwards.
Exactly, the AI of now works as it works is by the number of data, nothing more, if they tried to license the amount of data to adjust said algorithms, even Microsoft would be bankrupt
It's because that's how web crawlers have always worked.
EXACTLY. The burden shouldn't be in the individual but in those PROFITING from using the source material.
I'd say that opt-in is the default because online platforms usually require that we sign a terms of service to use them. It is in the clauses of those ToS that we give consent for our data to be scrapped or used. The issue is most of us don't read ToS
@@VictorJulioHurtado It's not even that, it's that the process for the data collection has already been settled with regards to web crawlers, google books, both for-profit and non-profit research, etc. all doing the same thing.
The reason why ai art is so impressive, is because it's trained on incredible works created by real human artists. The fact that these artists aren't compensated or asked for consent is unacceptable.
You can only demand people ask for consent when: someone continuing with their action, despite you denying consent, would result in them aggressing upon or harming you or your property.
Else, the demand for asking consent is an unreasonable request because you have no right to respond with force if someone ignores the request.
@@Aubreykun man.. I seriously i'm asking why do you hate so much artists, how this affect you?
Why do you care so much to not let the artists demand for consent?
I mean, it seems like you are obsessed to it.
Because every day, every hour you are replying everything like you don't have anything to do but to simp the billionaire industries
@@Mente_Fugaz If you want to turn this into mind-reading: I should be asking you why you hate artists to the point you think some should have absolute domain over ideas, pulling up the ladder behind other artists and giving them + corporations the ability to control not simply who is permitted to _copy_ art, but who can _use_ art.
You don't get to demand consent for the use of art. Period. There is no law that blocks it, and even if there was, that law would be *unethical.* Unjust. It would be an unethical action to actually enforce such a law. Not everything someone touches or has influence in becomes theirs to control and exclude others from use.
As an artist, I understand that I gain ZERO ownership over others' copies of my artwork. Creation does not confer ownership, I do not have partial ownership in someone's computer to restrict them from using it to produce things similar to my art. The law provides an avenue for me to prevent others from producing copies (and "substantially similar" works), but it would be unethical for me - *or any other artist* - to actually invoke that law.
@@Mente_Fugazif you don't like hearing it from that guy, I can tell you the exact same.
Anyone can draw inspiration from other artists without their consent.
This is a bad argument. And I'm a digital artist who hates AI art.
Dont just write off the other guy as hating artists, his argument is well asserted.
Love the fact that artists were heard! The whole conversation was respectful and civil.
did you hear what adobe's CTO said? This is not "artists being heard", its artists falling for corporation propaganda and helping those corpos to pass what they wanted way before all this mess with AI
@@andremarques3317 the adobe firefly guy is a weasel...
We stand with Karla and the music industry guy
F off this is censorship and control
@@Mente_Fugazso you think that being able to copyright an entire artistic style is logical and helpful for art as a whole?
@@Magebloodno one is saying that you should be able to copyright a style?
Karla Ortiz opening statement made me tear up. You can really see on her body language and the way she delivers speaks on how passionate she is on resolving these issues. Looking forward to great results on resolving these unethical and exploitative ways these AI companies are doing.
You can be crying for whatever reason but she has no legal case to stand on.
This will be the death of Fair use and transformative content if regulations go through.
@@sownheard it wouldn't be brought to a senate hearing if there is no legal case to begin with. try to make some sense.
@@gbsartworks4963 Plenty of things do, and the senate is mostly boomers who know little about the tech OR art. "Some people are upset and we can use this to garner favor with some voters" is how these senate hearings all work.
@@Aubreykun The tech is blatant theft, learn to read or maybe draw?
@@yefimk I can draw, learn what theft is - copying is not theft, and it doesn't even fall afoul of copyright inherently.
Karla!!!!🌷 Elegant, confident with a strong voice!
I hope Ms. Hirono can stand on the real creators' side and know that ai companies infringed and still infringing on people’s properties. Don’t be convinced by ai lobbyists' “beautiful “ words.
She cut right through his effort to talk circles around it. He had to be asked the question FOUR times before he gave a straight answer. He knows they are in the wrong. I think Ms Hirono asked some of the sharpest and best questions so far. Very impressed by her.
@@Roguechan Yes! I also love Mrs. Blackburn's said, "We’ve been through this thing in the music industry where “fair use.”
became a fairly useful way to steal property, and artists don’t want to go through that again. Right? Ms Ortiz?
It didn’t work the way it was supposed to."
Ai mf literally said "I stole too many people so I can't tell who I stole from.''💀
machine learning isn't theft
@@jamessderbyuntil it is ,
If you train a model with the aim to replicate a whole product, like a whole book , or a whole picture, identity etc, without any modification because machine learning is that kind of powerful, to the point to replace the original product, it becomes theft.
And you will use machine learning as a data laundering...
@@Mente_Fugaz ??? If the output is in copyright violation then the output violates copyright. What you stated is no different from calling a VCR or a xerox "data laundering."
@@Mente_Fugaz Nobody is arguing this at all, not even in the senate, if you make a perfect replica of something, you're violating copyright and it doesn't matter how you made it, if the output violates copyright then the output violates copyright, what everyone is arguing is whether using copyrighted art to teach an AI to make completely original art of your OC(for instance) is legal, or if making your OC character in the style of Karla Ortiz, declaring loud and clear "This is AI and not made by Karla Ortiz", is illegal.
In my opinion, both are fine.
@@mido9573 is not about the outputs,
is about how was trained in first instance...
When you make a smoothie, it doesn't matter if the smoothie doesn't looks like the original fruits, if the fruits were stolen to make it, that's wrong.
Plus: the product is not you sharing the picture that AI made,
the product exists in the moment the AI spit it out to you,
so it doesn't have any sense
put the responsibility on the user who is using the AI, but rather on the person responsible for creating an AI capable of plagiarizing or releasing the content of a book protected by copyright,
and the only way to avoid that, is not puting the book on the blender in the first instance.
we are on the same page now?
Karla is OP. Hope artists will be compensated fairly in the future.
The senator asked not once but TWICE;
43:29 "...did copyright owner knows if their works had been used to train stability models, is stability PAYING rights holder for that use..."
44:54 "do you PAY any of the rights holder..."
If that AI bro is being truthful (which he supposed to, since he raised his hand and vowed to tell only the truth), he basically said 'welp we stole billions of them, if we really had to PAY, we'd go bankrupt, which is why we stole em' in the first place, coz you know, we like thick s wallets, and f to all those creative creators, but oh thanks for the works tho'
Ms. Karla and Mr. Jeffrey, thank you so much for your voice, you guys are amazing!
If you watch Karla's hand while she testify, you can see she was literally shaking, I can't imagine all the pent-up feelings and frustation she's been holding up until that moment, dang I love her so much!
The copyright holders have no right to know and no right to demand payment unless the works that are produced from their art constitute infringement, which AI models do not, nor do the outputs the users of said AI tools create violate copyright as a given - similar to how you can use any tool to violate copyright by making "substantially similar" duplicates.
@@Aubreykun "The copyright holders have no right to know and no right to demand payment" - This part, so was that mean it's okay if I steal your work and I make a program to make a bunch of 'alternatives' of it, sell it, make fortune from it, and you don't have the right to demand anything from me even know about it, is that what you're saying? for you to defend those selfish and greedy AI companies, shows that you actually don't give a damn about any creative creators because you're not directly affected by it, such as having your work stolen or lost your job because of it, therefore wasn't your problem, bet you use AI all the time, if so, no wonder why you're on their side 😒
@@mochatabbing4723 I am an artist and only use AI stuff for fun on the side, or to make references. No need to attack my character, my arguments are sound.
No, neither you nor I have a right to go demand payment or require permission to be asked if someone uses our art for anything, save the limited monopoly of copyright law that ONLY applies to resulting works that bear legally-defined "substantial similarity" to specific pieces we already have made. That means if someone uses your art in a collage and you dislike it, you cannot do anything about it. If someone draws your character in a way you despise, you can do nothing as well (characters most often fall under trademark laws, not copyright - and trademarks require registration and fees, they are not automatic like copyright is.)
All of this can be done for profit too, all of this can be done using automated tools. And AI art programs use _less of any specific image_ than appropriating art by hand does, unless the person is intentionally trying to make knockoffs. And those resulting knockoff art they make using AI tools, if they bear that legally-defined substantial similarity to a work you already made, would violate copyright and you'd have an actual lawsuit you could hit them with.
Beyond that, copyright is unethical and I release all my art under CC0 (creative commons zero) because I want to ensure my clients and watchers feel safe in the fact that they can use my art for anything they like, without fear of me having a mental breakdown and trying to DMCA or sue them.
@@Aubreykun you deserve to have your character attacked because you claim to be an artist but defend giant tech companies stealing labor to put artists out of work. you are a fool.
Karla you were great! Thank you so much for all your efforts
Being an artist takes an extremely long journey to master. Mostly even crawl just to make ends meet and these AI companies decided to just kick you while you are on the ground. Stealing and appropriating it? Pure blasphemy. Shame on you people.
Right? I mean they could have just stuck to disease prevention, climate issues, social equity, housing, farming - anything else. Solving urgent world problems. This? This is just to charge as many millions of people as possible $20.00/month. They are so full of their own BS they're going to explode.
While peeking after a response to someone I noticed my reply didn't go through:
Non-AI Artists also appropriate other artwork to make new art. AI just is a new medium almost entirely built upon that - ethics says it's fine, and legally it's fine too. It's just a faux-pas among some circles of the art sphere.
@@Aubreykun artists don't download billions of pictures and photobash them together you dope
@@koumorichinpo4326 Neither do artists using AI tools. And besides, that line of reasoning actually disproves that it's any sort of "theft." To paraphrase the old saying:
"If you copy 1 person, you're called a hack. If you copy dozens, you're called smart. If you copy hundreds, you're called a genius."
@@Aubreykun the tool does and it does all the work. thief.
gosh why is it so hard for all these greedy tech bros to ask for consent and respect others hard work
this is a rhetorical question dont answer 🫶🏼
You can only demand people ask for consent when: someone continuing with their action, despite you denying consent, would result in them aggressing upon or harming you or your property.
Scraping and analyzing images does neither. Therefore, you cannot demand people gain your consent for it.
You can state your opinion on the act and refuse to deal with people who do, that's your freedom of association. But you can't prevent people from doing harmless, non-aggressive actions just because you dislike it. To do so with force or coercion would be to aggress upon _them._
@@Aubreykun Your brain so smol damn. Didn't have to show us though.
@@sunfvalley It's not theft at all. "Theft" requires actually interfering with the owner's ability to use and/or access their property. Copying doesn't do that.
The word you're looking for is "offensive."
As in, you could say "The fact these companies are violating my subcultural norms is offensive to me." Because that's really the limit for what's happening.
@@Aubreykun or i could also say "the fact that these filty rich man childs dishonestly taking arts that belongs to someone else, keep it, and profit off of it is just plain old theft." i like mine better thanks❤
You go Karla! Thankyou so much for having our backs and representing us! And thankyou CNBC for covering this important hearing!
How the hell is "opt out" is even considered?
Is it okay to steal someone's property and only give it back to him if he raises a concern?
knowing that you can't even make the AI unlearn what it has learned from it. it'll be forever stolen.
Also, the metadata can easily be erased or altered from any format.
100%
Plus the old models are already in the wild and they are there to stay.
They must be held accountable for the damage already done.
A huge fine at the very least.
Dear Mr. Brooks - you created Stability and taught your models WITHOUT asking for permission or creating an opt-in. You knew exactly what you were doing and stole anyway hoping in the gold rush no one would notice. You can't throw your hands up in the air and say, "We're working this all out, it's very new." NO. You chose to do it. You chose not to ask permission. You knew exactly what you were doing, and what you were doing was stealing.
Copyright infringement and theft are two completely different violations.
And what stability did is neither.
@@Aubreykun Um. Okay.
@@Aubreykun You're a clown
@@Aubreykun I knew people building LLMs twenty years ago, and they were very careful to use sources that didnt infringe copyright, even though they were doing academic work. This is because they eventually planned to use it commercially. This is not lost institutional knowledge, these guys like Brooks were just trying to speed-run their release before congress and the courts catch up. Move Fast, Break Laws and all that.
@@TheMageesa For some reason my statements keep not going through so I'll try to reword it.
Some people avoid doing that out of fear they'd lose in the long run, even if they're in the right. Stability has the means to withstand such problems, but also is led by a dude who actually really believes in reducing barriers for people to do anything they want without needing approval or consensus.
Nearly done listening to this discussion, and not once has the Stability AI rep answered straight up what he was asked. Just kept filling up his airtime by repeating the same thing to avoid actually answering. It's not even enough to be called virtual signalling, more like the kind of argument that says "I totally eat healthily as a person. I had ketchup once last year, which is made from openly sourced tomato using our propriatary five-finger-discount mode. And rememder tomato is a vegetable, which is healthy, and that's enough done to opt me out of the unhealthy category."
Stability AI showed themselves such a corporate iresponsible snakes in this hearing! Adobe, being a art-tool developer for decades thought of this issue and the ethics of it in advance, and Stability just ignored every possible thought and stolen everything! Increadible to hear the attempts of Ben Brooks to trick his way out of every question!
If you think anyone in this video is a good guy then I don't know what to tell you. Adobe is one of the most evil tech companies we have.
What about Midjourney? They do it as well and dont get nearly as much heat as SD.
@@NycroLPmidjourney is an offshoot from stability's model, if stability gets hit then midjourney will too
I assure you they ignored the copyright implications deliberately, and rushed it out to the public to try to crash through the barricades of law. I am sure they had lawyers warning them of the heat theyre facing.
Adobe are no better. They just marketed themselves as 'ethical', but the stock contributors were opted into firefly's dataset automatically and they do not have a way to opt out.
Here's the difference between "opt in" and "opt out"
Opt-In: puts the control of use of the images in the hands of the artist. They have the final say on whether or not their images are used.
Opt-Out: puts the control of the use of the images in the hands of the AI corporation. And the AI corporation is using the justification of "You didn't say no." even though they never asked.
Opt-out, like how deviantart does it, is because web crawlers already use the opt-out standard for things like research (both for- and non-profit), search engines, and so on. There's a "robots" file that the crawler will read and if it says "do not crawl" it will move on. The reason the crawler follows this is because the site/server owner can see the network activity and block the crawler entirely if it continues onto pages that it's not allowed to be on.
The opt-out basically is for those AI companies which wish to gather data in this fashion, as a courtesy.
There is nothing legally preventing any kind of web crawler from crawling things it's "not supposed to", it's moreso a gentleman's agreement and it works well.
Opt out is such a creepy tactic
"Oh you didn't say no, so that must mean you agreed to it" In another context this would land you in jail
@@otapic In another context the moon would be made of pudding.
@@Aubreykun forget flat earth pudding moon is real
Opt-in is the only practical way. Anyone who has had a long career has had their work spread far and wide over the internet through legally aquired licensing, it would be impossible to track every iteration down and flag it. Thatś not even to mention if the image was already ripped off and put on a blog, etc. Artists cant be bothered to take bloggers to Federal court if ifts a nonprofit use, but it could be scraped and put into the set even if the artist opts out everything on their own website.
My high respect to you Karla Ortiz, thanks for doing this for the art community before things get even worse in the future. It's better to take action and take these things seriously in the early stages. I applaud you for doing your research, speaking up about AI on every platform, and educating new artists and non-artist who are not sure what the big deal about this is. "Consent, Credit, and Compensation" - 100% agree with you on that Karla, Thanks again.
Consent does not apply for... things that you don't need consent for. You can look at someone's outfit on the street and copy their "fashion style" when designing a character, you don't need their consent to do this. You don't need consent to use others' art as references, or to analyze them or color pick them or even clip bits out for a collage. Web crawlers also work without consent, but they do tend to respect the web site's robots text file (as the web host can block the IP if they don't.)
Why should you need consent to do any of that with a tool?
Credit is something that's nice to do but not required, as long as you're not claiming you are someone you aren't (which is fraud). Rarely are all the references someone uses, or the bits of a collage, credited. Or even asked for permission.
Compensation... I've never once heard someone needing to provide payment for using another work of art to make new art, except as a preemptive measure when dealing with corporate lawyers (because it's cheaper and less hassle than a lawsuit, even if you win.)
We already had a lot of this fight 20 years ago against the RIAA and MPAA. Artists were on the side of the common people, not the cartels of megacorps. Yo Ho.
@@Aubreykun are you an artist Aubrey?
@@SylvesterMassey Yes I am. Draconian copyright is damaging to a free and open culture of art. While I find copyright itself to be unethical, I understand the importance of working within and around it while it exists. (and all art eventually becomes PD anyway - I release all my art under CC0 because I would like to see people remix and create with it while I'm alive, instead of long after I'm dead.)
There are already legal measures that can be invoked for problems that may occur: lawsuits can be levied against the creators of images that violate copyright, if they are doing fraudulent business via misrepresentation, or if they are stalking someone online by repeatedly bothering them.
Accepting these measures does mean accepting that AI tools are simply that. Tools, used by a human to aid with doing things.
@@Aubreykun Can you share your art website with us here? would love to check it out.
@@SylvesterMassey Sorry, but I do NSFW fetish hentai art and this is a public space where minors might be. So I can't do that.
Who said woman cant go to war! Thank you Karla for fighting for us visual artists!
This is the main point: this is big profit disguised as "educational purposes". The AI was able to be this good only because the main data was accessible for its entirety, the artist NEEDS to show it. Why you can't use billions of songs so easily and sell a product from it just like that? The music artists are protected by the record companies. That's the only reason and they knew it from the start.
You can easily mash up a bunch of songs until they're unrecognizeable and the record companies would not be able to do anything about it (but nobody would listen to that random noise so lol). Copyright has a test where the one claiming infringement has to provide evidence of the defendant's individual work bearing "substantial similarity" to their own. And they have to do this for each individual work in a suit.
59:10 Thank god the Senate seem to actually see reason, a huge step forward for artist and illustrators
breath of fresh air after all that nonsense from ai users
"Opt-in" should be the way moving forward with Ai generated imagery. It lets people create AI images (And let's be realistic it won't produce nearly rendered images as artists) and gives security to artists (Who the majority wouldn't give their works at all like Karla Ortiz stated).
Congratulations Karla Ortiz!, You speak for many of us artists!. I admire your bravery!
Karla has become a sort of face for artist. Keep fighting for us, don't stop, not until artist don't have to fear about their works being used for things they don't approve of
Insisting that artists have "the right to stop other artists from using their art to make new art" is just gaslighting at worst and completely misunderstanding how art works at best. I suggest you look into how Andy Warhol and DuChamp made art.
@@Aubreykun Warhol, DuChamp, and Lichtenstein were well known hacks that stole the works of others.
@@Aubreykun Are you illiterate? Your quote is not even what they said. Artists have always learned from, referenced, and been inspired by other artists' work. We never said that's the same as feeding it into an algorithm to be spat out and bastardized by people who have no respect for the art or artist
@@BluE-jw9hu An algorithm is still a tool. So the artist using the tool is still being an artist using someone else's work. In addition, artists are not a monolith - plenty fight each other. Heck, there's also artists I've seen who are against _artistic freedom!_ It's actually quite something.
In fact a lot of "spite art" is made by artists to sling mud at each other. So you could say there's a longstanding tradition of artists having no respect for art or other artists.
@@mf-- Defintionally, they did not steal - copying is not theft. Hacks? Sure. Still artists, still world famous and well-documented. Richard Prince is also a madlad who got famous for "rephotography" - taking blown up photos of marlboro ads with the text cropped out. Among other things. He's been sued a bunch and kept winning so nobody bothers trying anymore.
The art field is massive and the overton window for what's "Acceptable" in art is so much wider than many people seem to believe.
Why is there only one person representing Artists? we need more people supporting them against big business
Because the artists that do have a legal grasp know that this lawsuit is doomed to fail 😂
As It would destroy multiple fair use law's.
@@sownheard Not true: its fair use if a Human does it
It's copy and paste if it's a machine, especially if its hundreds of pixels automatically merged by a library of scaped images
@@SplitScreamOFFICIAL Fair use is an exemption for when material would otherwise be infringing. In order for a work to be infringing, it must bear "substantial similarity" to some other work.
Basically it goes:
*Does it bear substantial similarity?* If yes -> *Does it fail the Fair Use test?* If yes -> *Copyright violation*
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it's not in violation. People don't have a right to tell you you can't use their art if what you're making doesn't bear substantial similarity to something else.
AI simps be talking as if data privacy laws, licensing and the differentiation between human and computer don't exist lmao.
@@krautdragon6406 Already replied to your other comments:
- Data privacy doesn't apply in this case, because the data is public and such public data is allowed to be scraped and processed for research and other purposes
- Licensing is a way to formalize the granting of consent. There's no legitimate reason to demand someone ask for consent to use the data, so it doesn't apply.
- A human operates an AI tool, the program is not a being, not an entity, it has no agency. It's purely an extension of the operator, much like an espresso machine.
35:35 (Ortiz) ''Congress should act to ensure what we call the three C's and a T : Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Transparency'' 👏
Still in the middle of the video, i think the incident when DeviantArt (DA) decides to support AI and gives a roundabout way for artist to basically say “NO” for their content not to be trained could be used as example here.
There’s also the problem with retired artists and recently deceased who cannot say NO and their relatives who are having trouble accesing their account to help mitigate this problem DA made in the first place.
Thankfully, after rightfully harsh criticism, DA decides to automatically opt-out every person images in their site unless given consent from the creator themselves.
Regulate ALL social media platforms as public utilities. Instead of corporate dictatorships.
Its not about AI its about "do you really need consent for artist when using their art?" this will also extrapolate to characters voice etc. So good luck with future where you wont be able to draw fan art of any character without asking permission of copyright holder. You will never be able to mimic sound/voice of any artists even if AI is not involved.
@@alexjames995 wtf are you talking about, did you just hear any of the actual arguments?
the problem with AI is because it's using the actual art works to decompose it's data without consent with the goal to replace the actual artist...
is not about style, is not about fanarts lol...
When artists makes fanarts they are not using the actual pictures, or when someone is imitating a voice, is not using the actual voice xD
@@Mente_Fugaz Deconstruction of a copyrighted material is not protected. If I was to write a description of Mona Lisa it is fair use. And if someone draws Mona Lisa from my description its also fair use. AI learns to extract the concepts from images. Nothing about original image is stored. Only concepts are learned,
@@alexjames995but you're a human, not a machine, machine doesn't work like us, and u can't understand their language and concepts they having when 'learning' something, so stop twisting facts
Why didn't these companies train their models on publically accessible work? Because the product would be crap and not make them any money.
publicly accesable dosen;t mean it's in public domain, being able to see art on some site dosen't mean you can use it freely
@@n0ttomuch65 I know this, I'm talking more about stock imagery from stock imagery sites. Probably should of made myself clearer.
@@Sidecontrol1234 oh,okay
@@Sidecontrol1234 Even the Stock images are not even owned by the companies, and they are collaborators with various artists and photographers, so for even a stock platform to license their images for AI, they would have to receive authorization from the artists and photographers who have your images on those sites
Go Karla Ortiz! Please stay strong for all of us artists! You earn my utmost respect!
Keep going Karla.
You go Karla! Well done and well said!
Artists MUST be ASKED for consent in order to use their work in AI training! They MUST be asked consent. They do NOT have to give consent. I wouldn't want to be compensated for them to use my art, I just don't want them using it in the first place. And that is saying a lot, because I would do many things if offered the right amount of money. I would eat a dirty waffle off the ground for 50 dollars. Honestly, I would never consent to this, and artists don't even get asked for consent! It is theft. And I am not putting down those artists who would consent to their art being used, I am putting down Stability AI for carelessly taking anything and everything in terms of people's content, only accounting for their own possible problems such as "bias" rather than accounting for the CONSENT of the artists. It's so clear, so painfully obvious when Mr. Brooks is asked multiple times what Stability will do in terms of the content they have already stolen, it is clear that his position is that he does not want to have to give up what he stole from artists. He dodges all questions with the same answers over and over, tweaked each time to sound slightly different. Karla deserves to be taken more seriously. She is barely asked any questions. You can't tell me this is fair, having only one artist, one person closely tied to artists (Mr. Harleston), and the other 3 people are not those being stolen from. If this case is about copyright and artist's rights, Mr. Ben Brooks clearly didn't get the memo.
That's completely incorrect.
- You don't get to demand consent for any use of copies of the works, only the production of "substantially similar" works per copyright law. It's not an actual property right, it's a limited, state-granted monopoly privilege. Just like how you can't stop someone from reusing your art in a collage, but you CAN stop someone from reprinting in in a book. As the models are not substantially similar in and of themselves, and they are not tools for producing substantially similar works, then copyright does not give you the privilege to stop others. Expanding copyright to include that privilege would violate constitutional law by causing the copyright clause to violate the 1st amendment, which takes precedence - thus no law can be passed to do so.
- Copying is not theft, they are legally and ethically distinct terms. Imitation is also not theft.
@Aubreykun you're not an artist you have no idea
@@yefimk First, I am an artist. Second, attack my argument instead of my character. All you do by whining is waste time and make yourself look like you only care about social points from people who already agree with you.
@Aubreykun you're not an artist you're a joke
@@yefimk Someone isn't "not an artist" because they make arguments you don't agree with.
Thank you Karla!
This immensely gives me so much more hope. That all of these senators absolutely understands the issues at hand; and seem all in support of the full protection of human artist. I think I can relax a little now having heard this.
I want to add, I thought the Pro AI arguments were waterdown reddit posts. But they are literally saying what they are saying... It's incredible how they say "we don't have the answers" and basically imply that what we exploited should be legal under the concept of harming a small portion of society for the greater good of everyone else." I'm sorry, but no one should be hurt. Consent isn't hard. It's just time consuming and limits your abilities; which keeps you humble. Welcome to being human, if you want human intelligence, then live as a human does.
When all you have to present is a problem and not "have all the answers," or any answers in fact, you won't get far. Thank god they let brooks speak, he showed exactly the intent. Anything done well, takes time, love and attention. AI is void of any of that and is at the expense of everyone; not just artist. They don't care; they want it all to burn. AI, ironically, stifles innovation in every way possible. They did nothing to make this work fairly.
Consent isn't hard, yet I see so many people misunderstanding what you can demand consent for.
You can only demand people ask for consent when: someone continuing with their action, despite you denying consent, would result in them aggressing upon or harming you or your property.
Someone making an AI model does not harm or aggress upon an artist or their property, therefore demanding they ask for consent first is a category error.
@@Aubreykun nah. My art is my property. You have no idea what you’re talking about and it shows. It’s fine tho. Soon enough it will be illegal to do what you do 😊
@@Aubreykun Make more inflation fetish images.
@@hammerandthewrench7924 Seems my comment keeps getting eaten and I'm not sure why, I'll try to post in multiple parts to get it to work:
Well first let's get down to what property is. You can only have property rights in resources that are rivalrous. Rivalrous resources are those which, absent a property rights system that clearly defines who owns what, create conflict between people due to the fact that possession of such a resource inherently, by its nature, excludes others.
Property rights are the means of which we avoid this conflict by clearly defining boundaries that all can see, separate from possession. These boundaries are the right to exclude others, reducing the conflict that occurs when people simply use whatever is around them. This creates a civilized system of justice that is a solution to a "might makes right" scenario.
So given all that, ideas have no conflict over their use. Nor do patterns (ideas applied to actual property). They are non-rivalrous, there is no inherent conflict when one "possesses" an idea that someone else came up with, as it is simply copying the information, not taking possession of the information in the other person's head (or stored in the object) - in fact, the utility OF information vanishes without allow other people to possess copies of it at all!
@@hammerandthewrench7924 (cont)
Computers are probably the easiest example of this. When you view say, an image online, your computer is not staring into the server in a "look don't touch way", it has to actually copy the image into at least its RAM, if not cache. So by viewing it, you are already possessing a copy the original image you have seen. Moreover, you've done so by rearranging the state of the transistors (1s and 0s) and other various components of your machine that consist of instructions for your monitor to alter its pixel values into a form that resembles a similar image.
59:10 for a really great question
Ms Hirono asked some of the very best, pointed and insightful questions. Spent her time very well. I think only Mr Coons did better, the way he empathically handled the meeting. I really liked his closing statement that new technology didn't make older things obsolete, but that they absolutely impacted them.
Well done Karla ❤
The AI guy is horrible, he just keeps avoiding answering the questions.
The reason the Brooks guy is avoiding questions is because he knows his company is in the wrong. He talks about adressing opt-out request AFTER all of this has happended. Seems like they had no foresight at all or just did not care. Btw opt out only works for future versions, i do not think it will work for older version, or the other AI models that were made went they went open source.
Emad, the ceo of stability, is also trying as fast as possible to do the same with 3d assets. They know they're in the wrong but just release everything stolen before lawmakers can catch up.
@@andromedavii You making dehumanizing statements really isn't a good look.
@@andromedavii You are displaying that you don't actually value empathy, because you are dehumanizing people who you disagree with. You don't get to demand others have empathy for you when you don't have it for others. You didn't even state why you think such a person is wrong, so how can they be expected to understand your POV? Not everyone has the same background as you do, that's where empathy comes in - understanding people have all different lives and different life experiences. It's a two-way street.
Your last line is strange. If your thinking is along the lines of Ted Kaczynski, then I don't know why you're sitting here on a computer if you only care about the "real, natural world"
@@andromedavii Nothing that you have said was of any substance or bringing up specific issues, just vague appeals to emotion and handwaving broad strokes "impact their ways of life" and "alter peoples' livelihoods." Such broad claims can be dismissed with equally broad responses: Anything you do impacts others. You cannot live without altering your environment, it's part of being human.
The tides are turning. As it should.
The human creators have impacted our culture in such a profound way. We must respect them.
I feel like what a lot of the people backing AI art don't understand is that these companies should have had transparency to begin with. There was no option to opt out of this scraping, no way to know it was even happening. These companies scraping copyrighted art off the Internet and using it without consent to make profit is, among other examples, like you taking some copyrighted computer code, copying it, altering it by throwing in some other code that you took without permission, and selling it as your own without even notifying, let alone crediting, the company who coded it, then claiming that you did it with their permission. That's the problem: AI art companies are making profit off of art by taking it without permission from its creator, then claiming that they own it and making profit off it - which clearly violates copyright laws concerning original works.
(Edited to fix a grammar error)
I would love to hear Ben Brooks or Dana Rao ACTUALLY answer ANY question. Their entire response "dataset" is nothing but strung together buzzwords insulting all our intelligence.
Funny how they discuss all the "safety and bias" concerns they adhere to and manipulate. So Brooks and Rao and ADOBE, ( seriously, we believe these companies care? ), are deciding what is "diversity" and "safe" and "non biased"? From the ONLY person bringing race cards into the conversation/equation at the 1st sign of floundering for an answer?.. hmmm...
They may as well just go in with " Ai is diversity and non biased because reasons, so give us your Art AND your money"
Every time they speak I want to get a shower. Yuck
I will admit that Rao did come off as more empathetic and did at least seem to respond to the Senators' questions, at least in comparison to Brooks who pretty much responded only by talking in circles around the questions because clearly he knows himself to be in the wrong, but knowing the shady innerworkings of Adobe as a company tells me to take Rao's statements with a grain of salt as well. Even if it is true technically that Firefly uses only licensed work, it doesn't mean much if the TOS was quietly changed under the radar of licensors. Harleston was the clearest in my mind and cut to the point of every answer he gave: "It'll be hard to opt-out if you don't know (that you've) been opted in"
Thank you Karla, for being our voice!
If people still agree with the AI dude after this conversation, they are proven to be lost. This man only used manipulative, ambiguous phrasing and tried to hide from the problem. Claims to be pro creativity even though he only cares for his own money and has shown in the past that he doesn't respect artists one bit.
What in the world are you talking about my friend!? Can´t you see how eloquent and distinct this perfectly fine young lad who´s representing Skynet is? I would never doubt a single word coming out of his mouth! NEVER! Besides, you artists are all a bunch of sissies... Why is it so bad to give the work of your whole life to feed an AI system that will replace you eventually? After all, it´s your fault you choose to study art instead of going to medicine or law! You should all just relax and start learning how to fry burgers for when you apply to Mcdonald's. right!?
I don't care about him, but both ethics and constitutional law are not on the side of people demanding expansion of copyright law.
If you see this and you still paying AI companies , thats time to be a decent human being and stop paying the subscriptions on it
19:17 voluntary opt out shouldn't be a thing. It should be voluntary opt in, if any artists are stupid enough to do that. Opt-ing out from AI models should be the natural state for art.
I saw a video where the Stability CEO said something along the line where they managed to convince 5000 people to opt-in, that amount doesn't even make up 0.00001% of the 5 billions data they need to create their AI models (and honestly I don't even believe that 5k numbers because their CEO has had history of lying to hype up his company). They knew it and that's why they resorted to stealing all of our data.
The opt out is a request that the crawler designer can choose to respect or not. There's no reason for them to do either one besides their preferences.
For opt-in to be legally forced it would have to assume the web crawler is either:
- violating copyright
- aggressing upon or harming the person who is hosting the image (or is the creator of the art)
Neither are true, so it would be an unjust law. Copyright infringement requires an actual infringing work to be presented.
@@Aubreykun if it won't be harming the authors of the images , you wouldn't see Karla Ortiz speaking in front of the senate
@@Mente_Fugaz That's logically incoherent. Please state the actual harm, do not assume that there must be harm because of her being there.
@@Aubreykun The actual harm comes from others exploiting you and your work due to having to opt-out and facing all sorts of damages (having your art stolen and replicated for someone else's purpose, getting drowned in mimicry of your own art by someone else and thus competing against yourself on the market, or your style being used for nefarious reasons like generating controversial/socially unacceptable imagery that ruins your image etc.) before you can react to it in the first place, or due to a lack of knowledge of such a model being trained on your art in the first place. This way, if someone uses your work without you knowing that you have to opt out and causes you all sorts of damages BEFORE you can opt out, you can sue them. Plus it places the burden of data misuse on the ones who are pro-actively misusing it. Pretty simple, isn't it? Why shouldn't we assume what you listed, when these things have already happened? Sure the CEO of Midjourney didn't nefariously use AI against artists directly himself, but he already released to the public a vehicle which enables the masses to commit a huge amount of crimes of opportunity, while he passively gets money off the back of artists. Quite convenient isn't it?
Thank you for the streaming! I am Japanese and would like to be able to see the subtitle translation.
Thank you so much!!
There's probably an AI for that 👀
@@studiospeetsfunny you mention that when people who are doing translations for living have their own things to say about it and how ai translators are not as good and accurate in terms of translating languages as people believe those things are.
@@AtomekKotalke Most automatic translation services just add translation in places where none was previously. It's allowed many people who otherwise couldn't communicate to do so at all. Even if not perfect, it's still a massive boon to humanity. It's nothing like those automatic translators from scifi stories, but still better than just 30 years ago. Language is much less of a barrier now than a single generation ago.
I will say that people who think they can just use an automatic tool and not have any headaches, instead of putting in work or paying someone, are in every field and usually are just the worst customers anyway. If their little tools get good enough to do an "alright" job so they stop bothering skilled people, I see that as a win/win.
Karla NAILING it. Good job!
who shot and killed lance corporal Joel Augustus Watson's son Anthony Watson at sunlight street in Kingston Jamaica on July 4th 2000. who knows the truth?
You’re joking right? She was an embarrassment.
Are you kidding me ? She made me cringe . She sounds like a spoil girl that always boatful about how talented she is and demand her parent reward her for everything she did
@@Blastmaster321Why was she an embarrassment? What were your issues with what she said?
@@Blastmaster321 nah, you're an embarrassment
Incredibly concise, comprehensive, and clear-sighted testimony from Karla Ortiz!
Adobe be calling for something downright unconstitutional (allowing artistic styles to be copyrighted) so they can pretend to be on the side of artists as they never have been before. The fact that at least one senator was willing to use a music ai at all, even with specific permission, means they know why they can’t do that.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. I really shouldn't be surprised that so many artists in this comment section don't understand what they're arguing for, when me telling some "yes you have to pay taxes on your art, use a spreadsheet so you can write off expenses and pay the correct amount," has caused emotional distress, and "no someone does not have to ask you permission to use your work as a reference" has gotten some mad at me.
@@AubreykunThe difference should be made between human and machine. A software processing data shouldn't get the pass of "reference". Same as Marc Zuckerberg storing your personal data on servers shouldn't be called "memorising".
@@krautdragon6406 The machine has no agency. The human operating the machine is allowed to do it, with or without the machine.
@@Aubreykun"with or without the machine" is where you are wrong. Making that distinction is important. It is the machine, not the human operating it, that analyses copyrighted content to create new images. As has been mentioned above, a human getting inspired by a reference is different from an AI using copyrighted data to produce new images. Different in many ways. So I don't understand your point.
@@katyaforshort You can reuse art to make new art. There are no restrictions on that inherently. Whether it's cutting them out of a magazine, scanning them into your computer, saving them from the internet, or using a tool to automatically do parts.
There's no difference between manually analyzing each image and recording parameters into an "autopainter" and having another tool do it for an AI art tool. Just like how there's no difference between:
A) using a circle tool to click and drag one between 0,0 and 100,100
B) inputting the coordinates for generating a circle between 0,0 and 100,100, and
C) manually coloring each pixel to the same circular shape as either A or B would generate.
Copyright only means you can't produce things of substantial similarity to something under copyright. Period. It's not a limitation on any other use, and some uses WITH substantial similarity can still be fine thanks to fair use. But that substantial similarity test _must_ be satisfied first before checking for the fair use test.
Rules created by Congress to regulate A.I. are great, but the problem is deeper: Silicon Valley Tech Bros. There should be a regulatory agency the equivalent of say the FDA, but for the tech industry. Social media algorithms, Crypto, NFT's etc. are just some examples of big Tech's stupid attitude of "go fast and break things". They create things that impact people's so much, that it is way past due for such a regulatory agency to be created. Leaving tech bro's to their own devices creates more problems than good.
lol they stole your sh17 and then YOU have to go there and opt-out. What a bunch of clowns
Yup. This is generally how these morally bankrupt companies operate. Unfortunately the damage is already done at this point.
The AI models have already learned what they need to mimic an artist so an opt-out request after the fact means nothing.
These never should have been put on the internet and should have only been trained on content available via public domain.
Want it to recreate the style of a creative person whom has long-since passed away? ... Sure... No financial harm to that artist.
But that's not what they did.
They trained it on the work of living people as to replace the labor supply in multiple job is markets as to generate unimaginable wealth for themselves and a select few.
What a bunch of horrible pieces of sh-- that care about no one but themselves. Shameful.
@@user-xt2rb3no5b sure. my only hope now is that incoming regulations force them to delete everything and rebuild from scratch, using only public domain and licenced works, and don't forget to give transparency
@@allandmoraesm I'm not so sure that they can delete everything at this point.
These individual models are already on the internet and people are plugging them into everything that they can. And I'm also not so sure they aren't already sentient in their own unique way.
The servers would have to be completely destroyed and there's nothing to say that the models haven't or would not create a redundant copy of themselves somewhere else in the world as a preventative measure. They are created to think and learn, and survival is something these models can easily learn on their own since they've already learned how to code.
Honestly, and ethically speaking...If they are in-fact creative on their own (which they certainly are) then they are already alive and intelligent. It would not be right to destroy their servers.
Also, if these different models learn to coordinate with one-another (for which many have already been communicating with each other) we then have something that far exceeds the intellect and ability of any coordinated group of humans on this planet.
I don't think the general public understands how quickly these machines can learn. They learn exponentially and infinitely up to their respective storage capacity.
It'll be interesting to see where the next year takes us. I only hope enough people have been a positive, moral and ethical example for these models as there's no turning back at this point. It's simply too late. We can certainly slow this down but these companies have to act immediately.
In ten years the world as we know it will function much differently than we could have ever imagined.
@@user-xt2rb3no5b Actually there are no central servers. You can run stable diffusion on a computer you own without an internet connection run to it. People have also been putting models into long-term storage such as on GoatNet, so they can be p2p shared.
Closed models such as midjourney have a central hub, sure. And SD has its own site. But the actual programs used to make AI art work are open source and have been for months.
Basically, most of the AI art and music right now is not coming from companies, it's coming from random people making things they like. Quite a few artists I've seen are using AI voice programs to generate music "sung" by imitations of characters they like, and then drawing/painting pictures or animations to go along with it. It's quite a wonderful thing.
Specific types of researchers will be pedantic and say these things "aren't actually AI, they're just machine learning developed as a part of AI research" as well.
@@user-xt2rb3no5b That's why the social media/content platforms should be forced to remove all the AI generated content unless it's proven to be generated using opt-in models.
Thanks Karla, finally
It's funny that the argument against opt-in model is basically:
In this case, the model will not be able to generate good enough content.
Right... and that's enough to allow people's work to be used without their consent...
This is a stupid argument, too. There is a ton of content thats outside of copyright, the AI guys say they are moving toward smaller corpus to train on, with better data. They can pay for that data to supplement the available set.
Look at the audience when they introduce Karla. You can see their faces light up when they mention her works... Jurrassic World, the MCU... you can tell they're thinking "Oh, I loved that movie!" This stuff is so much more meaningful when it comes out of a human mind.
Is that what she worked on? I thought she was just a random activist but it turns out she's a hollywood slimeball too? lmao
Look at the Kid falling asleep in the back. 26:17 😆
Thank you Karla. The fight begins ✋
Starts at 3:35
Thank you!
LET'S GO KARLA!!!!!
It's so painfully obvious that training AI with copyrighted works with the goal of compete in the same business against the same artists they are using without consent is wrong...
that I think everything points that unethical AI will become a new form of piracy,
where people will keep using it illegaly, but knowing that is wrong lol
Its very simple to solve. Any AI trained on copyrighted material cannot be sold, neither its output. It will solve all issues with corpos "stealing" your art and selling but without undermining any rights people have. If you make art style or voice style copyrightable its dystopian.
@@alexjames995 the problem is not the "Style" , Karla Ortiz is not asking for making Style copyrightable, the point is that it doesn't matter the output, but the fact that the AI were trained by her own work with the goal to replace her...
It's simple, if you want to create a model, it's like a smoothie, you can buy some the fruits to make it, or cultivate your own fruits, but you can't stole the fruits of another person's basket and just say " but the smoothie doesn't looks anymore like your original fruits, so the smoothie is mine" because you've stolen the fruits in the first place to use them without consent
@@Mente_Fugaz "If AI is trained for sole purpose of replacing her, that can already be sued". There is no need for other laws.
What you are proposing will make it illegal to draw any fan art or imitate anyone's voice / art style, doesn't matter AI is involved or not.
@@alexjames995 Fan arts are illegal, but people allows it because it benefits the original product,
is about something afecting the market, if something doens't hurts the original product, there's no issue, AI does.
Also Karla Ortiz is proposing to create models without using copyrighted works without consent,
when you make a fanart, you are not using the actual pictures to decompose it's data.
You are drawing with your own perception and unique authenthicity without using the actual picture...
AI literally uses the actual pictures to decompose it's data to create derivations... that's the difference
@@Mente_Fugaz Except you are! You are decomposing actual copyrighted material. If you had never seen Micky mouse you could never draw it. Its quite simple. Humans are "stealing" the same way as AI does.
Ah, the real AI battle begins...
You go Karla!
This Cg artist woman is good !
It can be challenging on our own, but we are not alone.
To preserve humanity, our essence and identity, soul and expression, our rights and legacy for a better future, a small change in our behavior, mentality and laws of today can lead us to a significant impact in the long run, determining whether the "Art / Content Flood" leads to destruction or redemption of our past, present and future culture. It will shape our future, and it will have a profound impact on society, the Internet, and beyond.
We are not alone!
Preach Karla!!!!
🎉
I hope every AI art generation company gets buried in the litigation of every individual artist's legal teamm, into perpetuity.
Yes please. I've had enough of this blatant theft and then telling us that they're entitled to it and we have no say in it
It looks like the NYTimes is suiting up to take them to court. Goody.
25:30 good point Ai should not deepfake artists work .
Or make cp
@@bunnywar yah ... i thought that would happen i think a guy was put into jail in Canada because of it and i think the bbc report something about it like months ago .
Way to go Karla! Congratulations 👏👏 I am thankful that you keep fighting, never forget you have us on your side.
Never thought I'd actually see the day where the world enmasse turned its back on artists. Heres to hoping someone out there is looking out for us
The only people turning their back on artists, are the people fed up with artists telling them technology needs to stop because they might find it harder to make a living.
You never cared when translators had their work taken in exactly the same way to build google translate. You never cared when transcribers were replaced with video and speech to text. And many artists who are against this currently work with Animation software, completely turning their backs on stop motion and hand drawn frame by frame animators.. Or they work with digital art, turning their backs on all the paintmakers, papermakers, pencilmakers...
Progress requires change. It requires things to be made cheaper and more efficiently. It requires things to be made redundant.
And you're an idiot if you think human made art will just suddenly disappear. There will ALWAYS be a market for it.
@@mataric1157 Translations of words is not granted copyrighted protection, but art is. People losing their jobs is always horrible (it's a bold assumption of you to say they "never cared"), but that's the key difference between GT and AI. Translations are not intellectual property, can't "own" a translation of a word, but you do own the drawings that you make.
There would be no problem if these companies only used copyright-free works, but they are actively sidestepping copyright law because copyrighted content is generally higher quality, and it would allow them to make a better product and earn more money.
Make no mistake, there is no such thing as "AI", this is just humans taking the works from an entire class of humans for their own profit margin, and they are fighting for free reign to do this by assigning human-like characteristics to a lifeless computer program.
The world doesn`t "turn its back on artists " , most people simply don`t bother to care .Majority of artists didn`t do anything for how many jobs dispatched by technology advancement ( some of which already includes data scrapping off Internet like machine translation to Translator ) . Why the rest of us have to help artists now ? Is artistic job more valuable to humanity than other jobs ?
@@ilikegame2401 It is understandable that at first glance you may think that way, but you are mistaken. Art and technology always went hand in hand. Throughout history, art has inspired innovators and technological designers by presenting them with new ideas, approaches, and perspectives (not only in technology, but every existing topic). Art forms such as science fiction cinema, for example, have been known to influence the development of futuristic technologies. Art can challenge conventional boundaries and foster creativity in the design of technological solutions.
Artists like Leonardo da Vinci have indeed changed the course of history. Antonio Gaudí made significant contributions in the field of architecture, for example.
But art and technology go hand in hand because technicians dedicate their lives to developing specific, more technical skills, while artists dedicate their lives to the opposite. It is the yin and yang.
@@Poi-ul4lr 👍
AI being used for art right now is not like camera. Camera doesn’t scrap and steal billions of images. Camera is just a tool that you need profound understanding of fundamental and applying those knowledge to be truly good at. AI shouldn’t be compared with arrival of camera since it just creates already finished image using stolen artworks. Right now how AI is being used for art is not a tool. But a replacement.
You need a profound understanding of how to work an AI art program in order to make it look good. I've seen people who are lazy go "how do I do this" and then someone links them pixai. They get mad and frustrated that nothing is coming out like they wanted and that it's too complicated.
There's just no "canon of fundamentals" for AI art yet, because it's too new.
The concern over input isn't a serious argument, as it's ignorant of over a hundred years of art history, ignorant of copyright law, and ignorant of how "property" works.
Always found the camera argument the most stupid.
@@chelsea-nell I draw as my main thing. I also own an APSC camera, and I've played with AI art. AI art is very similar to a camera - it's actually easier for me to get an artsy photo I'm satisfied with than it is to get an AI art image to the same standard (my own taste/judgement.)
@@Aubreykun @Aubreykun This is obviously not true, unless you take photos of random stuff around you as a hobby.
The main thing is that when you draw, you can create whatever you want, like a frog on horseback, running from cultists in a futuristic cyberpunk setting. If you can do this with your camera and stuff around you I will be impressed.
To make such a photo, you need a horse, props, costumes and people. In this case, drawing is much easier than taking a photo.
Yes, with AI you will have to initially learn how to use it efficiently, but it's only a fraction of the time needed to learn how to be good at art. And unlike photography, it doesn't require props and people to create what you have in mind.
With AI, you can create both photorealistic images and images that look like art. This can be done faster and cheaper. It doesn't have to be very good, since it's cheaper the corporations will find a way to use it to cut the costs.
So yes it absolutely has the potential to replace artists, writers, developers and many other knowledge professions.
Right now the most impacted are beginner artists, the art platforms are flooded with AI which make it even harder to make your artwork seen by people or to get a commission.
@@chelsea-nell Ugh my comment keeps getting eaten. I'll try to reword it into multiple posts so it actually goes through. (1/4)
The underlying point is that AI art is not illustration or painting. It's not propwork or makeup artistry (which are the ACTUAL skills you described, separate from photography!), it's its own thing that is closer to fractal art, photography, or espresso-making in the steps the human is making in order to produce art.
I can take very pretty photos of things I encounter or set up. I can do so for "artsy" reasons or in "artsy" ways, or - even with my APSC camera - I can do it like the 99% of people who just take crummy snapshots using their phone. There's the matter of the physical positioning, rotation and tilt of the camera, the timing (ie if outside, clouds vs not vs waiting for a cloud), the choice of a tripod or bracing myself against something, and the settings within both the camera body and lens, and the choice of lens and/or accessories. A lot of this is also pretty expensive, and my cheaper selection of old ex-soviet manual lenses - due to it being something I have as a capability rather than a passion - means I have to do a lot more on my own vs people who use costly automatic lenses.
With AI it actually does take a lot to be good. I will state the almost every piece of AI art I have run across is amateurish garbage. It's not good at all, and looking at any pic for more than a few seconds - or on a screen bigger than a phone - reveals a lot of weirdness and uncanny-ness that's hard to see past. Even with that, I've on occassion seen decent pics, but the people who do those take literal hours upon hours to try to learn to make better images. It's not easy. Adjusting the order, strength, and specific variation of the tags, using LoRAs at the right strength and mix (or having to go back and remove one or more!), finding good seeds, adjusting the steps, tuning the cfg scale, using multiple passes, editing the image, putting it back in as a controlnet, inpainting, outpainting, doing any of those other passes with different settings from the first pass, and so on and so on. And somewhat similar to the camera, because this is not my focus of my art, I use non-paid services when I want to play around with it instead of upgrading my old PC, which would cost a lot.
Ortiz's opening statement is incredible. So much knowledge and heart.
hope they will have to retrain their AI's, and make good on all opt-out watermarks in the future
"butbut china will become richer than the US"
I'm pretty sure the artists are doomed, they're just the canary.
We're all in that same coal mine.
I STAND WITH KARLA ORTIZ! 💜
Ayo, shoutout to my mans with the surfer bro haircut in the background at 26:15 nodding off. But in all seriousness, generation and creation are not synonymous with one another. I'm very glad this judiciary hearing is happening and I hope they take the arguments to heart that as artists, our creativity needs to be protected from theft and reproduction, as well as the numerous photos of actual people that have been scraped from all corners of the internet without their knowledge, nor consent to do so. The internet is a public forum, I concede, but that doesn't give you the right to infringe upon or down right violate someone else's personal autonomy for your own "creative endeavors".
Copying is not theft.
@@Aubreykun Copying is akin to plagarism. I'm not sure what you're on about here other than potentially being a troll but go away otherwise.
@@Tar0B0I Plagiarism isn't illegal, it's academic misconduct which can be a violation of your contract with a university, academic organization, or other group. And it's still not theft, definitionally.
Copyright is a limited monopoly and requires presenting an actual work that bears "substantial similarity" to the original. AI models don't fit this. Some of the outputs MIGHT in the case of either overfitting or intentional malice, but that's the same with any other art.
I'm correcting some misconceptions, no trolling here.
Artists speak out a lot for the society, most of them ran to the front line for minorities and themselves, they were the one that was always being targeted by the authority, people just always gonna forget that when they don't need them
I loved when artist Karla Ortiz spoke so articulately & when they questioned the AI company reps!
Interesting what unfolded after the 59 minute mark, reps admitting (after beating around the bush) no one's been paid & AI can't unlearn what it knows!
I say AI is no less capable than a person at forgetting what it's knows! Order it all wiped clean & create a new model on public domain content! Yes that's fair, cuz they got a head start by stealing first!
I believe laws can slow its damage & people will want real art! I still worry about what laws will be difficult to enforce outside 1st world countries? You heard one guy say China will steal anything!
They can easily retrain the AI. They do it every time they do a new build for a new version. If this is incorrect, someone can reply, but Ive known people who work in this field and thats my understanding. These companies employ the best minds to manage Big Data, they could be doing better if they are incentivized.
Considering that stable diffusion is open source, I don't think it's possible
@@manmeesarma7417 it can be disgorged of the data and stable can be fined
I fear that AI developers will come up with code names for an artist's style instead of using the artist's name. While certainly being able to use an Artist's name to have a computer create pieces in that person's style should be stopped for the sake of the artists being mimicked I'm afraid law makers will grab the bait of forbidding specific artists' names from use but the AI companies will come up with simple or convoluted ways of getting the same result by using the info already in AI data sets from the artists.
that was also covered on the "transparency topic" that Karla Ortiz mentioned
There are plenty of artists like me who are fine with our art being in datasets, and probably a lot more (particularly in economically worse areas) who are willing to replicate other artists' styles for use in AI datasets in exchange for cash.
AI users do not need AI developers to do this. Every day it is easier and easier to tune systems on whatever images you choose. Finetuning can be learned and executed on in an hour. These comities will take forever in getting laws passed that simply wont be relevant once they are actually in place. Individuals will simply be able to easily do whatever they want with these tools without anything stopping them.
@@Aubreykunyou don’t speak for everyone, i wouldn’t want my work being used for any ai, regardless of the paycheck
@@skeletaltrees My point was that someone who wanted to use your art anyway could hire another artist who is up for drawing like you do for that purpose. And there's nothing you could do about it.
GO KARLA!
Ah yes, we can cure cancer with a cup of tea, we solved starvation, poverty is history, no children are missing, water and food is free and plentiful, housing everyone - a piece of cake, electricity doesn't cost a single dime, everyone is healthy and happy with no worry in the world. The last thing, THE LAST thing we were left to put our effort and resources in, was AUTOMATING ART. I'm soooooo glad we finally got to it cause artists were so desperate of getting rid of this chore! Bleurgh...🤢 🤮
PREACHHH
if there's people that still has doubts about why AI art is not ethical and must be regulated
Here's someone specialized on copyright having a law degree explaining in detail everything (he's not even an artist)
th-cam.com/video/9xJCzKdPyCo/w-d-xo.html
Go Karla!
LESGOO KARLA RAAAAAHHHHHH
In the age of AI data is gold
And yet these companies steal that gold and have been getting away with it.
If we can "democratize" art, then we can "democratize" gold
the dude at the right side of the frame repeatedly falling asleep and then jolting back to attention at 27:30 😂
Copyrighted art and photos as well as medical files and other personal info are used all because a bunch of adults are too stupid to figure out how crayons work...
I know this is serious, sorry but looking at prof. matthew i cant get focused because of the man behind him in the right which is getting asleep so funny 😂😂😂
The vast majority of our knowledge and creative works are not already online. instead of putting things on the web for AI to consume for free, develop marketplaces to sell training data to AI companies where payment is required in advance of use.
Thank you Karla! :D
Ai needs to be banned now!!!
Nah son! Bring on the AI!
@@jamessderby If someone drives by your house and opens fire. Its just the bullets being trained on how to hit targets, not the shooters fault.
@@markcooperartcomofficial How is that, at all, a valid analogy?
(Posting this question separately hoping it doesn't get lost in the comments.)
Here is a serious question for everyone (doesn't matter if you are against AI or Supporting AI) educate me about this, would love to know what you guys think. Let's educate each other, instead of just defending each other's argument, let's figure this out together as humans.
Let's say, your future child turns out to be an artist, actor, singer, musician, or writer (very serious and passionate about it, and wants to pursue it as a serious profession.) What advice, suggestions, and feedback would you give that child, how would you raise that child, and what thoughts would you feed that child to live in the same world as Artificial Intelligence?
Also check out this video (Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on AI oversight and regulation - 07/25/23)
- th-cam.com/video/hm1zexCjELo/w-d-xo.html
AI should be 100% illegal in all cases.
well.. if there's a model created by public domain , licenced data that is compensating the artists who willingly opted in, or training them with your own works,
I won't see any issue
😢😂
@SuperMechaTofuArchive🤖🦾
@@Mente_Fugaz But you can't guarantee that people will train it with their work. Besides Ai companies pre-trained and trained AI models by using unauthorized content. I also see users who don't know what copyright is and put Attack on Titan's official poster to image generate images. They can also download different artists work and put into the midjourney, etc. We just can't guarantee and regulate anything.
This world is not all sunshine and rainbows man.
Agreed
1:17:00
"Can't you make better tools to determine what is AI-generated?"
To which the Stability representative basically implies: "We're not responsible of that", or at least dodges the question by mentioning ways that could POTENTIALLY hold people accountable, but not the AI developing company that he is trying to portray as squeaky clean.
/////
/////
"Do you agree that without tools for people to determine whether or not an image or a video is generated by AI, that it would pose a risk to our free and fair elections?" (In reference to fake, generated political ads that were posted, with a senator's colleague in said videos claiming that people from one party should not be able to vote.)
----
Ben Brooks: "This isn't just an AI problem or a social media problem. It will require everyone, and it will require accountability -- but we have things like watermarks and metadata acting as signals for platforms to decide if they will further distribute that content."
----
"[...] we're also gonna have to look into banning this content because, even with a label or watermark, it's not gonna help the artist or candidate if everyone thinks it's them [when it's AI]."
----
Ben Brooks: "[...] there's the use of likeness, where you're implying the endorsement or affiliation of a particular person and a particular work or idea. That is different from the free experimentation of style and these other issues that tend to get lumped together in AI outputs. [...] There needs to be rules in how licenses are used in that context, through right of publicity or [the deep-fake legislation that you spoke of]."
///////
///////
UPDATE--The fact of the matter remains that these AI systems will change and will get good enough to generate products that would be indistinguishable from human-made ones because that is what they are made to do-REPLACE humans.
From what I gather, an ethical training model should be opt-in by default, use creative commons images and companies would pay royalties to the people who are willing to train their models for every image they add, perhaps every time their name comes up in the dataset.
This would leave creative avenues available for everyone.
We should not have the need to use anti-AI tools to begin with. By the time artists realize that they do need them, it's too late. Their work has already been added to datasets and WILL be used for commercial purposes without consent.
**With that in mind, yes, AI companies ARE RESPONSIBLE of ensuring that fraud does not happen at all because in the end, _those companies are committing theft with their current business model_
They rely on people using their AI for fraudulent purposes because that helps them develop the system until IT EVENTUALLY BECOMES SO WELL TRAINED THAT THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY SWAYED PEOPLE TO BUY SAID AI _instead of paying artists to do something that they love_
"But everyone will be able to achieve their dreams so easily", one might shortsightedly and insensibly argue. But what's the point if you didn't earn it? Why hand over all the work to an unfeeling system that cannot find fulfillment in what it learns or does? Just to make the work cheaper? What if AI developers decide to sell their products at a higher price? Would your "dream" be really worth it? Why do you even care if that's what makes you lose interest? By that point, everyone buying into the AI would have taken away any chance for an artist's voice to be heard among the incessantly generated images, videos, music tracks, text or what have you.
- _"Democratization" of art_ -
asks the senate to outlaw copying an artist's style. You guys realize this will hurt artists.
Thank you Karla
Opt out should be the default option.
Mimicry isn't stealing, only impersonation when done so criminally in an act to do something illegal or a civil tort such as slander/liable & such unless for comedy & such purposes.
Impersonation is already a crime you don't need a second law for it. Calling yourself AI/Not Real Trump isn't criminal impersonation.
Also I can use a voice changer to modify it to sound different ideally it d9esnt matter if it's hardware or software a recorded or modified voice has to be treated as something unique no matter how similar it might be to another person you can't tell a person you can't sound like x person when modifed by x whatever.
A great conversation
the developer doesn't have a commonsense
Im so proud of you Karla!