AI-generated art is disrupting lawmakers’ understanding of who a true copyright holder is; is it the human who prompted it? The company behind the generator? Or the artists who are part of the data set the generators use? Senior policy editor, Adi Robertson, explores the recent lawsuits between concerned creators and the U.S. copyright office. Presented by SAP. #AI #Technology
Read more:
0:00 Introduction
0:30 Artists’ copyright protections
1:36 Training AI Data sets
4:43 What’s Fair Use and Copyright
6:15 Movie analogy
7:27 “No humans involved” copyright issue
9:23 Jason Allen’s AI art
10:13 What can AI artists actually get copyright for?
The Verge’s sponsors play an important role in funding our journalism, but do not influence editorial content. For more information about our ethics policy, visit
Subscribe:
Like The Verge on Facebook:
Follow on Twitter:
Follow on Instagram:
Follow on TikTok:
The Vergecast Podcast:
Decoder with Nilay Patel:
More about our podcasts:
Read More:
Community guidelines:
Wallpapers from The Verge:
Subscribe to The Vergecast on YouTube, new episodes on Wednesday and Friday:
source
What’s the most cursed image you’ve ever generated via AI? Leave your prompts below!
Adobe has been using AI since years, no one has a problem, the problem is this tech has been given to the public for free, which is what the artists are hating.
If generative AI was only introduced by Adobe in photoshop for stuff like INPAINTING, OUTPAINTING, REPLACING OBJECTS, etc
no one would have any problem, but now that this same thing is given to public, everyone starts having a AI is not gonna replace artists, but ARTISTS USING AI will definitely will
edit: Google Translate is also an AI trained on stuff of so many people.
So what ? stop it and instead start learning Languages ?
i’m very conflicted on this issue. on one hand i think generative AI is better seen as a tool, not actually creation. Most of what generative AI produces isn’t to the same caliber as human creation, yet, and i think it’s easier to see it being used as a tool rather than replacement. i.e. using chatgpt to create a report for you but ultimately the person producing the prompt has the final say on what it says.
on the other hand i think the implications of viewing AI content that way can be harmful in the long run. we start to run into questions about what art is and why do we create. if generative AI reaches such a point where it begins to rival human creation and replaces it i think that creates a situation where art begins to loose its meaning. is the point of art simply to produce content or is it a window into the human soul and a desire to connect on a deeper level? the idea of all content simply being generated rather than created is a depressing vision of a future i don’t want to live in.
Another quality content. I'm liking these videos
This called disruption, wind and solar is doing this to the fossil fuel industry, so we’re told. EVs are doing this in automotives, Some communities are losing out, but no one really cares, while others gain at great expense and offering inferior solutions. AI could reduce the cost to society, making life cheaper in a cost of living crisis? Personally, I prefer the creative human touch.
It's nice that the US can decide for the entire world if it is okay to steal from artist around the world 🖕
Counting on the EU to fix US big tech greed …again.
It’s strange how people who don’t make art think that artists learn and create mainly by copying other art. Of course that happens, but there is a huge element of drawing from life and striving to think of new ideas. The developers of these computer programs could have sent photographers out to take original images for their software, but instead they chose the cheaper route of using images available on the Internet, which belong to others. Maybe you don’t mind that a selfie you took of yourself is in their data set, but I believe you still have rights over your images even though they happen to be on the Internet.
I mean. inspiration is similar. Doubt this will be a legal battle that can be won.
They promised us web 3.0 but instead of have us spam 3.0 , now apart from usual email spam , here we are getting flooded with spam content generated by AI , low effort , crappy in form of shorts/reels , images , articles , news , deepfakes .. sad times ahead
Earning money with a software that automates art is something else then artist copying each other (to answer some comments)
Eh. Computer aided design is nothing new. Artists just don't like the sudden increase in competition.
It's too late. Once these machines have been unleashed onto the public, there is no going back. Pandora's box cannot be closed.
Have you thought about people who are handicapped? Quadriplegic? With image prompts, their world is suddenly open to whatever they want to create. To say that whatever they could think up via image prompts to realize their art vision (that their body can't physically do) is simply a "rip off" is the most crappiest "human" thing you could say.
New ways to take money from companies, this is just stupid. All art is just copies anyway
I see no difference between a Human learning from previous artists and an AI doing the same. standing in the way of AI art is like standing in the way of Automobiles.
imnondolost I can;t pee but i can type
All art is based on ripoffs so it is what it is.
Great … Long live AI … 😂
the AI thing is about getting AI to think in new and innovating ways so it can solve our problems
Copy royalty rights and private property should be replaced with open source and personal property
Also the ai are doing the same thing the artist do when it comes to learning how to do art. So cry me a river
By art boom you mean images shared on social media as memes then forgotten a second later, why would copywrite make a damn