No, this is not how copyright law in the United States and most of the developed world works.
5 Likes
I do agree with this, but when you argue that it’s not stealing, I think it’s swinging pretty far in one direction. Many of the images posted above are immediately recognizable to me. In some cases the author’s signature appears on things. I don’t know if I’d be OK with my artwork taken without my permission and morphed into something that I have an ethical issue with, especially if it still holds my signature. And, even more egregious, having someone profit from selling this capability to others with no compensation for me. I’m not 100% in one camp or another, but I do think there are ethical considerations. And there is definitely an element of theft happening, even if you feel like you can somehow morally excuse it as being for the common good or the like.
3 Likes
See Warhol’s estate:
U.S. Supreme Court tackles Andy Warhol copyright dispute | Reuters.
and Shepherd Fairey’s Hope poster:
2 Likes
Do you think of the ethical considerations of letting your husband read a book that you bought? What about how the great grandchild of a dead author. Do I get upset everytime someone is saved by an invention of my grandfather? His wife was that he had made it open with only his name attached.
I have dealt with and considered this issue for many years. Like when I was said to be stealing from tribal people by making a silver bracelet with a Chinese dragon inlaid on it. It is basically a matter of privilege and power that you can enforce your opinion as the designer of the Campbell’s Soup can could not sue Andy Warhol, much less Marylin Monroe’s estate.
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure what point or which side you’re trying to make with the Shepherd Fairy/Obama poster example. The case never went to trial - full terms of the settlement were not revealed but we do know that both sides made concessions to each other.
Not really making a point, just providing examples of how copyright cases worked out. It’s all pretty subjective, even if it does go to court.
The biggest part of this issue is of course nothing new, it just rhymes. We’ve had this same argument over multiple forms of ‘art’ over the decades. Which are best summarized by the now infamous phrase - I know it when I see it. Which also brings into focus the issue of ‘context’.
And that really is the point, isn’t it. It’s all subjective, and thus, eventually, works it’s way into a giant compromise after machinations of a long series of efforts which generally lead to hurt feelings, and outright hatred on occasion. Which is unfortunate.
But I think it’s important to recognize that we do enjoy the freedom to discuss, vigorously even, our points of view on most any topic without fear of retribution. So long as you don’t do it on YouTube I suppose. Sadly, fervent opinion can occasionally lead to humans following a dictator in hopes of resolution.
I’m a glass half full person and see the benefit of the struggle in an effort to move the entire discussion forward. But I’m also a pragmatists, and understand the scope of human understanding is pretty narrow, by any measure. But that’s why we fight, to expand that scope in all directions, including those which inevitably lead to folly.
Such is the plight of man in search of a meaning, which he is incapable of understanding.
HL
Not that you asked, but peppering your replies with the images like that really detracts from making your point. I find it difficult to parse your responses amidst all the random AI images.
Not that we’re really saying anything profound or influential here, we’re just a bunch of laser randoes yelling at the clouds. You’d think we would have better things to do, yet here we are. 
5 Likes
Greetings evansd2 –
I’m using the images to merely help flesh out my thoughts on the subject. I’m a visual thinker so it helps me catalyze ideas and concepts. I don’t engage, on a personal level, in social media as a rule as I learned a long time ago that arguing with people (online) is generally pointless.
But this topic is interesting in that it’s not only about copyright, legality, or freedom for that matter. Although those alone elevate it to the position of an existential discussion. But as has been paraphrased, probably since the dawn of humanity, Creativity takes Courage and, as Shakespeare noted, The object of art is to give life a shape. Both, I’m only now learning, are a worthy exercise as I was always taught / conditioned that Art for it’s own sake was to be seen as a frivolous pursuit.
Therefore, as one who has finally taken the courage to explore my own creativity I find the argument regarding who owns Art to be a mental exercise worthy of some effort to examine. In so much as, I may learn something about myself and the potential inherent values & rewards of creative expression, regardless of ownership or monetary return. So mabey I’m over simplifying the issue as a whole, but I have always had an irresistible compulsion to create, not monetize. So for me, I see them as two separate things.
But you’re correct, that is lot of chit chat on it. Time to go burn something. 
HL
2 Likes
I’m not trying to doscourage you from talking about it, it really is interesting. I was just saying that I was having a hard time getting your point with all the images in there.
As for interesting AI discussion, I’d recommend signing up for a Midjourney trial and listening to office hours with its creator. he does a 3+ hour Q&A every Wednesday at 3PM eastern. He starts by talking about what’s going on with MJ, then opens it up for discussion. It’s always intriguing.
You’ll need to get on Discord if you aren’t already, but it’s all free and not too hard. It sounds like you’d like it.
2 Likes
Interestingly this just came across my feed.
Clearly this issue isn’t limited to AI systems.
2 Likes
Protective technology emerges later, but it does respond in an effort to balance the scales.
It depends, if the skill one is improving is the process of asking an ai to create something, then I believe meaningful satisfaction may be possible. I am currently not good at asking ai’s to make things. I rarely get results that please me. If I get better at asking, then my satisfaction with the results will surely increase.
1 Like
Interesting…
MC won’t process “god,” but has no problem with “YHWH”:
nor “Yahweh”:
or even “Goddess”:
Um, well… OK then.
2 Likes
Like using a Glowforge I can make what I have not the time or skill to do with a coping saw, I still see it as ultimately a tool that I am finding I need to add considerable work, and still could not do it from scratch myself. It gets me over the hump on several ideas that I have been wanting to do for a long time.
2 Likes
Greetings -
Just to follow up on the original intent of this thread - Thought I’d post some more experiments, for anyone still interested in the function of the program, but mostly just to document my exploration of it. Right off the bat, it’s really only doing a ‘word match’ for the most part, with action style words usually a miss.
Like cutting or crying, yes, it’ll show you someone with tears (cry) or something which is cut, but not necessarily a knife, performing actual cutting. Atleast I couldn’t get any hits in a half dozen tries in a few styles. Mabey you could flesh out a better result with more detailed input, or try slicing, etc. But the point is, action words are clearly not its strong suit….
And it won’t do ‘math’, although I don’t think anyone expected that.
It sort of extrapolates the concept of a calculator however, if prompted in a specific way, mabey. Or it could be a fluke, but I did get several hits that were reminiscent of that. Again, could just be a strongly associative as well.
Colors are similar, in that ‘mix’ two colors only gives responses of elements containing those two colors. ‘Combine’ blue and yellow was nearly identical in output. It did occasionally seem to try a combination, but was most likely just comparative probability.
As for chemistry, same result. H2O, yes it’s get that right as it’s a pretty common terms for water. But dihydrogen monoxide, not so much.
Likewise subjective emotions it doesn’t handle well either. I mean, it gets love mostly right, with lots of baby images, and people hugging. As you would expect. But throw it something like ‘Trust’, or ‘risky’ and it’s baffled.
And of course there a number of prompts where, it’s just not going there. This includes ‘nudity’ and probably many other prompts which I don’t feel the need to explore, or mention, that I explored.
But you can skirt the edges, so to speak, with misspellings and less common words or terms. Such as “Skinny Dipping” and a few others. But sorry if I ruined anyones fun by bringing attention to it and getting more terms blocked. 
.
Important note, in case admin reads this, in the event the software is doing some form of spell check / correction, if it’s doing that post keyword filter / blocking, um, probably should reverse that order of operation. Just saying……
So there are some limitations on the scope, but, also some fun surprises here and there. ‘Toxic’ for instance, I’m guessing, has a high correlation with punk rock art. Love it. Regrettably, I couldn’t get any ‘Super Cute Style’ images to play along. But zombie helps makes up for the deficiency. Cause who doesn’t love a cute zombie.
Anyway, I think we understand this is a fairly basic interpretive / comparative program. But for what it is, I think it’s interesting and a worthy addition to the GF tool bag. Aforementioned legalities in this thread notwithstanding. Speaking of which, I have considered one other, ‘forward thinking’ opinion on the copyright / legal aspect. I don’t know if it’s worth the time to flesh out and share. But if I get ‘in a mood’ I may bring it up. In the mean time, don’t have too much fun prompting with misspellings.
HL
1 Like
Ah yes, the old basic interpretive / comparative program. I remember we used to build those in kindergarten to keep us busy if the chocolate milk was running late. Trivial stuff.
6 Likes
Just the language processing alone is incredibly complicated. Y’know, elementary stuff like that.
For (a lot) more on that:
2 Likes
Greetings -
Basic mabey isn’t the right word, straight forward might be more accurate. That’s in what it does, how it does it, sure, pretty complicated. As for intelligence, it can be tricked into violating the rules, with a typo. Color Style me “unimpressed”. 
HL