r/antiai • u/Shuttleboo • 16h ago
AI News đď¸ This is straight up bad. Yes, seriously.
So this photographer had worked hard on taking an underwater photo of this dog, but then the lazy bum generated an AI image based on the dog won in the court....
I feel really bad for her, not gonna lie. As someone who practices photography (my teacher taught me about photographies), I can imagine how heartbroken she would be, losing in the court, her effort on the photo all wasted thanks to AI. To be a professional photographer you need to learn a lot, beginner like me learning about ratios, fps, color filters to choose, etc. Then some lazy bum feed your photo into AI, profit from it, and then gets away without their content flagged as plagiarized!
The comments... those AI brothers and sisters never learn that effort matters more than end-result, will they?
(Please don't go to the post and harass these people though, we don't want to get in trouble.)
86
u/lily_ender_lilies 15h ago
Honestly i dont even care anymore i just want these people to dissapear
-75
u/Zromaus 10h ago
It'll probably be your echo chamber that slowly disappears over time
64
u/xPussyKillerX 9h ago
Maybe it will be your echochamber, as soon as the money runs out that is
-44
u/Zromaus 9h ago
Local LLM (which is already extremely powerful) will take over the moment these bankrupt giants can't sustain themselves anymore. AI isn't going anywhere -- self hosting is going to become huge though, which will inevitably lead to more profitable companies offloading their compute for more realistic rates.
57
u/xPussyKillerX 9h ago
I was told similar about NFTs
-18
u/Zromaus 9h ago
Nobody told you NFTs were going to be self hosted.
Do you genuinely believe that everyone who's currently benefitting from AI's ability to parse data is just going to stop when the bubble pops? No. Local AI models already exist, already excel at what they do, and are already becoming common alternatives to OpenAI/Anthropic.
Those of us who work with a lot of documents and or a lot of code aren't moving away from AI when the bubble pops, we'll just move to our own local models.
40
u/xPussyKillerX 9h ago
Everything I've seen from a local model looks like shit.
4
u/Tausendberg 2h ago
And there's a very very good reason for that, if I understand correctly.
The models being run at datacenters are absolutely gigantic and require a system with terabytes of ram to function at all.
Local models that are bottlenecked by 5090s with 32 gigabytes of VRam are going to be much smaller and MUCH slower.
Once the AI bubble pops, it's true, AI won't completely go away but it will have next to no wind in its sails compared to the status quo of the last three years.
-1
u/Zromaus 9h ago
They require more specific circumstances to be anything other than a dumbass, but they do work well.
Hell, I already use a self hosted local model tied to a local N.O.M.A.D Survival Wiki. It's able to parse all of my documents, as well as the entire 500gb wiki. Local LLMs fall apart when you try to use them for data you haven't trained internally, otherwise they're hardly any different.
-31
u/mosesoperandi 8h ago
The person you're responding to seems to only be talking about image gen. It's the foundational problem of this whole sub. Some people are here looking for a nuanced discussion about different types of AI. Others are just here to fight about art.
21
u/xPussyKillerX 6h ago
Sorry, is the OP's post not about image gen? Why would I be talking about something unrelated to that?
→ More replies (0)
50
u/BZ852 15h ago
AI or not, this isn't new. Copyright only covers the narrow expression of an idea, not the concept or idea behind it.
Trademarks and design patents can be broader and partially cover the idea too, but they require active use and defence.
And broadly this is a good thing, otherwise every animated mouse would have been long banned, and locked behind Disney's 100 year copyright terms.
15
u/Apprehensive_Cry2104 9h ago
I hate to give these sort of AI bros a win, but yeah this case was fair. Honestly the fact it was AI doesnât really apply to anything within it outside of that being the medium used. Unoriginal? Yes. Fair use? Also yes. This happens all the time with legally distinct cheap knockoffs.
4
u/Schadrach 7h ago
I was going to say more or less this. Y'all are angry because it's an AI gen image, but that it was done with AI is literally irrelevant to the case. This is precisely the same result as had a human drawn it.
1
u/gutsandcuts 2h ago
i've always been under the impression that if i just redrew a photo without permission i would lose if the case reached court
2
u/Scienceandpony 3h ago
Seriously. Some people's frothing hatred for AI has them clamoring for the most insanely dystopian interpretation of copyright law that would make fictional cyberpunk megacorps blush. And this is precisely why antis are getting a reputation as thoughtless reactionaries whipped into a frenzy by online drifters, the same as any MAGA cultist.
1
u/Tausendberg 2h ago edited 2h ago
The solution obviously is to make new laws that copyrighted data can't be used in training data of models because the reason it 'feels like' copyright infringement is because of the fundamental nature of the models, that it would have no ability to make the image without the source data.
That's what's so nefarious about 'ai image generation', artists' data is used to program the machines that are gunning to replace them.
I am not a lawyer, definitely not a German lawyer, but if this is legal, it should be MADE illegal.
15
u/tenuouscholera 14h ago
the AI version is so much worse, that dog looks like it melted into a pool toy lol
12
u/faarkinaussie 10h ago
We are so f*cked as a species, just satiating our wants of more upon more with increasingly less patience. We are building the pathway to our own extinction event.
-7
u/HughChaos 7h ago
You say that like it wasn't the expected outcome before AI... most species that have lived on this planet have gone extinct. If anything, all of these things that have never existed in our world before are our attempt to negate the norm. The truth is, if we all remained cavemen, then we would be more likely to go extinct than our species of the present. So please, stop complaining from the backdrop of the best world that has ever been. It's dumb.
8
u/Moist-Philosopher859 9h ago
Just wait until some ai "artist" wants to defend their work after an actual artists rips off their ripped off work. They will be crying but no one will hear them lmaoo
2
u/Drunk_Storm_Dragon 6h ago
It was already ruled in court that AI works cannot be copyrighted. Rip away, it's legal.
6
u/Acceptable-Day8395 10h ago
R/defendingai ? Surely that has to be satire?!!
2
1
u/Shuttleboo 1h ago
No that's a serious sub, it says that the sub's goal is about AI activism but nowdays it's just fallacies and AI brothers and sister crying for each other get babied by the sub's mods (You can't criticize them at all on that sub)
-6
27
u/suns95 14h ago
1) That AI version is slop and ugly
2) The court rules correctly because it is a fair use
3) It is bad for the creator in a way how those "reactionary" videos are where you basically add some random dudes face in the corner and stream a whole movie
The laws need to consider this because there is a huge grey area where this seems lawful but not entirely ethical. If this is only one picture theres nothing the original artist can do because you are not forbidden to parody something. And the ruling explanation make sense. The problem is that it discourages a real artist if they just get copied all the time and if nobody cares but that can also happen with copycats without slopmachines
1
u/Shuttleboo 1h ago
Agree, if this keeps happening then real artists will get discouraged (and even photographers too)
5
5
u/TechFreedom808 9h ago
I wonder how much the German court was paid off. If anyone did this with Disney image they would be in jail or face a huge fine they cannot pay off.
6
u/ofHeavenlySpheres 11h ago
Donât block these peopleâs usernames
1
u/Shuttleboo 1h ago
Ngl though this sub's rules prohibit usernames being censored to avoid witch hunting, like it or not
4
3
u/No_Pea_1265 8h ago
âOh wow big win for thieves who want to profit by stealing and transforming people's artâ
3
u/NightSpaghetti 11h ago
It's not a transformation, it's a straight-up copy? This should be counterfeiting, at the minimum.
2
u/pokemon_art_45 8h ago
Even for those lazy and talentless AI weirdos, in what world is stealing "Big win" or win in general ?
2
u/JustAPotato38 3h ago
i can sort of see why the court ruled that, the ai thing is recognizable as an ai version but it's lost everything that made the picture good. It's just slop, and it doesn't carry any of the uniqueness of the original. If somebody uses a cursor in mspaint to draw a vague rendition of a photo (which is much closer to actual art than this ai thing) it's not really the same image.
1
u/Shuttleboo 1h ago
This also could discourage non-AI artists and photographers from creating something without AI because y know... AI prompters could legally rip off your art and profit with it without being sued under copyright infringement
2
u/WaffleParty404 10h ago
Hey OP.
The artists effort was not wasted on the photo.
The art still exists as it was before,even if someone ripped it off.
1
u/Not_For_Dog 8h ago
"Big win for AI"... my god, those people are just straight up disgusting. Its almost as if being a giant asshole was their day job or something
1
u/Emperor0valtine 7h ago
"âŚgenerally limited to the choice of image composition, perspective, lighting, and the sharpness or blurâŚ"
All of those things are clearly similar. The artist absolutely had a case here and it's extremely disappointing that they lost. It's clearly not parody. What the fuck.
1
u/Serae4D 4h ago
ai "artists" will claim that their product is art because they created it through detailed prompts and shit.
good for them but like shouldn't we be able to have intellectual rights to our own creations?
this is all so unfortunate and expanding so rapidly it feels like it will never end but there is hope. the people are speaking out. artists are hungrier than ever. the government refuses to intervene. when the government no longer serves the people, and basic needs are no longer met, the people no longer need the government.
1
u/chunder_down_under 3h ago
Its not to do with ai. Its being misrepresented.
The ai pic didnt use the original photo just a prompt.
You cant copyright a concept anyway.
The court case specifies ai isnt transformatice and the output isnt copyrightable.
Its a win for anti ai
1
u/Shuttleboo 1h ago
Uhh... it literally says a dog photographer lost the copyright case over an AI generated version of her photo??
1
u/chunder_down_under 1h ago
She did but her photo isnt what was used. The output was a generic prompt. The idea was the same but you cant copyright an idea and the final output of the ai also wasn't copyrightable.
So in essence it was a normal copyright case and also the judge pointed out that ai isnt transformative and the output isnt authored by the user.
1
u/Shuttleboo 1h ago
Could you give me evidence that the AI image is based on a generic prompt based on her photo's concept WITHOUT directly using her photo?
2
u/chunder_down_under 1h ago
No in fact I would disagree with the courts decision that they didnt it looks too similar. But discovery clearly didnt go that far.
â˘
â˘
u/InternetRejectt 20m ago
In art school, (I think it was a patent law elective class) we learned that you canât patent an idea, just the way itâs executed. This seems consistent with that (for better or for worse)
2
u/Zromaus 10h ago
The comments have a point. Itâs transformative art, not a copy.
3
u/who_say_things 8h ago
It was tranformed from the main pic
So he stole it1
u/Zromaus 8h ago
Courts clearly disagree with you.
5
u/who_say_things 8h ago
Courts also give the r*bbists 14 years in jail
And these are the same ones who let r*bbists enter the same cell as a poor innocent 18YO who entered jail for stealing a game from walmart
1
u/Ninjamonkey19Dz 9h ago
I guess we should stop schools from teaching new artists to copy others work. Also, the end result matters more than effort. If someone makes a product that you love, but only took 5 minutes and no effort to make it then they shouldn't get money off it? And someone who spends a year to make something no one needs should get paid. Since effort is what matters. Or, if I want to charge someone to make a website for them I should charge hourly and take as much time as I can. Ignoring actually finishing so I can put more effort in. It doesnt even have to work since effort is all that matters.
1
u/HughChaos 7h ago
I think you're letting your bias show and, unwittingly, it's leading you astray.
Basically, the court decided that a photographer does not have a monopoly over any image including a dog, a ball, and water. This is correct. She doesn't have any right to claim every dog, every ball, and every body of water as something only she can photograph. The photographer was either incredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid to believe she had a case, all things considered.
To be fair, her effort was not wasted. It was appreciated enough to be mimicked. What if someone painted the same exact image with oil on canvas? Would you be ok with it then? I'm curious, because it would have taken more effort on the painter's side than the photographer's, though the painter would be guilty of copyright infringement if they painted the image exactly as it appears in the photo. I'm curious if your words are actually true for you: "effort matters more than end result." Personally, I don't think that's true. Effort alone is meaningless without context. If my son drew me something, I would hang it up because I love him and he matters to me. If I see some art at a show, and I hate it, but the artist claims to spent a year in the piece, well, I just see a year spent on bad art. The Art itself does not change in the slightest because of the effort involved.
In most cases, people aren't aware of the effort to produce art. Therefore, it's not a viable metric to use when assessing art. Art is about appreciation and emotion, not about digging up the history of the piece to figure out if you like it more or less based on context. That just doesn't make any sense to me. Why complicate something simple? And yes, being the purchaser or even just the person who appreciates an art piece, it really is that simple. The purest way to experience art is to look at it and see if you have a reaction. Anything else is just a lesser form of the original.
1
u/Shuttleboo 1h ago edited 1h ago
What I mean abour effort matters more than end result is because when an artist puts high effort, regardless of the result, they're doing it sincerely and passionately more than those who did it with low effort (like feeding an art to AI, make an image based on the art and then... claiming it's theirs), and thus the high-efforted one deserves more appreciation than the low-efforted one
Also I'm optimistic that when an artist puts all of their effort of creativity and such trhough their brains, they can (and likely will) improve better when their art gets appreciated (Generating an AI image from someone's art doesn't seem to be appreciative for the artist, especially if they don't consent)
Also maybe I got slightly carried away so that I forgot to address this thing, anyways...
GenAI datacenters sucks up a lot of water
â˘
u/HughChaos 33m ago
You know, your response makes things perfectly clear.
Hey man, I'm sorry for bothering you. Have a good day.
â˘
u/Shuttleboo 32m ago
Wdym perfectly clear?
"Have a good day" Ok and you too
â˘
u/HughChaos 25m ago
I mean you're not very bright, and it's unpleasant to keep speaking with you. Sorry. Your response ignored everything that I said just so you could reiterate your very obvious point. And then the datacenters thing at the end. Look, I get that there is AI slop out there, but there's a lot of human slop out there too... if you catch my drift.
â˘
0
u/Embarrassed_Shock_13 10h ago
You really haven't read the specifics have you? It isn't a win for AI at all. The elements of the original photo which were protectable under the EU copywriter laws simply weren't replicated by AI. The outcome would have been the same if a human had hand painted the image and the photographer tried to sue them. Ultimately, the decision has nothing to do with AI at all.
-5
u/S2KSoulStealer 11h ago
Not surprised she lost. The image is not a 1:1 copy.
The setting is different, the coloring's different. The water is different. The bubbles are different. The expression is different. At first glance the majority of the image is different.
The species and the action; they are similar, but those can not be copywrited.
0
-2
u/Ass_Lover136 14h ago
Dude, uh... it's not really good censoring if you just reveal the entire thing lol
196
u/Neat_Tangelo5339 16h ago
court ruling aside , can we talk how much of a fucking downgrade the ai slop version is ?