The guy who used Midjourney to create an award-winning piece of AI art demands copyright protections.
Excuse me while I go grab my popcorn.
He’s not an artist though.
This is actually the art bit, right? He’s doing conceptual art, like that Banksy that shredded itself upon sale.
Fuck him.
[Nelson Laugh]
I’m in the same boat. Every time someone reads one of my comments and doesn’t pay me for it, that’s money out of my pocket. It’s a hard life being an internet commenter these days.
You are now reading mine.
Is this a valid 1:1 exchange? Or are you willing to pay me extra for my response?
LMAO!!!
Next.
If he is considered “Artist” I am too.
He’s losing imaginary, A.I generated money.
Waah.
I make props, armour, movie replicas as a hobby. I do it all by hand.
I get a bit of an eyeball twitch when someone shows me a prop and goes “I made this too” “of yeah, what did you use as a base material?” “Oh it’s 3d printed” “oh so your printer made it…”
id consider them making it if they were also the one who designed the 3d object without taking someone elses work. if they just downloaded a model, made minor changes than print it, I would not consider it their work.
“Famous AI ‘Prompter’ Says He’s Losing Millions of Dollars From People Stealing His Stolen Work.”
Seems like you did this to yourself, bud. You’re just mad you didn’t get paid enough for stealing.
“Famous” is accurate, but change to “Infamous” and it’s perfect.
He sure to become “infamous” now.
One of the reasons I like AI art is that it’s pretty settled law that something produced by purely “mechanical” means can’t itself have copyright, since copyright requires both originality and a human author.
It seems like a reasonably compromise, the AI was created by hoovering up the commons, so anything it creates should belong to the commons. I expect a lot of lobbying in the future to try and change it though.
And if AI work would be copyrighted by the “prompt artist” then all the artists who’s work is in the training set can sue the prompter for profiting of their work without licensing fees. It would be a legal clusterfuck so it was pretty wise to dinner l side step the whole issue.
How is he losing millions of dollars? If you’re just trying to get into the art fraud money laundering scheme thing then make an NFT and find an idiot. But just the creation of a piece (be it traditional, digital, or “ai”) doesn’t entitle you to a payout. And if you’re just complaining about the dissemination of the piece you asked someone else’s computer to generate for you without a kick back link tax, well–that’s not how copyright, the internet, or normal human correspondence works.
Ah, good ol’ music industry math. “1,000 people downloaded a picture that I created, and u wanted to charge $1,000 a piece, so I lost $1,000,000.” In reality of course charging $0.02 would’ve stopped most sales.
Yeah, articles are including the image because they can. If a judge had instead ruled that AI generated works were copyrightable (and to the prompter, not the designer of the tool, owner of the hardware, or even the tool itself) the end result would be that very few orgs would include his piece instead just opting for generating their own (now copyrightable) image to use as an example. He’d still get nothing, but then significantly fewer people would see his “work.”
How much did the real artists lose out on in order to train the AI?
lol get fucked loser. (the “artist”, not OP)