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.
First off, stop calling him an AI artist.
Calling someone a prompt “engineer” should be punishable by law.
meanwhile startups: prompt coder/wizard!
please call them rockstars i want to see them suffer the way real programmers did
In general it’s not used for AI artists but rather for developers doing advanced stuff with LLMs such as RAG etc…
It’s literally what they are !
Fun Fact: PE is actually a legally protected title (the P in a real engineer’s title stands for professional)
But…
The AI is the artist!
Not sure what this other guy is doing though.
The term is apparently prompt-fondler now.
You can make art using AI. I’ve seen artists use it to clean up line art, color, shade, fill in backgrounds, and more. AI is just a tool. Lots of people only use text prompts, which I agree is hardly controlling, but that is only a single way to interact with AI. You can do a lot with these models.
All this is true, but none of it is relevant to a guy who’s demanding copyright protections and royalties for something Midjourney spat out.
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 whose 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 side step the whole issue.
AI art requires more input though. Like a song made on a computer is still copyrightable. We’ve yet to see a court decide if writing a prompt is enough to copyright the output.
I’m of a split mind because getting good results from it is more difficult than people think but it’s often not as hard as ai users make it out to be. And it doesn’t help people emotionally when AI models are trained on already copyrighted stuff without permission, but that’s more like asking if you could copyright the content you make with a pirated copy of Photoshop in my opinion.
I haven’t made my mind up on this and my opinion flips a lot. If someone is doing something like modifying a prompt over a few iterations, maybe using infill to make a “composite”, then getting a single image at the end they claim as their creation, I think that’s fine. If people just sort of throw a prompt in and then make thousands of images and claim all of them are their creations then I have a verily difficult time seeing that as something other than “machine output.”
A scary thought is that case law on this might be determined by which sort of these two approaches ends up in court first. Imagine the more valid type above ending up there first (even if you view it as invalid it’s definitely more valid than the other lol) and a jury agreeing it’s a unique creation. It just protects all the AI slop creators more. But if the reverse happens, it could affect what people view as real artists. Just a random, extreme example: Someone uses a little AI on an otherwise totally original piece to do something like add good looking wrinkles to fabric. Is it suddenly not copyrightable? Could I now steal this and put it on shirts? It’s just sort of scary because we don’t know what’s going to happen when it actually goes to court.
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.
Removed by mod
You owe them based on word count, line count, and character count.
You laugh but I seriously think people should be getting a cut if they are building a non-open LLM by commenting.
Member how people defended free price of gmail? I member.
Generally you sign that right away in website’s terms of use by giving them the right to display content you submit. (I know this is a joke though.)
AI art might not be real, but Sonic giving birth to Borat is an extremely cool concept that people should be celebrated for drawing
Dude, you can’t end it in such a rad way and expect us to despise the prompt input guy.
In the early days of Meta’s imagine art stuff I tried to get some weird stuff. I was trying to get pregnant characters for the meme. I got a few but they weren’t really worth sharing. Funny enough to send to a group chat for a quick chuckle though.
Oh no, the consequences of your own actions! That art competition should just add a rule “only copyrightable works”
Apparently, the competition was a year before that ruling.
And he’s still crying about it?
“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.
I’m not even sure I’d consider him a guapo, much less El Guapo
If he is considered “Artist” I am too.
This is actually the art bit, right? He’s doing conceptual art, like that Banksy that shredded itself upon sale.
I’m collecting all his tears to cook a big pot of pasta. Not sure how anyone would make “millions of dollars” from a single artwork anyway.
Money laundering.
its probably fictionally calculated like sales are to piracy. just because someone pirated a game/software doesnt mean they would have bought said thing at asking price had the piracy option not existed.
This is the schadenfreude I needed to get through my day
Be an 1880 impressionnist, paint an artwork, die.
Now it’s worth a million, possibly.
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 I 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.”
Lol, lmao even
[Nelson Laugh]
How much did the real artists lose out on in order to train the AI?
deleted by creator
Prompt maker upper
deleted by creator
lol get fucked loser. (the “artist”, not OP)
