Tree-Ring Watermark: Invisible Robust Fingerprints of Diffusion Images
arxiv.org
arxiv.org
Stop abstracting input away from output. Attribution here is a fools errand built on overbearing, unjust, and misinterpreted concerns over copyright, the relevance of which have yet to be proven in a legal sense. This is going to give The Man yet another way to suppress actors they don't like.
Repeat it with me, folks: YOU CANNOT CONTROL THAT WHICH HAS BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. If you do not want things (people/their agents) to perceive your works, then keep them private.
Parent may not be expressing it right, but he does have a point. There is a level of 'interpretation' that is being done during the taking of a picture. If you add to this recent attempts to incorporate AI into picture taking to add/remove parts thereof all of a sudden parent's proposition does not sound so far fetched.
Granted, it is still a different level than just generating an image from a prompt, but I would not dismiss the thought outright.
You can think of a photo like a news article, the author can be completely truthful while omitting certain facts to give a false impression. The same can be done with how a photo is framed, cropped and processed.
The intent of a photographer can definitely be translated into the photograph or it wouldn't be an artform.
There have been attempts to cryptographically sign images, which have largely been broken, but the principle is there: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9955873926/why-cryptographi...
If the plan is to have a few trusted manufacturers for CCTV and police cameras than that might work, but will do little to combat misinformation.
Eh, there are so many ways where a large photo can fail. I'm obsessed with AI Art, but I think there will be human(or AI) detectors that will be paid to determine validity.
I don't see how we can without great harm. The only adaptation that I can see is to stop trusting in anything at all, and we're already dangerously far down that road as it is.
I think copyright as understood in IT is a bit of marsupials, that copyright is considered a property inherited by exact copies and intentional reconstructions. The criteria used in the real world is similar, but slightly different.
Also, this is going to be tone policing, but raging don’t make you right. If anything, it’ll do opposite of that.
I mean, its always kind of been that way. You can copyright the appearence not the idea. Provenance doesn't really matter.
Wow.
right?
Like, you forgot the /s or are new to the internet and assumed people saw the sarcasm?
Belief in an idea can be dangerous, because of the actions it may lead to. But the mere reflection, consideration, or phrasing of an idea is not evil; cannot be evil.
That's the problem that copyright is intended to address. Without it, too many people do exactly that and society suffers.
Modern copyright is insufferable and desperately needs fixing. But the concept exists in order to address a different real problem. Without copyright, we still need a solution to that problem.
> but in this new world?
This "new world" isn't actually all that new, though. I guess depending on when you count it as starting -- you brought up literacy being a premium in the "old world", which was largely a very long time ago, before the concept of copyright existed.
It came to mind because the `Watermarked x_t` image on page two reminds me of the overlaid noise pattern, which you could just make out on the page. I think they must have been doing something similar in frequency space.
Is this ringing any bells for anyone? I've tried googling but I just can't find evidence of it ever existing.
Which, by definition, requires you to know in advance the exact process and parameters that were used? That seems untenable.
People using products for fraud, defamation, illegal categories of porn, etc.
You can internally investigate and see what users are doing to escape the guardrails. There's probably lots of legal but definitely juvenile and borderline offensive content that could also be studied.
There are even non-abuse analytical reasons for wanting this. If you sample the social media deluge for your watermarks, you could see how far your tool spreads and in which user clusters.
Any security system that requires the adversary to be on board is doomed to fail. If the adversary was willing to play by the rules you wouldn't need a security system.
I feel that if you never studied art or never really learned or did the effort on studying it, and gone to the processes of art creation, most people probably aren’t making art. It still can be beautiful, creative, meaningful but “real” art, something that adds to the cultural lexicon, probably not.
The book “But is it art?” by Cynthia Freeland I can recommend.
AI seems like a tool that can be used to make art, I think all that takes is a human trying to elicit a response in another human.
Typing into a prompt box and setting some sliders, then picking the output I like... is it different from setting my shutter speed and framing a shot? What if I shoot on a phone where that's all automated, is the art the environment I put myself in? What if I take a hundred random abstract snaps and pick the best 3 and arrange them together in a triptych? Is the argument that the arrangement is the art, and the photography isn't?
It just seems so absurd to me that AI can't make art, sure maybe not on it's own, but a paintbrush or a camera can't make art on it's own either, the human wielding it can.
I studied art formally. I had the chance to meet and be tutored by some really incredible artists. At some point I had to choose another path that led my foray into frontend development and UX.
It is indeed in the human context and character where great artists come from. Some artists can read the zeitgeist and extract a meaningful and masterly done work that defies the status quo. One of my teachers framed it “It’s like the olympics and you try to jump just that bit higher and raise the bar. And you don’t know if you are doing that unless you try.”
So yeah, the human, their process, their ability to discern what is visually needed, their cultural context, their ability to be autonomous when it is called for, those are hallmarks of significance.
Now the AI generator can help you iterate ideas (like you have to choose photos after a shoot) , but you are still the director, you still have to know what to pass and what to embrace.
Some artists are not known until long after. For instance there was a street photographer who did street photography long before it was known as such. Now those works are seen as very significant. This is someone who tapped into something and showed a new way of looking.
Particularly if the idea is it leads to a big change in the latent space representation as the mode of action, the question to ask is how hard is it for another system to learn what that latent space anomaly looks like and remove it?
fwiw i think copyright should be greatly weakened in general, just correcting you on the facts
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
(It’s not copyrightable in the US)
> fwiw i think
Doesn’t really seem relevant, legally speaking, and unless there’s a specific precedent you’d care to share, you are not correcting the parent post, you are simply incorrect.
That's document is about guidance about works applying to be registered at the Copyright office. Which is a process made largely redundant in 1978 by automatic copyright assignment.
Now the Copyright Office may be of the opinion that copyright doesn't apply, but apart from registrations (or passing new regulations, which they didn't do) they can only give an expert's opinion. To decide how existing laws and regulations apply is the job of the courts.
Of course, you’re welcome to your own opinion, but I urge anyone who believes this to be the case and you know, doing commercial work, to seek legal advice rather than depending on their assumptions about it.
See also -> https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
I agree that nobody knows for sure until a court rules, but it absolutely could be zero, and there are reasonable arguments for it being zero, especially in the usa [uk maybe a different story] (e.g. non-human angent, is a prompt really a creative endeavor?).