> For clarity, Derivative Works do not include the output of any Model.
https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/sdxl-turbo/blob/main/LICE...
Doesn't that mean that generated images from it should be fine for commercial?
What jurisdiction? USA?
"the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement"
This leaves a lot of wiggle room for AI created art with some form of human involvement. I.E. import the generated image into Photoshop and edit it. Perform some inpainting to improve certain parts. Possibly even prompting and configuring things in Automatic1111 might be regarded as human involvement.
This is going to bring many legal procedures before there's a clear answer to whether AI generated art can be copyrighted.
Of course, this is a water sandwich. If model outputs are derivatives of the model, it'd be difficult to argue that the model itself isn't a derivative of all the training data, most of which isn't licensed. So if anything, this covers Stability's ass, not yours. There's also the related question of if AI models - not their outputs, just the models themselves - have any copyright at all. The logic behind the non-copyrightability of AI art would also apply to the AI training process, so the only way you could get copyright would be a particularly creative way of organizing and compiling the training dataset.
Remember: while the "AI art isn't art" argument reeks to high heavens of artistic snobbery, it's not entirely wrong. There isn't a lot of creative control in the process. Furthermore, we don't give copyright to monkeys[2], so why should we give it to AI models?
"Noncommercial" isn't actually a thing in copyright law. Copyrighted works are inherently commercial artifacts[0], so if you just say "noncommercial use is fine", you've said nothing - and you've invited the legal equivalent of nasal goblins[1] into the courtroom. Creative Commons gets around this by defining their own concept of NonCommercial use. So what did Stability's lawyers cook up?
> “Non-Commercial Uses” means exercising any of the rights granted herein for the purpose of research or non-commercial purposes. Non-Commercial Uses does not include any production use of the Software Products or any Derivative Works.
Uh... yeah. That's replacing a meaningless phrase with a tautology. Fun. The only concrete grant of rights is research use, and they categorically reject "any production use", which is awfully close to all uses. Even using this to generate funny fanart mashups for your own personal enjoyment could be construed as a 'production use'. Stability could actually sue you for that (however unlikely that would be).
[0] In the eyes of the law. I actually hate this opinion, but it's the opinion the law takes.
[1] Under ISO 9899, it is entirely legal for C programs with undefined behavior to make goblins fly out of your nose.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
I still remember that piece of art that was submitted to an art contest and won, only to be announced an SD prompt later
You cannot claim ownership over culture, nor can AI. Culture is a collaborative process, and no one can barricade themselves from the input of others. Artists using AI are simply exercising their right to contribute to the collective creative pool. Art flourishes in an open environment where it can stimulate other artistic endeavors. The only art off-limits to AI is the art that remains unpublished.
So I'm sorry but there's an argument to every point you're making. I trust the artists I speak to far more than the proponents of this technology. At least they're striving for something genuinely instead of making disengenuous claims about "democratization".
What do you mean AI doesn't give back? It serves everyone and gives back everything it can create. Artists are the number one users here, and they will unlock the AI skills better than regular people playing around.
What individualized streams? you mean like imagination, where everyone of us has their own "individualized stream"? AI art is augmented imagination. No obstacle in sharing, in fact it's easier now. You don't need to be an artist to create depictions of your imaginations, and sharing a generated JPG is much easier than drawing it by hand.
> yet you continue to use the labor of others without permission
That's how culture works. The artist who never took inspiration from the cultural environment should throw the first stone. Pablo Picasso is widely quoted as having said that “good artists borrow, great artists steal.”
You're assuming that artists are just being elitist. While that's not entirely untrue, artistic skill is not merely a gatekeeping exercise. "Just prompt what you're thinking" is great until you need at least a little bit of control over what the AI generates, upon which the whole process disintegrates into banging your head at the model until you get something you want. Furthermore, art skills don't transfer to prompt engineering very well - that's more the realm of SEO keyword stuffers.
What __loam is imagining is that the best use of generative AI right now would be to create content slurry. If you've ever used TikTok or YouTube shorts you know what I mean - the vast majority of videos there are very cheaply made dopamine traps. And while AI can sorta kinda do art if you ask it politely and fight it a bit, it's really good at generating statistically plausible imitations of existing images[0]. Being able to generate lots of normal looking images for little effort is a grifter's best friend, and there's loads of people on YouTube bragging about how they make lots of money by spamming up art marketplaces with artistically meaningless pablum.
It doesn't matter how you make your art. You will be competing with the people who are shitting out spam art, and losing.
[0] To be clear, this is not the same thing as a photo mashup. I would actually be impressed by an AI that could take images and mash them up at inference time.