Midjourney developers caught discussing laundering, creating database of Artists
twitter.com
twitter.com
The artist list looks to me like a list of names to try in a prompt - my guess is they were creating something like this: https://remidurant.com/artists/, a reference for how different styles and names affect the model's outputs. I don't think an artist's name being on the list implies that Midjourney was specifically trained to mimic that artist. At least that's not my reading of the little snippets we have here.
I feel like if you're going to be upset about Midjourney, you'd be upset about the training data. Not a compilation of names to try in prompts. That list of names doesn't change the model (assuming I've understood what it is, of course - and I could very well be wrong, given how little context we're given).
The attacks will keep coming as people get dumber and dumber.
> all you have to do is just use those scraped datasets and then conveniently forget what you used to train the model. Boom legal problems solved forever
showing that they plan to do this without any intention of attributing or fairly reimbursing the artists who's 'styles' (IP) they are localizing (and profiting off)
Is it? "The democratization of individual artist's styles" sure sounds like "automated ripping off" to me.
The cruel tyranny of “not doing a thing because I don’t want to do it” rears its ugly head once again. Why isn’t everyone more concerned about all of the things I could do but don’t want to?? It is the ultimate disadvantage!
> Japan’s new guidelines also sketch out pathways to protect artists’ work, but the legalities can quickly get dense. An aggrieved artist will have to prove that a commercially sold, AI-generated piece of art has “similarity” with their own work.
> “If a company isn’t careful, artists can sue or demand compensation if their work is used to create parts of commercial products.” They can show the work’s “reliance on an existing image,” according to Taichi Kakinuma, an AI-focused partner at the law firm Storia. The fastest way to prove this is with evidence that the work was used as training data. But since training data sets are not publicly disclosed, they may have no knowledge of its use, let alone be able to secure evidence
It takes resources and time to produce something unique that people want. For centuries governments have offered patents, licenses and protections for individuals so that people would continue to innovate, create something new and move the world forward. Will people continue to do so knowing that at a moments notice someone will rip you off?
Time will tell but for me personally I stopped publishing my side projects because why should I work hard for hundreds of hours just so Microsoft and AI companies can make more money using my work without giving me an ounce of credit?
Copyright came into being because of the printing press making things to easy to replicate.
If the current laws don’t protect works sufficiently history says more laws will be written that do rather than things will be a free for all.
To a consumer, the difference between a commercial product and an open source product is price, security, dependability, and freedom. Commercial products will cost as much as the company that controls it can get away with charging and if they can charge a lot they will happily price out many people if that still makes them money. companies will also take a commercial product and add anti-features, spy on their users, prevent anyone from building off of the work to create something new, disable/discontinue the product at any time for any reason, etc.
To the consumer open source is much better.
If I want art and it comes from open source tools, I can use those same tools to modify/copy/customize that art according to my needs or learn to create similar art at no cost.
If I want art from a commercial product it will likely be DRM filled trash and I probably won't be able to use the same tools to modify the art or to create my own similar artistic works without being exploited somehow.
There are many problems here, that society has 'built in' from the dawn of the printing press, to move the control and power into the hands of the 'publishers' and control/censorship into the hands of the government.
As a programmer, I create. Then my employer takes my work and makes it theirs, with control and ownership (and profits) going forward. I could leave my job, open source my work for the good of society, but maybe not be paid. I could 'license' my own work, and rely on copyright.
Licensing is the core of the problems here - the fact that easily (enough) reproducible creations are expected to keep bringing in payment for work done just once. It doesn't happen with most trade skills. It doesn't happen for physical works of art.
Perhaps society needs to look at this concept of 'intellectual property' and realise it's just another mechanism for control and power, that has no good effect or benefit to society, only to the wealthy and powerful.
Ofc, "in the style of" is one thing, literally copying and selling the copy is something else.
Diffusion models blur the lines somewhat. Time will tell, but usually exclusive exploitation rights IMHO have not favored the benefit of humanity, but it is a nuanced discussion for sure.
Artists don’t create to get paid. Artists create because their souls demand the activity. Commercial activity might have an impact on art but art will never depend on commerce.
We’re literally complaining about the death of the computer, and by that I mean the individual whose job it was to compute calculations by hand without the use of a calculating or computing machine.
I have no doubt in my mind that this will end up with negative karma. I know my audience!
You could say the same for software developers and still be wrong.
Software development is primary an activity concerned with creating useful products. It’s this usefulness that in contrast with art. Commercial art is useful. Painting for its own sake is not! Art for art’s sake, as they say!
Have you really never watched television or looked at a magazine and simply not considered the people who make these things?
I’m talking about art! Creation without deadlines, without the money men to distort the underlying creative act based on commercial and financial needs, etc.
I realize that technology puts creative people out of work but it doesn’t stop creative people from making art.
Have people been complaining about the decline of music studios as a laptop, a single microphone and a bedroom have become sufficient to create radio-ready pop music?
Almost every studio engineer and record producer that I know have had to find new careers. Some have even given up on art. My brother, after 30+ years of engineering and producing both indie and major label recording artists is now primarily engaged in creating large-scale public pieces that combine sound producing sculptural works with the ambient sounds of the surrounding environment and subsisting entirely off of grant money and the dole!
"We want to use your work so you can be replaced many in jobs, but it's expensive to actually license your work, so we aren't paying."
There, that's easy!
...loans or investment. It would be loans or investments. Like any other business.
You can't just steal cars either just to kickstart your taxi business...
If their business model requires either infringing copyright or paying billions of dollars for the rights, then perhaps it is a bad business model.
I’m glad midjourney and dall-e showed us what’s possible, but now we must take a step back, delete those models, and do it right. Single companies should not hold the power to steal whatever they want from humanity and then capitalize on it.
Oh, no, what a tragedy.
Like, seriously, "our business model relies on stealing all the art in the world, therefore it is right and proper that we do that" is a bit of a Bond villain take, when you think about it.
The collective naivete of artists continues to astound me.
If a human can look at your art and learn from it, replicate it, and sell it, then so can an AI. If the human doesn’t pay for it, then neither should the AI.
Of course you are not allowed to use the exact same (or close enough) piece of art, but that’s no different for a human.
I would certainly enjoy it if my generated pictures were annotated with the artists that were used to inspire it because it would lead me to a better source for future work, but it’s not a requirement.