Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work::Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

  • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33·
    10 months ago

    The article is literally about someone suing to prevent their art from being used for training. That’s the topic at hand.

    Are you confused, or are you trying to shoehorn a different but related discussion into this one?

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      10 months ago

      The suit alleges that the AI image-generators violate the rights of millions of artists by ingesting huge troves of digital images and then producing derivative works that compete against the originals.

      The artists say they are not inherently opposed to AI, but they don’t want to be exploited by it. They are seeking class-action damages and a court order to stop companies from exploiting artistic works without consent.

      It says right in the article that they’re suing over the training and the commercial use of the output. Their lawyer obviously felt that it was essential to include both parts of that, and I think it’s because simply using a copyrighted work to train AI may not be infringing, but using it and the selling the output is.

      I just don’t think you can separate how the AI is trained from what the company intends to do with the trained AI. If they intend to sell their output, then I don’t think that will be allowed in current copyright law.

      • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        You most certainly can. The discussion about whether copyright applies to the output is nuanced but certainly valid, and notably separate from whether copyright allows copyright holders to restrict who or what gets trained on their work after it’s released for general consumption.