107
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) by carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works

Show transcriptScreenshot of a tumblr post by hbmmaster:

the framing of generative ai as “theft” in popular discourse has really set us back so far like not only should we not consider copyright infringement theft we shouldn’t even consider generative ai copyright infringement

who do you think benefits from redefining “theft” to include “making something indirectly derivative of something created by someone else”? because I can assure you it’s not artists

okay I’m going to mute this post, I’ll just say,

if your gut reaction to this is that you think this is a pro-ai post, that you think “not theft” means “not bad”, I want you to think very carefully about what exactly “theft” is to you and what it is about ai that you consider “stealing”.

do you also consider other derivative works to be “stealing”? (fanfiction, youtube poops, gifsets) if not, why not? what’s the difference? because if the difference is actually just “well it’s fine when a person does it” then you really should try to find a better way to articulate the problems you have with ai than just saying it’s “stealing from artists”.

I dislike ai too, I’m probably on your side. I just want people to stop shooting themselves in the foot by making anti-ai arguments that have broader anti-art implications. I believe in you. you can come up with a better argument than just calling it “theft”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

AI images try to replicate the style of popular artists by using their work, often including work that was behind a paywall and taken without payment, thus denying the artists revenue. AI has taken something from the artist, and cost the artist money. Until such a time as we come up with a new word for this new crime, we'll call it by the closest equivalent: theft.

I'd argue it's much closer to piracy or freebooting. Generally, its use doesn't hurt artists, seeing as a random user isn't going to spend hundreds or thousands to hire a talented artist to create shitposts for them. Doesn't necessary make it okay, but it also doesn't directly hurt anyone. In cases of significant commercial use, or copyright infringement, I'd argue its closer to freebooting: copying another's work, and using it for revenue without technically directly damaging the original. Both of these are crimes, but both are more directly comparable and less severe than actual theft, seeing as the artist loses nothing.

Also, someone did an experiment and typed "movie screenshot" into an AI and it came back with a nearly identical image from Endgame. Not transformative enough to be anything but copyright infringement.

Copyrighted material is fed into an AI as part of how it works. This doesn't mean than anything that comes out of it is or is not copyrighted. Copyrighted matterial is also used in Photoshop, for example, but as long as you don't use Photoshop to infringe on somsone else's copyright, there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with Photoshop's output.

Now, if your compaint is that much of the training data is pirated or infringes on the licensing its released under, thats another matter. Endgame isn't a great example, given that it can likely be bought with standard copyright limitations, and ignoring that, its entirely possible Disney has been paid for their data. We do know huge amounts of smaller artists have had their work pirated to train AI, though, and because of the broken nature of our copyright system, they have no recourse - not through the fault of AI, but corrupt, protectionist governments.

All that said, theres still plenty of reasons to hate AI (and esspecially AI companies) but I don't think the derivative nature of the work is the primary issue. Not when they're burning down the planet, flooding our media with propaganda, and bribing goverments, just to create derivative, acceptable-at-best """art""". Saying AI is the problem is an oversimplification - we can't just ban AI to solve this. Instead, we need to address the problematic nature of our copyright laws, legal system, and governments.

[-] Susaga@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago

No, it is theft. They use an artist's work to make an image they would otherwise pay the artist to make (a worse version, but still). And given how I've seen an image with a deformed patreon logo in the corner, they didn't pay what they should have for the images. They stole a commission.

And it is copyright violation. There have been successful lawsuits over much less than a direct image of RDJ in the iron man suit with the infinity stones on his hand. And if they won't pay an artist's rates, there's no way they'd pay whatever Disney would charge them

Yes, there's a lot of problems with AI. And yes, AI is a part of larger issues. That doesn't mean theft isn't also an issue with AI.

AI is a nazi-built, kitten blood-powered puppy kicking machine built from stolen ambulance parts. Even if stealing those ambulance parts is a lesser sin than killing those kittens, it's still a problem that needs to be fixed. Of course, AI will never be good, so we need to get rid of the whole damn thing.

[-] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

No, it is theft. They use an artist's work to make an image they would otherwise pay the artist to make (a worse version, but still). And given how I've seen an image with a deformed patreon logo in the corner, they didn't pay what they should have for the images. They stole a commission.

But were they (the AI users) going to pay for the content? I have never paid for a Patreon, given that I don't really have any disposable income. Why would I start, just because AI exists? Just because a sale may be made in some contexts, doesn't mean it has been made.

And it is copyright violation. There have been successful lawsuits over much less than a direct image of RDJ in the iron man suit with the infinity stones on his hand.

Its a copyright violation when material is made that violates existing copyright. It isn't copyright infringement to take data from media, or to create derivative works.

And if they won't pay an artist's rates, there's no way they'd pay whatever Disney would charge them

Disney has lawers. Small artists don't.

AI is a nazi-built, kitten blood-powered puppy kicking machine built from stolen ambulance parts. Even if stealing those ambulance parts is a lesser sin than killing those kittens, it's still a problem that needs to be fixed. Of course, AI will never be good, so we need to get rid of the whole damn thing.

Banning AI doesn't stop the Nazis from running the government or influencing the populus, it doesn't stop them burning the planet, it doesn't stop them from pirating work and otherwise exploiting artists. Hell, politicians have been doing all of these things without repercussions for a century. If you want the rich and powerful to stop pirating and freebooting artist's work, maybe the first step is to ban that (or rather, enforce it) rather than a technology two steps removed?

this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
107 points (86.4% liked)

Curated Tumblr

5048 readers
353 users here now

For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.

The best transcribed post each week will be pinned and receive a random bitmap of a trophy superimposed with the author's username and a personalized message. Here are some OCR tools to assist you in your endeavors:

Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS