Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 07, 2023, 11:02

There is something I don't understand, why not green teeth? 

No kidding, I thought they were blue, I need a new monitor.

Bit of a waste of time creating AI images until they can export files larger enough to be accepted by a stock agency

Pretty much where I stand at this time. With better output to work with, maybe I'd take the time. Although there are some people who have done some pretty good work with the generated images. I have other interests. No AI Generated images of mine have ever had a download. Others may have better results. First I thought of, months ago were Easter Backgrounds. They had a chance to be seen and used, well in advance.

I'm not saying my work is great or special, just what the results are for some easy creations. St. Patrick's Day, nothing. Valentine's Day, nothing. Christmas, nothing. I make no claims, just the fact that of a sample and some of my work, time spent, not one download, anywhere.

Had to add, I used DALL-E2 for the images, upsized, edited, and made them acceptable for SS, AS, IS, DT, P5 and AL.

Here's to the US left wing.

ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have already been tied to sensitive data leaks and copyright violations and have prompted fears of automated disinformation and malware campaigns � and that�s in addition to basic concerns about accuracy and bias.
Now, the US government is trying to get a handle on things. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is asking for public comments on possible regulations to hold AI creators accountable. The measures will ideally help the Biden administration ensure these models work as promised "without causing harm,"

Next they will need to regulate and ban the internet for disinformation and bias. Your freedom is at risk.

An article from earlier this week about a different type of copyrighted work being used for AI training, but with many of the same concerns as we've seen for photos/illustrations/videos:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/04/streaming-services-urged-to-clamp-down-on-ai-generated-music/

"AI-generated songs have been popping up on streaming services, and UMG has been sending takedown requests �left and right,� said a person familiar with the matter. The company is asking streaming companies to cut off access to their music catalog for developers using it to train AI technology."

One big difference in the music business is that the individual artists are not on their own to pursue action or limit access - although music publishers and artists have certainly had all sorts of clashes over the years.

If you look at the paragraph about why Google hasn't yet released their music AI tool, it's clear (to me anyway) that it is entirely possible for AI generated results to be a "... direct replica of copyrighted work..." from the training data - from our works as much as musical works I would think.

A few more articles on the same topic

https://variety.com/2023/music/news/universal-music-streaming-services-block-ai-1235582612/
https://www.billboard.com/pro/universal-music-asks-spotify-apple-stop-ai-access-songs/
https://musically.com/2023/04/12/report-umg-wants-dsps-to-block-unlicensed-ai-training-scraping/
https://www.complex.com/music/universal-music-group-spotify-ai
https://gizmodo.com/ai-music-generator-umg-begs-spotify-apple-block-chatgpt-1850327300

I tried the free music and it just repeats a line, some up and down variations, pretty dull and lacks any life at all. Others may be better. But it could be background for a B movie of some sort, or... My Youtube Videos!

...But instead of removing his images, Laion has sued Robert for damages for wanting to have his files removed�

I used Google Translate to read Robert's very interesting article (so I'm hoping it's a good enough translation that what I read in English is accurate). I think the lawyer's claims that his client did nothing wrong are, IMO, weak at best. However, the lawyer is not suing Robert for damages.

The English translation says (emphasis mine) "We would also like to point out that our client can assert claims for damages in accordance with Section 97a (4) of the Copyright Act if unjustified copyright claims are made against her." So I think this is a thinly veiled threat designed to get rights holders to back off - they can assert those claims, but they haven't done so yet.

Regarding the basic approach of their defense, they are saying they only gathered links, not content, so there's nothing to remove and no harm done. "The content behind a link can only be accessed at the linked location and not elsewhere, so that in particular there is no duplication in the sense of copyright."

If you built an AI model using those links to access the publicly available images - on a stock agency web site or on any website displaying legitimately purchased or wholly owned images - I'd argue that use of the images facilitated by those links was outside the terms of any license granted by any stock agency. Isn't the role of the entity providing the super-convenient database of links analogous to handing over a set of keys to all the houses in a town so a third party can go look around, take pictures, maybe borrow a few things for a few hours?

The database of links is a useless waste of time unless it facilitates a third party's access (for AI dataset training purposes). This is a racketeering-type operation where the fact that there are lots of tiny pieces each of which looks harmless on the surface tries to disguise the overall purpose. Using copyrighted works to train AI without compensating rights holders.

I knew nothing about LAION and thought I'd search to see what I could find. According to Wikipedia, LAION is a non profit but "...its creation was funded by Doodlebot, Hugging Face and Stability AI, the AI company behind the funding of the Stable Diffusion text-to-image model, which was trained on it".

Here's LAION's own web site:

https://laion.ai/

From their projects list, they describe "LAION5B High-Res" as "A subset of the LAION5B database, with high resolution images oveer 1024x1024, containing 170 million samples." Is this really just links as the lawyers' letter claims?

https://laion.ai/projects/

That's not what this TechCrunch article says:

https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/12/a-startup-wants-to-democratize-the-tech-behind-dall-e-2-consequences-be-damned/

And LAION's own description contains the following: "We thank our sponsors hugging face, doodlebot and stability for providing us with computing resources to produce this dataset! We also thank the-eye.eu for hosting the image embeddings and a copy of the whole dataset". You don't have to host "image embeddings" if all you have are links to other sites on the web.

https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/

An article from April 7th in The Byte says that Stable Diffusion has serious financial difficulties. Whether or not that will have an impact on LAION I have no idea.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/stable-diffusion-stability-ai-risk-going-under

Here are links to the other sponsors/founders:

https://huggingface.co/
https://doodlebot.ai/
https://stability.ai/

The proof is often with ai �creations� that actually have an agency watermark and badly disfigured images.

Getty is using those examples when they sue the ai agencies that didn�t license their content.

The charity exists, but outside of that guy's tweet, I can't find any instance of that ad he showed.

https://www.charityright.org.uk/blog/posts

Is it possible that he's just made the ad himself as a talking point?

On their web site they have a 2019 annual report on their various campaigns, and it appears all the photos are from their projects - i.e. using real people. It's hard to believe that anyone in an organization like this would want to leave themselves open to the suggestion that they were "faking" hungry children to try and raise money.

https://www.charityright.org.uk/uploads/1614784828.pdf

Edited to add that I did a bit more searching, but still can't find more than some reddit threads about AI images in Charity Right ads

https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/12qhjnu/saw_this_charity_advert_yesterday_im_not_crazy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/12mijbw/am_i_tripping_or_did_this_charity_use_ai/
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/12r38gp/this_charity_add_thats_ai_generated/

There's still no source for these ads - just images hosted on reddit (and no metadata in the images themselves, at least the two I checked).

There was a Toronto Star article about the topic - but nothing to do with Charity Right - where a charity claimed their 2022 Christmas campaign with AI ads had solved the problem of poverty porn

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/12/31/this-image-is-raising-money-for-a-toronto-charity-the-only-problem-its-not-real.html

And a somewhat tongue-in-cheek take on the same subject

https://raw.london/ai-creative-charity/

In this corner... Music!

Universal Music Group � with whom Drake signed a reported $400 million deal last October � has urged Spotify and Apple Music to block AI-generated music, as The Financial Times reported.

By contrast, Grimes has demonstrated openness to the technology, writing in a follow-up tweet: "I think it's cool to be fused w a machine and I like the idea of open sourcing all art and killing copyright."

Consider there are some people who are against all and any copyrights, they want everything to be free for all. I forgot about that segment.

Google has a new music ai.

Bring on the armchair. music composers..

https://www.freethink.com/robots-ai/ai-music-generator?fbclid=IwAR0P9IW3-GGcB9zgulbn-cZ-3d0SPPlFO3qyxh3CNPxCRYU-HAltRw63JLY

Well, she has the right to do whatever she wants with her own voice.

Obviously she doesn�t need the money.

It will be interesting to see once this is possible for video. I am sure there will be many famous actors that make ai deals to secure a perpetual licensing income for their families for as long as copyright lasts.

Plus you could bring deceased actors or even dead musicians back from the dead.

It won�t be the same as experiencing them live, but it will become part of the toolbox of movie directors.

At the moment they choose similar looking/behaving younger actors.

ai could allow experienced actors to not be limited by their age, if their faces and bodies can be reliably rejuvenated with ai.

It is very scary but also very interesting.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 24, 2023, 12:34

In this corner... Music!

Universal Music Group � with whom Drake signed a reported $400 million deal last October � has urged Spotify and Apple Music to block AI-generated music, as The Financial Times reported.

By contrast, Grimes has demonstrated openness to the technology, writing in a follow-up tweet: "I think it's cool to be fused w a machine and I like the idea of open sourcing all art and killing copyright."

Consider there are some people who are against all and any copyrights, they want everything to be free for all. I forgot about that segment.

It's of course easy for an artist who owns millions (and is/was married and has children with the richest man in the world) to say that with absolutely no regards and no understanding of artists who actually depend on an income from their art to pay their bills.
Completely out of touch with reality.

Yup, but the point was, there are people, no rich, or established or powerful, who want to end all copyrights. Just because I write about something, doesn't mean I support the idea.

Copyright and patents are widely rejected among anarchists, communists, socialists, free market libertarians, crypto-anarchists, info-anarchists, and the former Situationist International.

Wow that's a bunch of people? (who I disagree with)

What attraction is there to devise, create or invent anything, if everyone in the world, has it free, after the work is done.

Google has a new music ai.

Bring on the armchair. music composers..

https://www.freethink.com/robots-ai/ai-music-generator?fbclid=IwAR0P9IW3-GGcB9zgulbn-cZ-3d0SPPlFO3qyxh3CNPxCRYU-HAltRw63JLY

So far what I've experienced from music AI is worse than the worst we have seen from the three arm, fused finger, twisted face, green teeth AI inventions.

US Supreme Court:  https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/us-supreme-court-rejects-computer-scientists-lawsuit-over-ai-generated-inventions/ar-AA1ahEM9

WASHINGTON(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge by computer scientist Stephen Thaler to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's refusal to issue patents for inventions his artificial intelligence system created.

at the end,

Thaler has also challenged the U.S. Copyright Office's decision to deny copyright protection for art his AI created.

I suspect if he applies for the patent himself, as a human, it would be approved.

Article in English about Roberts court case

https://www.diyphotography.net/ai-used-photographers-photos-for-training-then-slapped-him-with-an-invoice/?fbclid=IwAR0KLn-h3XCdTqUEPtdsEZkGaAC4eMp4Nl2xzBT4fOIXaTuqrgQyiYRnvoI

Interesting, and their argument is: "our client is entitled to claims for damages in accordance with Section 97a (4) UrhG in the event of an unjustified claim." And elsewhere it is reported as: "A German stock photographer tried to get his photos removed from the AI-training LAION dataset. Lawyers replied that he owes $979 for making an unjustified copyright claim."

"�However, since our client does not save any of the photographs you have complained about, you have no right to deletion. Our client simply does not have any pictures that could be deleted.�"

Go Robert!

"�AI is already widely and commonly used and I have no expectations that my case will change that. However, I have hope that we can take part in shaping the legal framework for this new technology to not only cover the AI usage, but also the AI training in respect of the many artists that have their works used without their knowledge and/or permission. I hope that it will become common grounds that artists will get a cut if their data is used in AI training to compensate for lost income due to advancing AI technology,� he told Motherboard. "

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkapb7/a-photographer-tried-to-get-his-photos-removed-from-an-ai-dataset-he-got-an-invoice-instead?ref=upstract.com