The guy who used Midjourney to create an award-winning piece of AI art demands copyright protections.
Excuse me while I go grab my popcorn.
First off, stop calling him an AI artist.
The term is apparently prompt-fondler now.
Calling someone a prompt “engineer” should be punishable by law.
meanwhile startups: prompt coder/wizard!
please call them rockstars i want to see them suffer the way real programmers did
It’s literally what they are !
Fun Fact: PE is actually a legally protected title (the P in a real engineer’s title stands for professional)
Yeah, he is neither is those words. I wouldn’t even say the ‘I’ applies.
But…
The AI is the artist!
Not sure what this other guy is doing though.
You can make art using AI. I’ve seen artists use it to clean up line art, color, shade, fill in backgrounds, and more. AI is just a tool. Lots of people only use text prompts, which I agree is hardly controlling, but that is only a single way to interact with AI. You can do a lot with these models.
All this is true, but none of it is relevant to a guy who’s demanding copyright protections and royalties for something Midjourney spat out.
I agree, but I wasn’t sure if this comment was generally anti-AI or understanding of the nuance. For the record, AI scares me.
I’m in the same boat. Every time someone reads one of my comments and doesn’t pay me for it, that’s money out of my pocket. It’s a hard life being an internet commenter these days.
Removed by mod
Please accept this drawing of a spider: *
Removed by mod
You owe them based on word count, line count, and character count.
You laugh but I seriously think people should be getting a cut if they are building a non-open LLM by commenting.
Member how people defended free price of gmail? I member.
One of the reasons I like AI art is that it’s pretty settled law that something produced by purely “mechanical” means can’t itself have copyright, since copyright requires both originality and a human author.
It seems like a reasonably compromise, the AI was created by hoovering up the commons, so anything it creates should belong to the commons. I expect a lot of lobbying in the future to try and change it though.
And if AI work would be copyrighted by the “prompt artist” then all the artists whose work is in the training set can sue the prompter for profiting of their work without licensing fees. It would be a legal clusterfuck so it was pretty wise to side step the whole issue.
AI art might not be real, but Sonic giving birth to Borat is an extremely cool concept that people should be celebrated for drawing
Dude, you can’t end it in such a rad way and expect us to despise the prompt input guy.
Oh no, the consequences of your own actions! That art competition should just add a rule “only copyrightable works”
Apparently, the competition was a year before that ruling.
And he’s still crying about it?
This is actually the art bit, right? He’s doing conceptual art, like that Banksy that shredded itself upon sale.
The “artist”:
“Famous AI ‘Prompter’ Says He’s Losing Millions of Dollars From People Stealing His Stolen Work.”
Seems like you did this to yourself, bud. You’re just mad you didn’t get paid enough for stealing.
“Famous” is accurate, but change to “Infamous” and it’s perfect.
He sure to become “infamous” now.
I’m not even sure I’d consider him a guapo, much less El Guapo
deleted by creator
Prompt maker upper
deleted by creator
If he is considered “Artist” I am too.
How is he losing millions of dollars? If you’re just trying to get into the art fraud money laundering scheme thing then make an NFT and find an idiot. But just the creation of a piece (be it traditional, digital, or “ai”) doesn’t entitle you to a payout. And if you’re just complaining about the dissemination of the piece you asked someone else’s computer to generate for you without a kick back link tax, well–that’s not how copyright, the internet, or normal human correspondence works.
Ah, good ol’ music industry math. “1,000 people downloaded a picture that I created, and I wanted to charge $1,000 a piece, so I lost $1,000,000.” In reality of course charging $0.02 would’ve stopped most sales.
Yeah, articles are including the image because they can. If a judge had instead ruled that AI generated works were copyrightable (and to the prompter, not the designer of the tool, owner of the hardware, or even the tool itself) the end result would be that very few orgs would include his piece instead just opting for generating their own (now copyrightable) image to use as an example. He’d still get nothing, but then significantly fewer people would see his “work.”
I’m collecting all his tears to cook a big pot of pasta. Not sure how anyone would make “millions of dollars” from a single artwork anyway.
its probably fictionally calculated like sales are to piracy. just because someone pirated a game/software doesnt mean they would have bought said thing at asking price had the piracy option not existed.
Money laundering.
This is the schadenfreude I needed to get through my day
Be an 1880 impressionnist, paint an artwork, die.
Now it’s worth a million, possibly.
[Nelson Laugh]
Lol, lmao even
How much did the real artists lose out on in order to train the AI?
