ChatGPT's viral Studio Ghibli-style images highlight AI copyright concerns
ChatGPT's viral Studio Ghibli-style images highlight AI copyright concerns
apnews.com
ChatGPT's viral Studio Ghibli-style images highlight AI copyright concerns
36 comments
-
-
I'm not sure pissing off Miyazaki is a great move. He's an old Japanese man who is famously so bitter that when he chain smokes he gives the cigarettes cancer, communicates largely in contemplative one-liners, and is known to own precisely one sword. And he has a beard. We've all seen this movie; we know how that kind of thing ends.
-
Had a beard. He clean shaved a couple weeks ago.
-
He did what?
Nature really is out of balance lately.
-
Uh-oh. If I was Altman, I would start running right now.
-
-
-
-
It’s so good at it. To the point where I assume they must have fed the model the bulk of whole movies.
-
High chance of the movies being pirated too
-
-
-
I mean for this is AI Art made, for shitposts. But yeah... how would AI know about ghibli style without "ripping" of images from the internet.
-
I don’t follow ai development too much, so when I first saw these images didn’t know they were AI.
But to me something about these felt soulless, compared to snaps of ghibli movies.
Now knowing it’s AI explained it some more.
-
I bet the reason you feel that way cause you know it's not ghibli who made it. The other part is, it's a meme. Though seeing this art style everywhere makes it loose it's charm and novelty. Instead of thinking all those movies they made. You get to think about 2 girls and 1 cup ghibli movie poster. That's bad for business especially for ghibli. It's the same thing that happen with Pixar art style.
-
-
Another article the same but with the images its talking about:
-
I don't see how this changes anything. Style isn't copyrightable, so if anything it seems the least concern.
Characters or specific scenes, those are the really juicy bits
Edit: And of course still the general question of ingesting copyrighted inputs without license for other than private use
36 comments
Style cannot be copyrighted.
And if somehow copyright laws were changed so that it could be copyrighted it would be a creative apocalypse.
This is already a copyright apocalypse though isn’t it? If there is nothing wrong with this then where is the line? Is it okay for Disney to make a movie using an AI trained on some poor sap on Deviant Art’s work? This feels like copyright laundering. I fail to see how we aren’t just handing the keys of human creativity to only those with the ability to afford a server farm and teams of lawyers.
I would agree the cats out of the bag, so there may not be anything that can be done. The keys aren't going to those who can afford a server farm, the door is wide open for anyone with a computer.
The interesting follow up to this is what Disney does to a model trained on their films. Sure lawyers, but how much will they actually be able to do?
Not style. But they had to train that AI on ghibli stuff. So... Did they have the right to do that?
Training doesn't involve copying anything, so I don't see why they wouldn't. You need to copy something to violate copyright.
It depends on where they did it, but probably yes. They had the right to do it in Japan, for example.
That and AI companies not giving a fuck about copyright. I don't understand those articles.
I think you’re right about style. As a software developer myself, I keep thinking back to early commercial / business software terms that listed all of the exhaustive ways you could not add their work to any “information retrieval system.” And I think, ultimately, computers cannot process style. They can process something, and style feels like the closest thing our brains can come up with.
This feels trite at first, but computers process data. They don’t have a sense of style. They don’t have independent thought, even if you call it a “
<think>
tag”. Any work product created by a computer from copyrighted information is a derivative work, in the same way a machine-translated version of a popular fiction book is.This act of mass corporate disobedience, putting distillate made from our collective human works behind a paywall needs to be punished.
. . .
But it won’t be. That bugs me to no end.
(I feel like my tone became a bit odd, so if it felt like the I was yelling at the poster I replied to, I apologize. The topic bugs me, but what you said is true and you’re also correct.)
I think it will be punished, but not how we hope. The laws will end up rewarding the big data holders (Getty, record labels, publishers) while locking out open source tools. The paywalls will stay and grow. It'll just formalize a monopoly.
Music would be gone forever lol
Yes, but I would have to buy the blu-rays as an artist, if I wanted to study them, meanwhile these corporations can get away with paying nothing.