Is Ai ART trained on STOLEN ART or is it FAIR USE?

If you like the content and want to support the channel, you're welcome to do so through Playeur, Subscribe Star, channel memberships or Patreon:

Check out Shad's other channels:

Tyranth's Channel:

Nathan's Channel:

Chainmail print hoodie:


Shad's novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:

Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
Barnes and Noble:
Kobo:



#Aiart # theft #fair use #debate #ai #aiartwork

[AngryChair]

I'm 2 min in and this video sounds like an AI voice model. The video is about AI copying things and he did it with an AI voice model, brilliant!

[XecularOfficial]

This doesn't really work once you actually read into the specific requirements for something to be allowed under fair use. The biggest flaw in arguments about being AI in fair use is that fair use requires that the copyright holders of the content used to create your work be fully credited. Since none of the major AI image generators provide even partial credit, they do not meet this requirement.

Additionally, US Supreme court rulings regularly emphasize that fair use does not cover works being used for commercial purposes. The US copyright office also does not recognize artwork created with generative AI as eligible for copyright protection.

It's apparent that fair use was designed to benefit manmade works, not the input or output of a machine learning model.

[travishancock]

As an artist, I think it is not about what is legal, it is about what is ethical. And I can see a strong argument that an artist, photographer, or videographer should be allowed to opt out of having their images in training AI, based not on fair use law, but on the spirit of the law. If the idea of copyright is to protect artists and writers and encourage them to keep working and developing their talent, then how AI is using their works is entirely against the spirit of the law, and thus makes it wrong on an ethical level.

[Beuwen_The_Dragon]

‘Ai art” is not Art, it’s an algorithm. I call it ‘Algorithm Generated Imagery”, or AGI for short.

It’s synthetic meat and veg grown in a sterile lab, processed and packeted by robots into a flavourless microwave meal for you to consume.

There was no ‘creation”
There was no ‘imagination”
There was no ‘effort”

You are Not an ‘artist” when you use an ai image generator anymore than you are a writer when you use a Computer script generator.

[Brain_Sync]

The premise is sound, but you didn't show any actual result that differs enough from the original artwork to prove your point.

Of course if an artwork is modified 75% from the original, it may fall under the fair-use category.
You need to show something that inequivocably confirms that concept by showing the final result of the AI training process. What you've shown so far is the exact same image 'cloned' by AI, that's not good enough as evidence of fair-use.


I would suggest you include at the end of this video an artwork that has been processed through AI to get fairly different results, to make the argument more convincincing.

[Showdonttell-hqdk]

As I wrote under another of your videos (Shadiversity channel), thank you for your dedication to this matter. By the way, you can completely avoid copyright infringement by using the AI models in such a way that you only use the different styles and not directly images or artist names in the prompts. Art styles are general educational knowledge and therefore a public good that anyone can use. I show how to do this with Stable Diffussion in ComfyUI in a video. Sorry to advertise it a bit here, but I really think it can be a useful contribution to this whole debate and therefore might be helpful.

[Nostripe]

I think ai art is fine for a toy or a tool for an artist to work. But I don’t like how some companies are trying to use this stuff to lay off workers or force them to work cheap

[TsDwelling]

We're really going in a scary direction where human beings are irrelevant. The scariest thing about it, is that we're doing it to ourselves. 😕

[marklucachev]

As an artist who primarily makes digital art, I only care when someone resells the exact same thing or claims credit. Copying for friends or sharing, remixing, etc... dont care at all. Call me a boomer but how is this topic any different than the debate back in the day about burning cds for friends? IMO if you buy something, you are free to do whatever you want with it as long as you dont claim to be the maker.

[pixelblaze]

the amount of confidence in your voice while describing the process of training a machine learning model like those used in image generators is astounding considering you are literally not saying a single correct thing lol. And I train models for a living. Like you don't even understand how RAM works (this is literally a form of storage btw) much less have you ever trained any model yet are claiming you can somehow train one without ever actually storing a single training image? So I'm sorry you are butthurt because you don't want to think its unethical but you really shouldn't try to explain something you have zero understanding of.

[thirion]

Thief continues to justify thieving.

If you don't do the work, you're a commissioner, not an author. In your case, we can abbreviate that down to "you're a joke".

[TheSteam]

Surely this comments section will be level-headed and productive. Surely we won't get a bunch of tortured artists and AI stans flinging sh!t at eachother.

[TheUltimateKahuna]

I understand the argument, but I still dislike AI art for commercial use. It feels wrong.

[MentalCrusader]

It still is morally/ethically wrong to take the (sometimes life) work of an artist to generate images in their style without asking them first. But morale and ethics is something that many people lack.

[TheEskrion]

Most people who edit pictures/graphics have been using AI for about a decade now. Every "wizard" or "intelligent" tool is considered an AI by the momentarily used terminology for this discussion. Every time you "automatically masked" something, it was AI, as was the automatic filling of the mask to fit it back into the picture. Noone ever has seen this level of AI for more than a tool until someone let it fill in a whole picture and suddenly it was art and controversial. For me, until said AI becomes sentient and can claim it's selfgenerated art, it will stay said tool. Saying "you can't copyright AI generated image material" is like deleting those tools from daily use and return to hourlong cutting and stamping, otherwise you'd hand over literal copyright swiss cheese. Just... no. Full image AI art needs to be completely separated from pinpoint AI usage, or this conversation will actually do more harm to artists, than help.

[ARDIZsq]

As an artist, my problem with art AI (AIs?) isn't how it's MADE, it's how it's USED.

I've gone back and forth over the past year or so on my opinions of AI, going from loving it to hating it, but ultimately it was actually the video Shad and Jazza did together that helped me to form my final opinion on it, which is, "it depends on how it's used."

For example, there was an example of someone who was livestreaming themselves drawing. They had their finished sketch and called it at day there and planning to return to it at a later point. Somebody then, within a day of that livestream happening, had uploaded that image to one of those Img-to-Img AI websites, got a finished version of the original sketch, and then posted it online claiming it as their own. That's something I take MAJOR issue with, since not only did they not put in any work, but they actively stole somebody else's work to pass it off as their own, plagiarism.

However, there is a slightly similar situation that I personally think is in a bit more of a gray area, but I think in general isn't bad. Shad's work. The example Shad used in the video I watched that changed my mind was him drawing his characters, using an AI to generate dozens of variations of said character, and then stitching them together and polishing them up to create a finalized product. I feel conflicted on this practice still admittedly, but one thing I cannot deny is that Shad actually did put in time and effort both initially AND after using the AI, which sadly can't be said for most AI users. I like to think of it as a sort of photobashing, which is something people do all the time and nobody has any issues with. It's like, AI Assisted Photobashing, I guess. While I feel a bit reserved about doing so myself, I do feel like, if it's your own work going into it initially, then who really cares. Go wild with it.

Of course, simply using AI to generate reference images is perfectly fine. I don't really think I need to go much further than that.


I find the whole discussion around AI really fascinating. People have to remember that it's a tool. A camera can be used to take pictures of some horrific things, but they can also be used to capture memories with your friends and family. A knife can be used to commit crimes, but it can also be used to prepare a nice meal. It's not about the tool itself, it's about how that tool was used. I do have to admit though, it's getting very tiresome going onto... "certain websites" and having every page be flooded with really same-y looking AI generated images if I'm not using a blacklist. Regardless of how anyone feels though, it isn't going to stop any time soon, and we just have to hope that people learn to adapt and use it for good.

[thentheric]

RAM is a form of data storage. SSD and pen-drives are practically a form of RAM with a permanent unit and a caching unit of memory. The CMOS stores your config in RAM constantly powered by a battery, providing you with a reliable system clock and low-level hardware settings retained.

[ANGELROB_YTC]

But there is a bit of a conflict here there is this arguement as well saying that you may not be committing a crime but the company generating the arts may be and it maybe because you are an individual but they are doing it on mass and on mass that are actually legal restrictions in the UK they can only do it for research so me as an individual is not committing an offence I can justify my actions legally because I'm an individual I'm not gathering on mass

[sonitrok]

I think people REALLY need to stop believing the lies of "the IA just mashes together art it has seen"
no it does not
it learns how a thing is made then does it on its own
it does not anyone's art
i swear to god it's always the same clown show everytime a new artistic tool is made

[clawofthefallen]

A bit of a big response, but indulge me for a bit
.
The thing is that what you described is just adding extra steps to copying something. It's not like another artist (good or bad) redrawing something that already exists and adding their "personal touch", it's not even a question of tracing. A person tracing an image is already pretty much fair use, just low-effort. The person does "own" the work it did on the copy, but not the original. The tracer can claim the traced image is of their own doing, but they can't claim to be the original author of whatever it is they traced, it's idea or concept. Same with tracers that simply do simple edits of artwork, it's still an edit, but what's given some credit, rich or poor, is the effort (hopefully it evolving into the tracer becoming a proper artist doing original work without the need of tracing).

However, there are many factors and questions that arise from each step that are not present in the process of software image generation and the more I learn about it the more questions arise as this is not as simple as most people think it is.
Another big problem when it comes to ethics in AI software is authorship. It has already been set by international law that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted or owned by "the prompter" due to the prompter (the only human element in the generation of whatever it's trying to claim) not being able to copyright a prompt. The prompt is the one input a proper human did while the software did pretty much everything else (what the human added to the AI generated content is another question). The machine doesn't have rights as it is not really an inteligence or entity and it is the only recognizable generator of whatever it does as elements of things it was trained to replicate as it relates to a word or tag. Should anybody own anything in the entire process is the software programmer or company that owns the code that make the software create what constitutes in an elaborate amalgam, but that also doesn't entitle the programmer or company with ownership of what it produces. Specially when such software was mde under shady circumstances. There are no "ethical" AI generators that are trained by images created by commissioned/hired artists. Every database that fuels these softwares has illegally scraped the open internet under the guise of creating something for educational purposes, USING fair-use to train and create a product that, after it was trained and workable, would be commercialized as it's technology is not free.


There are many things this video doesn't quite cover as the technology is extremely young yet considerably powerful even within it's limitations. It has both productive functions, but also harmful ones as it can be used to generate criminal material beyond simple "art theft". Sometimes it feels like the old "wild west era" of the internet because there are atrocious things being made using AI by scummy people of the worse ilk. Those "people" (if I can call them that) are my real concerns and not the normies messing around with a trendy thing as if it's a brand new instagram filter. Proper normies see it as a brand new toy they get bored with after a while and don't really care about how it's used or even grasp the possibilities. It's not like people are actually using it for it's alledged intended purpose. Personally I think it's most perfect use is to create mindless content and memes, but so far it has been mostly used as a weapon, as corny as that sounds due to the possibilities of scam that are made possible (at the tamest example).

I can't really cover it all there is to cover as this is already an essay of a comment. However, right now, the loudest discussions between pros and cons of the tech are between angry people afraid of being replaced who are worried about theft vs people who despise the concept of art and consider artists gatekeepers.

Besides people fumbling with it as a curiosity, it's use is frowned upon by general public and pros as low-effort, cutting corners, laziness and the like.