Not the OP, but if general copyright lasted for 20 years and you had to pay (even a small) fee for prolonging it after that period, the public domain would expand massively and abandonware + orphaned works would stop being a thing.
And the very few lucrative works would still be protected, because their copyright holders would pay the fee.
The tragedy of current copyright is that there is an enormous mass of copyrighted works that is a) commercially useless or nearly useless, but b) still copyrighted, so other people cannot build on them.
First, it may not even be a thing in some countries.
Second, I can't upload the bee movie on Youtube for free and claim fair use. One key consideration in fair use is whether your use of the copyright work competes with the author. It's why you can take a screenshot of a GUI (which is copyrightable) without worries since nobody is going to be like "I don't need to purchase Affinity Photo because I found a screenshot on the Internet for free." In the case of AI, several whole classes of artists are vehemently and justifiably complaining that it will take their jobs.
It would be like saying photobashing is fair use, or collages are fair use.
That doesn't sound right to me? If I use an AI trained in a way that is illegal in my country, the fact it was trained elsewhere shouldn't mean anything. If it meant, that is just an easy way to skirt the law.
Exactly. Imagine a law become hostile to openAI and they decide to relocate to offshore legal paradise, still selling they services in the rest of the world because "they respect the law in their country".
We ban, embargos and tax countries for political reasons. Human right violation , copyright disregard or tax evasion ? Free business should be tall free !
Honestly, it's because Tumblr is too good for Twitter users.
In my brief experience with Twitter, it felt suffocating. Every recommended tweet didn't see me as a person to share thoughts with but as some sort of prey, like they only wanted me for my attention, formulating tweets with open-ended questions and clickbait to bait me into engaging with them.
On Tumblr, it's just people's blogs. I follow a guy who takes photos of birds. No sweating. No engagement metrics. Just cool birds. Check it out https://www.tumblr.com/doingitfortheexposure
It's relaxing.
I don't think Twitter users would get used to the peace of mind that Tumblr can offer them.
In fact when I checked Bluesky, some new Brazilian users were talking about how there was no "trending topics" section in Bluesky. A part of Twitter's interface that I personally tried very hard to avoid looking at.
Bluesky could implement it in their moderation service, but that does not mean users in Brazil would be impacted by it.
Users could swap moderation service or swap interfaces
The one thing that could happen is the PDS deleting the record for everyone, everywhere
One thing to separate is Bluesky from ATProto. Bluesky is the default implementation of the 4 core pieces, but one could use alternatives for all of them as well and still have their content show up in the bsky app. Imagine if Twitter was open source and federated
If the govt bans a specific app, the people will just use another for accessing the same information.
It's not really tools for circumvention. The Bluesky app is more like Chrome for the ATProto network, the best implementation of a viewer, open source and leading edge. The moderation is less federated, more about user choice, as each labeller is centralized, but there are many of them.
If you ever wonder why everything made with Stable Diffusion looks the same, it's because it can't generate images that are too dark or too bright. The denoising process involves recognizing shapes and shapes naturally have bright spots and dark spots. If you try to render "sea at night" you'll get some huge, bright moon for example.
The "AI artists" using this tool lack the technical and artistic competency to realize this. They didn't write the algorithm, draw the dataset, or train the model. They prompted. They have the smallest amount of creative input into this whole pipeline.
I do believe AI can be used in the process to create art as it's just an image generator like fractal art, but the problem is most people are going to use AI not as a means to create art, but as an end. You could fix the problem above by simply importing the image into GIMP and changing the brightness, but nobody does that because they aren't interesting into creating an art piece with a set goal in mind, they're just being entertained by generating dozens or hundreds of images with this technology.
Amusingly, you could also just type text in GIMP. Instead there is now something called "flux" that can do text literals.
While I see the point in making a prompt interpreter capable of generating text literally, if I were creating something, I wouldn't let an AI randomly pick a font, color, weight, serifs/slabs, etc. for me. These are creative choices in design that make all the difference. Prompting gives the illusion of (creative) choice. You get something that looks good, but "getting something that looks good" is the default state. Anyone can do that. It's the AI art equivalent of drawing a stickman. The prompters just don't realize it because they're comparing themselves to to artists of other media, not comparing themselves to other AI artists.
When everything is AI, and anyone can generate an image with a prompt, the whole market will be so saturated with this (perhaps it already is at the rate these are generated) that all the novelty will be gone.
It was cool when AI was able to generate video, just like it was able to generate text. But in my opinion, those are feats of the technology, not artistic feats. The piece itself isn't interesting. It could be any video. Just the fact that the tech can do this is impressive. But it's just the tech that is impressive, not its output. Once the tech can do it once, it can do it every time, so the second time AI generates video is never going to be as impressive as the first time. By the thousandth time it will be as impressive as my ability to send this message to the other side of the world at the speed of light.
> If you ever wonder why everything made with Stable Diffusion looks the same
Everything you know is made with Stable Diffusion looks the same because if it doesn't look the same you probably don't know it was made with Stable Diffusion.
> The "AI artists" using this tool lack the technical and artistic competency to realize this.
No, they don't. It's been a frequent comment in the AI art community and a thing for which the community has sought and produced both in-generation and auxiliary-tooling solutions for from very early on.
> They didn't write the algorithm, draw the dataset, or train the model.
Perhaps not for the base model, people int he AI art community have done all three of those for improvements to and tools built around the base models and the original code implementation of them.
> I do believe AI can be used in the process to create art as it's just an image generator like fractal art, but the problem is most people are going to use AI not as a means to create art, but as an end.
Most of the people who are using any tool that can be used artistically are going to use it at the most superficial level. Is that true of AI image generators? Sure. But no moreso than it is true of, say, pencils.
> You could fix the problem above by simply importing the image into GIMP and changing the brightness, but nobody does that because they aren't interesting into creating an art piece with a set goal in mind, they're just being entertained by generating dozens or hundreds of images with this technology.
People are using AI image generation with a set goal in mind, and people absolurely do import generated images into to traditional image editors for adjustments. Though a lot of the people that really know what they are doing have that built into their workflows, reducing the need to do manual spot correction in a separate editor.
> Amusingly, you could also just type text in GIMP. Instead there is now something called "flux" that can do text literals.
Image generation models have been able to do text to a certain extent for a while, and improvements in text generation have been a major trumpeted feature of many recent model releases. Flux isn't interesting because "it can do text literals", it is interesting because the community has discovered that it can be finetuned (specifically, that LoRA can be trained for it) that will allow control of text style, similar to fonts.
I wasn't aware that GIMP could comform typed text to the implicit 3d shape of the surfaces it is being placed on in a 2D image, though.
> When everything is AI, and anyone can generate an image with a prompt, the whole market will be so saturated with this (perhaps it already is at the rate these are generated) that all the novelty will be gone.
Probably. So what? Novelty isn't the point in every image people produce. Lowering the cost and effort to produce basically "looks good" images for lots of casual uses isn't, itself, an advance in fine art, sure. But it is, in itself, useful.
>Lowering the cost and effort to produce basically "looks good" images for lots of casual uses isn't, itself, an advance in fine art, sure. But it is, in itself, useful.
What you misunderstand is what "looks good" means. Before AI, art that looked good was valuable and impressive precisely because few artists could produce it. It was amazing (and it still is) that a human being can reproduce realistic or surrealistic imagery with just pencil and paint.
If anyone can do it with one click, there is no value.
Like I said before, you're using AI art and comparing it to other media, like pencil and paint. That's like comparing photography to pencil and paint. Just because photography is more "realistic" that doesn't mean people will value a photo more than an artist's realistic rendering of the same thing.
When AI just looks good, that is actually the most worthless possible thing, as valuable as a sketch of a stickman.
> What you misunderstand is what "looks good" means.
No, I don't.
> Before AI, art that looked good was valuable and impressive precisely because few artists could produce it.
I didn't say anything about valuable and impressive, I said "useful". For an analogy, clip art isn't particularly valuable or impressive, but its useful for lots of things. Yes, exchange value is dependent on scarcity, utility is not.
Flickr is one of the better websites for this. I've seen a few websites with CC work where uploaders barely had any profile information. A simple "I take all the photos I upload and I know what CC means" would suffice. Ironically, the one that felt the "safest" was someone who linked to their Instagram where they posted photos. Instagram doesn't provide CC info, so this person went through the effort of creating an account in a different website just to reupload their photos that are CC.
I was making some photo editing tutorials and I ran into a similar problem. I needed a photo of a person. Turns out photos of people have their own additional set of legal problems (right to one's own image). This made me very worried because surely all these photographers who are marking their photos as CC have the consent of the models, right? Otherwise nobody would be able to use the CC photos. What would be the point of a photo being CC if it was illegal to copy it anyway? I think some website had a license that said I couldn't portray the person in the photo in bad light, or something of sort, which was particularly problematic for me since I was looking for a photo of someone sufficiently ugly to make a tutorial about skin retouching.
There are people who do deliberately publish images of themselves under a permissive licence. Sometimes seen with photos for specific topics on Wikipedia (published on Wikimedia Commons). I can only guess at their motivations, but there seem to be a good deal of exhibitionists and copyleft idealists in that group.
If a photo is used on Wikipedia with the licence you need, there is a solid chance the vetting process was done thoroughly enough. For photos of a person this would the first place to look for me.
The other day I noticed that the only platform where illustrators post that supports CC is DeviantArt, and it doesn't have a way to search for CC work since its redesign years ago. There doesn't seem to be anything like Flickr but for cartoons, clipart, and illustrations. There are free clipart websites, but those are mainly third-party. This means illustrators on Instagram, Twitter, or Tumblr who choose to license their work as CC have no machine-discoverable way to do so. This is a very unfortunate turn of events. It's very easy to find CC photography and music made by someone on the Internet, but it seems almost impossible to find a drawing licensed the same way.
When I see an article with an ugly AI-generated cartoon at the top, I can't help but think we could have articles with cool random artwork by real people instead if it was as easy to find freely licensed artwork by living artists as it is to just generate something with AI. It feels like there's a huge hole there that doesn't exist in photography (thanks to Flickr), doesn't exist in video (Youtube lets you tag your videos as CC), doesn't exist in audio (many years ago Newgrounds created an entire audio section just for CC music that could be used in flash games/animation by other users), but somehow exists in illustration.
Even in OpenVerse, if I search for "illustration," most results will be historic. I realize that in most cases it doesn't make a difference, but I really wish I could have a URL to link to. I wish I could say "here's this picture, and here's a link to this guy's portfolio, who put this on the internet and let me use it."
Is there some method I'm not aware of or is this just how it is?
As far as I can tell, they don't have any way to programmatically browse their catalogue at all, meaning we couldn't easily include it in Openverse with our current capabilities. However, they don't disallow crawling or search indexing, so if we are eventually able to reimplement that capability (e.g., using CommonCrawl data, if DA is there), it might be possible to search for openly licensed works on DeviantArt in Openverse.
I do wonder why DeviantArt doesn't make this possible themselves though, and whether that's an intentional decision since their redesign. As a stop-gap, you can use "site:deviantart.com" on Google images and enable their CC license filter. As mentioned elsewhere, the lack of granularity in Google's license filter leaves much to be desired.
