Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

There are no standards. It's just empty talk.

The mass boycott of AI by Artstation users at the end of last year attracted widespread attention both inside and outside the circle. It is not difficult to see that the rapid development of AI painting in the past year has led to a rapid change in the attitude of most painters towards this technology.

Today, the artists' anger at AI has not subsided with leaving Station A, and it may even be just the beginning. The two major AI painting brands Stability AI and Midjourney, which were very eye-catching last year, have become the target of criticism.

Recently, led by three well-known painters in the industry, some painters filed a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney and artist platform DeviantArt in California. The lawyer they commissioned, Matthew Butterick, was in charge of the GitHub Copilot class action lawsuit in November, which accused GitHub Copilot of infringing the copyright of many GitHub programmers.

The allegation alleges that the above AI tools are trained using the LAION-5B dataset, which contains hundreds of millions of copies of copyrighted images, and that these so-called open source content are actually without the consent of the original author, let alone compensation to the original author.

In the painter's lawsuit, we can see that these painting AI have used their own achievements to develop their own paid applications, such as DreamStudio launched by Stability AI. This is even more unacceptable for the original authors who have already been hit.

Currently, according to the law firm's lawsuit, these AI tools infringe the painter's copyright, violate the Digital Millennium Act and platform services contracts, and violate California's anti-unfair competition law.

It sounds like the painter's side is reasonable, but many people are not optimistic about the outcome of their lawsuit. Matthew Butterick, a lawyer entrusted to the case, once expressed his views on the irrationality involved in AI painting in his blog. After the news of the class action attracted attention, some users who supported AI painting turned out the blog and conducted a "trial" on the article, and some even refuted and corrected the concept of the article word for word.

For example, Matthew Butterick claims that the AI tool is a "21st-century collage tool that violates the rights of artists," when in fact this is just an emotional statement from a more accurate point of view. It has also been pointed out that sufficient evidence is needed to prove that an artist's work has been plagiarized and spliced, and that in the case of AI paintings, even if comparative measurements can be made, it may be difficult to meet a standard that is taken seriously by law.

What's more, some people think that painters will only "hit hard" on some smaller AI tools, but dare not face large Internet companies such as Google and Microsoft, which may also involve infringement of AI models.

But no matter which side is right, such a case can be said to be inevitable, and a clearer line may need to be found between the painter and AI painting after all.

This article is from the official account of Wechat: game Research Society (ID:yysaag), author: platinia

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.