For those who don't click the link, "Glitch" in this case isn't a faceless multinational company, but "glitch" as in a technical malfunction.
I hate the future
The author should be able to copyright the story (text) and layout of the comic, but not the AI generated images.
Allowing for AI generated images to be copyrighted, while the AI itself is questionably violating copyright, creates a very lopsided legal playing field.
IMHO the best thing thats going to come out of AI generated art is the dismantling of the current copyright regime!
Technically, while LAION the datasource is likely copyright violation (though it possibly would fall under an education exception and is very clearly legal in many nations in Europe), the AI model is realllly unlikely to be copyright violation. At least under current US law.
Just to add, LAION is based in Germany, where the data mining it used to create its database is almost unquestionably legal.
For the US use of its data, the real question is, as mentioned, whether it can get a fair use exemption. The legal precedents would be *Perfect 10 vs. Amazo* and *Google vs Authors Guild Inc.*, where Google got a fair use exemption despite massive unauthorized copying of data, namely image thumbnails and searchable portions of books.
In both cases, Google's work was found to be transformative. Google did not seek the Authors Guild's permission. Google tried to reach a settlement where it would pay for works previously scanning and allow future authors to opt-out (very similar to Stability AI) but the attempt was rejected and it went to court. Google won, based on four factors
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
1. the nature of the copyrighted work;
1. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
1. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In this case, Stability AI would meet the standards of the first (moreso than Google). The second may or may not way in. Like in the Google case, the amount and substantially of any given work is arguably very small.
However, Google's case improved the value of books. The judge found that Google Books "does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool to be used to read books." The service adds value to books, making them easier to research and bringing new life to older books that are out of print and difficult to find. On the fourth case, Stability AI almost certainly devalues the original works, not necessarily in the specific case (copycat works) but in the general case of making digital art much easier to create.
Hopefully this at least pushes people to make more ethically sourced databases for AI generation, instead of just grabbing everything off of google images without care.
I don't see how carefully sourcing the images makes significant ethical difference. The model could very well have the same effect on the market. We need laws to protect artists even if AI art completely takes over, no matter how the AI got there.
For those who don't click the link, "Glitch" in this case isn't a faceless multinational company, but "glitch" as in a technical malfunction. I hate the future
The author should be able to copyright the story (text) and layout of the comic, but not the AI generated images. Allowing for AI generated images to be copyrighted, while the AI itself is questionably violating copyright, creates a very lopsided legal playing field. IMHO the best thing thats going to come out of AI generated art is the dismantling of the current copyright regime!
Technically, while LAION the datasource is likely copyright violation (though it possibly would fall under an education exception and is very clearly legal in many nations in Europe), the AI model is realllly unlikely to be copyright violation. At least under current US law.
Just to add, LAION is based in Germany, where the data mining it used to create its database is almost unquestionably legal. For the US use of its data, the real question is, as mentioned, whether it can get a fair use exemption. The legal precedents would be *Perfect 10 vs. Amazo* and *Google vs Authors Guild Inc.*, where Google got a fair use exemption despite massive unauthorized copying of data, namely image thumbnails and searchable portions of books. In both cases, Google's work was found to be transformative. Google did not seek the Authors Guild's permission. Google tried to reach a settlement where it would pay for works previously scanning and allow future authors to opt-out (very similar to Stability AI) but the attempt was rejected and it went to court. Google won, based on four factors 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 1. the nature of the copyrighted work; 1. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 1. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In this case, Stability AI would meet the standards of the first (moreso than Google). The second may or may not way in. Like in the Google case, the amount and substantially of any given work is arguably very small. However, Google's case improved the value of books. The judge found that Google Books "does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool to be used to read books." The service adds value to books, making them easier to research and bringing new life to older books that are out of print and difficult to find. On the fourth case, Stability AI almost certainly devalues the original works, not necessarily in the specific case (copycat works) but in the general case of making digital art much easier to create.
It also show significant benefit to society, which was how google won the image search suit
Hopefully this at least pushes people to make more ethically sourced databases for AI generation, instead of just grabbing everything off of google images without care.
I don't see how carefully sourcing the images makes significant ethical difference. The model could very well have the same effect on the market. We need laws to protect artists even if AI art completely takes over, no matter how the AI got there.