I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. You're welcome to even take the style and add enough personal creativity that it becomes a different work and sell that, but only if a random on the street doesn't look at it and say "wow, what Studio Ghibli film is that from?".
That's the problem here, there's no creative input apart from the prompt, so obviously the source is blatant (and often in the prompt).
> I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it.
Technically, you can't, but there's no way to enforce copyright infringement on private work.
You can paint a Studio Ghibli-style painting -- the style isn't protected.
These rules assume that copying the style is labor intensive, and righteously rewards the worker.
When an LLM can reproduce thousands and thousands of Ghibli-style paintings effortlessly, not protecting the style seems less fair, because the work of establishing the Ghibli-style was harder than copying it large-scale.
I'm in the "don't fight a roaring ocean, go with the flow" boat:
If your entire livelihood depends on having the right to distribute something anyone can copy, get a stronger business.
The works by Bill Mudron skirt an intersting line with Ghibli-style prints:
https://www.billmudron.com/ghibli-prints
I think we can put your last sentence in a more compact form: If your entire livelihood depends on your art, get a stronger business.
or even better: if you make art, get a stronger business
or maybe simply: stop making art
Or just: stop
That’s not really what I’m saying.
Large brand copyright holders gonna sue. It is part of their core business.
If you’re a musician, you gotta tour to make money. If you’re a painter, you need patrons.
There already were a ton of ways organised IP theft would make money on your creative force.
AI training seems different because it can gobble up anything out of order and somehow digest it into something valuable without human intervention.
The training is absurdly expensive, but considering how they capture the profit on the value created, and the training input owners won’t, will just mark the end of the open internet for non-FOSS normies.
A lot of people will need to stop identifying as 'someone who makes art with enough value to trade it for the decent wage'. Millions of egos destroyed, not a dollar of GDP lost.
Not a dollar lost, and yet all of society is poorer. Less social commentary via art. Less beauty. Less novelty and less new forms invented. Less entertrainment (entertainment that has some human values imbued into it, but there will be more 'entertainment', just now devoid of intentionality/humanity/novelty, a firehose of images/noises/colors with nothing behind it, a firehouse of slop). Less personal discipline trying to master something. Less seeing through the eyes of another person, so less relation, less empathy, less humanity. Less, less, less. AI is an inertia machine.
No dollars burned, just huge huge amounts of cultural capital. Just a reduction to a more primitive, less cultured/developed version of what it means to be human. Less thinking out loud, sharing of thoughts, exposure to new thoughts. More retreating into (a now lesser developed, now culturally atrophied) self.
So I guess you don't read books/comics, watch TV/Movies/plays, play video games or listen to music? People aren't born skilled artists, that takes time and effort. Being able to prompt GenAI well just makes you a skilled prompter, not a skilled artist. Over time, we will lose a lot of skilled artists and that is something worth thinking more deeply about, instead of giving a callous hot take. Artists are trained to view the world critically, and I want more critical thinkers - not less.
My wife and I went for wall decoration. There’s an art gallery and a poster shop right next to each other. The price difference is a factor 100 for an average art piece.
In the poster shop you can choose between a bunch of classics, or you can upload your own AI-generated picture and have that printed as a poster.
Art was always expensive, and posters as an alternative to paintings existed way before AI. Same with copying all kinds of art.
The main difference seems to be that we can’t clearly pay royalties to anyone for AI artwork, because it’s not obvious exactly where it came from.
There was a YouTube channel dedicated to Warhammer lore narrated by an AI David Attenborough. It got taken down for infringing on his voice, but its replacement came up, starting out with a generic old man’s voice and over time gradually more Attenborough-like. When should the Attenborough estate start to get royalties? At 60% Attenborough? Or at 80% Attenborough?
In my original comment I was asking people to follow me into an imaginary future where there are less artists. Artists reveal something about the world that speaks to us, which they do through critically breaking down and reforming what they see. I can't remember who said it, but they said when art speaks to you, it's a momentary bridge between the artist's soul and yours.
I'll answer your question, but my question for you is: why were you buying wall decorations in the first place? To me, it sounds like you were searching for a product category, and not specifically for art.
Regarding your example, if the AI is capable of imitating David Attenborough by including his name in the prompt, then it was probably trained on his data. If he didn't consent, then I might argue that is ethically wrong and, in my view, theft. If the channel was not monetized and done without his consent, I might argue that is just an ethical failing. In using his voice, the channel betrays the fact that it has value, otherwise they would continue to use the random old man voice.
Your belief is incorrect. There's no copyright law that is dependent on whether someone is made for selling or not.
This is incorrect.
Two of the four core tests for fair use hinge on this.
1. Purpose and character of the use. With emphasis on whether the copy was made for commercial use.
4. Effect on the work's value, and the creator's ability to exploit their work.
---
Both can be dramatically impacted by the intent of the copy, usually with enforcement and punishment also being considerably stronger if the copy is being made for commercial gain and not private use.
This for the actual work, definitely not for transformative works like llm output. So a ghibli style image of me is fine legally, whether I sell it or not.
Yes, I agree. Style is not subject to copyright, only actual works.
But even for actual works, the above is incorrect. How you use the copy absolutely matters.