Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes that’s covered by law

https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm...

> Le droit moral de l’artiste est «perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible». Il est lié à la personne de l’auteur qui ne peut y renoncer ni le céder à autrui

> The moral right of the artist is "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible". It is linked to the person of the author who can neither renounce it nor transfer it to another person

https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm...

> Le code de la propriété intellectuelle entend par contrefaçon tous les actes d'utilisation non autorisée de l'œuvre. En cas de reprise partielle de cette dernière, elle s'apprécie en fonction des ressemblances entre les œuvres. La simple tentative n'est pas punissable. La loi incrimine au titre du délit de contrefaçon : - «toute reproduction, représentation ou diffusion, par quelque moyen que ce soit, d'une œuvre de l'esprit en violation des droits de l'auteur, tels qu'ils sont définis et réglementés par la loi » (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - «le débit [acte de diffusion, notamment par vente, de marchandises contrefaisantes], l'exportation et l'importation des ouvrages "contrefaisants" » (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3).

> The Intellectual Property Code defines infringement as all acts of unauthorized use of a work. In the case of partial use of the work, it is assessed according to the similarities between the works. The simple attempt is not punishable. The law incriminates under the offence of counterfeiting: - "any reproduction, representation or dissemination, by any means whatsoever, of a work of the mind in violation of the author's rights, as defined and regulated by law" (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - "the debit [act of distribution, notably by sale, of infringing goods], the export and import of 'infringing' works" (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3).



Nothing you have said implies you cannot copy the style of another artist. Which is obvious. People copy styles all the time.

You don’t want Renoir suing Monet over who owns Impressionism.

That is very different from saying you cannot recreate his specific works.

Or do crappy Pop Art faux copies.


I’m not an artist so I have no problem with being able to generate almost free quality art on my own within minutes.

Before those AI if I ever wanted something specific I had to go see an artist and ask (prompt) him for the art I want. If I ask him to draw Andy Warhol Marilyn with my face on it. Can he charge me for it without copyright infringement ? Maybe nobody cares and no one is going to do anything about it but still, his style is specific right ? My face or my dog’s face makes the drawing completely different.

If AI is just « an other form of intelligence », why shouldn’t it be subjected to the same laws ?

If it’s just a tool and not an intelligence, why would openAI wouldn’t be subjected to the same rules ?

If all you do for a living is painting, if I wan’t a unique painting that fit your work style I have to ask you to do it. Now I can ask an AI to paint exactly that but you are not in the loop anymore but your work has been used to train this AI and no one will ever ask you to create art because they love your style and can have it for free.

I mean, I’m all in for free stuff and I’m not an artist but what does artists feel about it ?


> If I ask him to draw Andy Warhol Marilyn with my face on it. Can he charge me for it without copyright infringement ? Maybe nobody cares and no one is going to do anything about it but still, his style is specific right ? My face or my dog’s face makes the drawing completely different.

You can generate whatever you want. If you want to sell it, then maybe it is a copyright violation. Maybe it isn’t. The point is that it does not matter that an AI tool made it or a human or a random falling of colored sand. Nobody is saying AI tool outputs are immune to copyright. What I am saying is that they are not intrinsically violations of copyright because training data.

> If all you do for a living is painting, if I wan’t a unique painting that fit your work style I have to ask you to do it. Now I can ask an AI to paint exactly that but you are not in the loop anymore but your work has been used to train this AI and no one will ever ask you to create art because they love your style and can have it for free.

That is deeply misleading. You are absolutely fine to ask another artist to create you a work in another artist’s style. The only difference here is cost and perhaps quality. Those are not problems with copyright.

> I mean, I’m all in for free stuff and I’m not an artist but what does artists feel about it

Bad


I do agree that AI is a great tool to generate whatever we want and I have no problem with that. My only concern is abuse in the case of copyrights. And a partial copy is still under copyright and IP. Because the services aren’t completely free they might be subject to IP.

Let’s say I generate a picture with the style of a famous artist and then use it in one of my marketing campaign. No one will be able to sue me ? You are 100% sure about it ? If so, then then could also sue the AI company also isn’t it ?

It seems like a total abolition of copyright otherwise


You absolutely cannot be sued for selling a picture in the style of another artist. It may be debateable whether something is style or content.

You can be sued for selling a copy or a substantially similar work of art. You can make this happen with AI tools.

It seems unlikely to me that someone could go after open AI if you use their tools to generate a copy right violation. But IANAL.


So you can be charged if you create a painting in the style of Picasso and try to sell it as a true Picasso work. Which is obvious. Nothing here says Picasso's style in of and itself can be copyrighted.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: