Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski’s style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski’s art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

  • delollipop@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Do you know how they recreated his style? I couldn’t find such information or frankly have enough understanding to know how.

    But if they either use his works directly or works created by another GAI with his name/style in the prompt, my personal feeling is that would still be unethical, especially if they charge money to generate his style of art without compensating him.

    Plus, I find that the opt-out mentality really creepy and disrespectful

    “If he contacts me asking for removal, I’ll remove this.” Lykon said. “At the moment I believe that having an accurate immortal depiction of his style is in everyone’s best interest.”

    • fsniper@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I still have trouble understanding the distinction between “a human consuming different artists, and replicating the style” vs “software consuming different artists, and replicating the style”.

    • averyminya@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      But if they either use his works directly or works created by another GAI with his name/style in the prompt, my personal feeling is that would still be unethical, especially if they charge money to generate his style of art without compensating him.

      LORA’s are created on image datasets, but these images are just available anywhere. It’s really not much different from you taking every still of The Simpsons and using it. What I don’t understand is how these are seen as problematic because a majority of end users utilizing AI are doing it under fair use.

      No one charges for LORA’s or models AFAIK. If they do, it hasn’t come across the Stable Diffusion discords I moderate.

      People actually selling AI generated art is also a different story and that’s where it falls outside of fair use if the models being used contain copy-written work. It seems pretty cut and dry, artists complained about not being emulated by other artists before AI so it’s only reasonable that it happens again. If people are profiting off it, it should be at least giving compensation to the original artist (if it could be adjusted so that per-token payments are given as royalties to the artist). However, on the other hand think about The Simpsons, or Pokemon, or anything that has ever been sold as a sticker/poster/display item.

      I’m gonna guess that a majority of people have no problem with that IP theft cause it’s a big company. Okay… so what if I love Greg but he doesn’t respond to my letters and e-mails begging him to commission him for a Pokemon Rutkowski piece? Under fair use there’s no reason I can’t create that on my own, and if that means creating a dataset of all of his paintings that I paid for to utilize it then it’s technically legal.

      The only thing here that would be unethical or illegal is if his works are copywritten and being redistributed. They aren’t being redistributed and currently copy-written materials aren’t protected from being used in AI models, since the work done from AI can’t be copywritten. In other words, while it may be disrespectful to go against the artists wishes to not be used in AI, there’s no current grounds for it other than an artist not wanting to be copied… which is a tale as old as time.

      TL;DR model and LORA makers aren’t charging, users can’t sell or copywrite AI works, and copywritten works aren’t protected from being used in AI models (currently). An artist not wanting to be used currently has no grounds other than making strikes against anything that is redistributing copies of their work. If someone is using this LORA to recreate Greg Rutkowski paintings and then proceeds to give or sell them then the artist is able to claim that there’s theft and damages… but the likelihood of an AI model being able to do this is low. The likelihood of someone selling these is higher, but from my understanding artistic styles are pretty much fair game anyway you swing it.

      I understand wanting to protect artists. Artists also get overly defensive at times - I’m not saying that this guy is I actually am more on his side than my comment makes it out, especially after how he was treated in the discord I moderate. I’m more just pointing out that there’s a slippery slope both ways and the current state of U.S. law on it.

    • SweetAIBelle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Generally speaking, the way training works is this:
      You put together a folder of pictures, all the same size. It would’ve been 1024x1024 in this case. Other models have used 768z768 or 512x512. For every picture, you also have a text file with a description.

      The training software takes a picture, slices it into squares, generates a square the same size of random noise, then trains on how to change that noise into that square. It associates that training with tokens from the description that went with that picture. And it keeps doing this.

      Then later, when someone types a prompt into the software, it tokenizes it, generates more random noise, and uses the denoising methods associated with the tokens you typed in. The pictures in the folder aren’t actually kept by it anywhere.

      From the side of the person doing the training, it’s just put together the pictures and descriptions, set some settings, and let the training software do its work, though.

      (No money involved in this one. One person trained it and plopped it on a website where people can download loras for free…)

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you know how they recreated his style? I couldn’t find such information or frankly have enough understanding to know how.

      I don’t, but another poster noted that it involves using his art to create the LoRA.

      Plus, I find that the opt-out mentality really creepy and disrespectful

      I don’t know about creepy and disrespectful, but it does feel like they’re saying “I know the artist doesn’t want me to do this, but if he doesn’t specifically ask me personally to stop, I’m going to do it anyway.”

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      they charge money to generate his style of art without compensating him.

      That’s really the big thing, not just here but any material that’s been used to train on without permission or compensation. The difference is that most of it is so subtle it can’t be picked out, but an artist style is obviously a huge parameter since his name was being used to call out those particular training aspects during generations. It’s a bit hypocritical to say you aren’t stealing someone’s work when you stick his actual name in the prompt. It doesn’t really matter how many levels the art style has been laundered, it still originated from him.

        • Peanut@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Just wait until you can copywrite a style. Guess who will end up owning all the styles.

          Spoiler, it’s wealthy companies like Disney and Warner. Oh you used cross hatching? Disney owns the style now you theif.

          Copyright is fucked. Has been since before the Mickey mouse protection act. Our economic system is fucked. People would rather fight each other and new tools instead of rallying against the actual problem, and it’s getting to me.

          • Pseu@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re right, copyright won’t fix it, copyright will just enable large companies to activate more of their work extract more from the creative space.

            But who will benefit the most from AI? The artists seem to be getting screwed right now, and I’m pretty sure that Hasbro and Disney will love to cut costs and lay off artists as soon as this blows over.

            Technology is capital, and in a capitalist system, that goes to benefit the holders of that capital. No matter how you cut it, laborers including artists are the ones who will get screwed.

            • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Me, I’ll benefit the most. I’ve been using a locally running instance of the free and open source AI software Stable Diffusion to generate artwork for my D&D campaigns and they’ve never looked more beautiful!

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Same here. It’s awesome being able to effectively “commission” art for any random little thing the party might encounter. And sometimes while generating images there’ll be surprising details that give me new ideas, too. It’s like brainstorming with ChatGPT but in visual form.

        • Rhaedas@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And yet the artist’s name is used to push the weights towards pictures in their style. I don’t know what the correct semantics are for it, nor the legalities. That’s part of the problem, the tech is ahead of our laws, as is usually the case.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            And yet the artist’s name is used to push the weights towards pictures in their style.

            That’s not even vaguely new in the world of art.

            Imitating style is the core of what art is. It’s absolutely unconditionally protected by copyright law. It’s not even a .01 out of 10 on the scale of unethical. It’s what’s supposed to happen.

            The law might not cover this yet, but any law that restricts the fundamental right to build off of the ideas of others that are the core of the entirety of human civilization is unadulterated evil. There is no part of that that could possibly be acceptable to own.

            • Rhaedas@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I totally agree with you on protecting the basics of creativity and growth. I think the core issue is using “imitate” here. Is that what the LLM is doing, or is that an anthropomorphism of some sense that there’s intelligence guiding the process? I know it seems like I’m nitpicking things to further my point, but the fact that this is an issue to many even outside artwork says there is a question here of what is and isn’t okay.

              • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The AI is not intelligent. That doesn’t matter.
                Nothing anyone owns is being copied or redistributed. The creator isn’t the tool; it’s the person using the tool.

                AI needs two things to work, an algorithm and data. If training is allowed to anyone, anyone can create their own algorithms and use the AI as a tool to create innovative new messages with some ideas borrowed from other work.

                If data is proprietary, they cannot. But Disney still can. They’ll just as successfully flood out all the artists who can’t use AI because they don’t have a data set, but now they and the two other companies in the world who own IP are basically a monopoly (or tri- or whatever) and everyone else is screwed.

          • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s only using his name because the person who created the LORA trained it with his name. They could have chosen any other word.

            • Rhaedas@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              True, and then because it’s a black box there wouldn’t be a known issue at all. Or maybe it would be much less of an issue because the words might have blended others into the mix, and his style wouldn’t be as obvious in the outputs, and/or it would be easier to dismiss. Did the training involve actual input of his name, or was that pulled from the source trained on? How much control was in the training?

          • ricecake@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You said it yourself. You’re drawing Micky mouse in a new pose, so you’re copying Mickey mouse.

            Drawing a cartoon in the style of Mickey mouse isn’t the same thing.

            You can’t have a copyright on “big oversized smile, exaggerated posture, large facial features, oversized feet and hands, rounded contours and a smooth style of motion”.

            • tqgibtngo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There is nothing at all being copied but an aesthetic.

              Although to me it is interesting that, even without literal copying, a generator might be capable of potentially emulating some key features of a specified source. Can this sometimes arguably extend beyond just “an aesthetic”? We’ve all seen examples similar to this one (from the SD online demo, default setting, with a familiar public-domain source) — https://i.imgur.com/PUJs3RL.png