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.

  • trashhalo@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Is copyright infringement theft” is something that had been debated for as long as mp3s were a thing. This is an old argument with lots of material on both sides scattered across the web. I clearly fall on the side of copyright infringement is theft and theft is stealing.

    • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s absolutely no debate, legal or otherwise.

      Theft, by definition, requires you to deprive someone of something. That simply cannot happen when you copy stuff. That’s why it’s called copyright infringement and not theft.

      You can only steal art by physically stealing an art piece - then and only then it’s theft.

      • whelmer@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What do you mean there is no debate? You’re debating it right now.

        Plenty of artists view it as theft when people take their work and use it for their own ends without their permission. Not everyone, sure. But it’s a bit odd to state so emphatically that there is no debate.