Posts
Search Results
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 33
Shpoople96 
Segmentation Fault
You greatly underestimate how easy it is to defeat watermarks like that. What you are describing will not work if any anon with too much time on their hands decides to spite you.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 31
The Smiling Pony 
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡° )
@Fyrestar
Or they’ll just put the images through a lowpass img2img and that’s that.
Or they’ll just put the images through a lowpass img2img and that’s that.
The “I give each subscriber a unique image so I know who leaked it” model isn’t new, I saw people doing it 15 years ago (ironically, with 3D art, which at the time was considered an no-effort trash by talentless hacks eroding the meaning of art etc.) It didn’t work, the most successful would have no more than a dozen “clients” and would burn out after a few months from all the overhead.
On top of that, everything always got leaked, anyway; aside from how trivial it is to fake an identity (you can buy a working credit card for like $20, even if it only lasts a few days), nobody outside whatever country you’re in is going to care about any legal threats even if “caught”.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 30
Fyrestar
Lexi Fyrestar
@Background Pony #5DDC
Nobody has the original, you will compare modifications with modification, never knowing what the original is. With a lot luck you might get off the hundreds to thousands of fingerprints but the image rather will be blanked or distorted heavily. The key of this weapon is fear.
Nobody has the original, you will compare modifications with modification, never knowing what the original is. With a lot luck you might get off the hundreds to thousands of fingerprints but the image rather will be blanked or distorted heavily. The key of this weapon is fear.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 29
Background Pony #5DDC
@Fyrestar
Yeah, but comparing few altered images reveals the alterations and allows people to remove them or at least modify them enough to disarm them. The result might not be a perfect copy of the original, but it won’t be useful for tracking anymore.
Yeah, but comparing few altered images reveals the alterations and allows people to remove them or at least modify them enough to disarm them. The result might not be a perfect copy of the original, but it won’t be useful for tracking anymore.
And I don’t think it’s a war. It’s just change. Things will shift around, but art will remain art. Photos did not replace paintings, images hallucinated up by computers won’t replace them either.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 28
Fyrestar
Lexi Fyrestar
I think i already know a way to make images invisibly identifiable to every of the registered viewers so if it’s leaked the responsible one can be hunted legally.Any per-person digital watermark embedded in the image can be removed, whether it’s a visible watermark, a pattern in least significant bits, or some metadata. If several viewers get their watermarked images, they can just compare their images and reconstruct the non-watermarked version out of their redundant data.You just have to accept that if a human can look at your digital art, AI can also look at your digital art.At the same time, I don’t think future is so grim. Sure, people will use ML tools to create memes or to put tits on a lizard, but artists cannot be replaced unless AI becomes sapient.
You shoudln’t think just in that scope. You can use AI to alter an imagine without actually storing “data” in it, it’s the image, it’s unique just as other non AI alternations, you can’t know which parts are affected. There also is no “non-watermarked” image, don’t think of water marks, the original never is released.
Also instead of wining and giving up people should get their ass up and think out of the box. This is a war and not the last battle. If law wasn’t lacking behind as always this would be over already, in the end it’s also the majority who should decide if we want to turn art into useless inflationary worthless garbage.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 27
Background Pony #5DDC
I think i already know a way to make images invisibly identifiable to every of the registered viewers so if it’s leaked the responsible one can be hunted legally.
Any per-person digital watermark embedded in the image can be removed, whether it’s a visible watermark, a pattern in least significant bits, or some metadata. If several viewers get their watermarked images, they can just compare their images and reconstruct the non-watermarked version out of their redundant data.
You just have to accept that if a human can look at your digital art, AI can also look at your digital art.
At the same time, I don’t think future is so grim. Sure, people will use ML tools to create memes or to put tits on a lizard, but artists cannot be replaced unless AI becomes sapient.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 26
LemonDrop 
C++ Crazed
@Exedrus
That may all be true but what you’re describing essentially makes things like memes or screenshots of MLP illegal so I don’t think I want to live in a world where laws are taken to that silly of an extreme (reminds me of all the Article 13 a while back, but now its cool to support such things I guess).
That may all be true but what you’re describing essentially makes things like memes or screenshots of MLP illegal so I don’t think I want to live in a world where laws are taken to that silly of an extreme (reminds me of all the Article 13 a while back, but now its cool to support such things I guess).
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 25
Exedrus 
@Bigcheese
It’s true that image formats don’t make it particularly easy to track down copyright info, but I don’t know that that matters legally. From what I understand, US law expects the person attempting to use copyrightable things to make sure they’re not violating copyright. If they can’t verify the licensing (and they’re not certain if their use is fair use), then they should assume that they can get a valid take down request if they use that work. So they should avoid relying on it or really using it at all. Copyrightable works don’t even need to release with a license; the license is just a way for the rights holder to outline what they’re OK with.
It’s true that image formats don’t make it particularly easy to track down copyright info, but I don’t know that that matters legally. From what I understand, US law expects the person attempting to use copyrightable things to make sure they’re not violating copyright. If they can’t verify the licensing (and they’re not certain if their use is fair use), then they should assume that they can get a valid take down request if they use that work. So they should avoid relying on it or really using it at all. Copyrightable works don’t even need to release with a license; the license is just a way for the rights holder to outline what they’re OK with.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 24
Ciaran 
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Bigcheese
Yeah, the artist tag definitely doesn’t apply there.
Yeah, the artist tag definitely doesn’t apply there.
Regardless of the inspiration, the resulting image is not derivative of the original artist’s copyright.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 23
Bigcheese
@The Smiling Pony
This is going way beyond what I was trying to say. My point is that it is not currently clear whether the act of downloading an image for AI training is fair use. If it turns out to not be fair use, then artists could likely license their works to explicitly disallow that.
It’s incredibly difficult to add a license on top of an image publicly posted on the internet. You have to somehow get people to agree to the license before downloading the image. Source code solves this by putting the copyright at the top of each file, and using the DMCA to make it illegal to remove the copyright notice.
I looked at what you linked, and I don’t see how >>2955564 is derivative, or any kind of a violation of copyright or violation of Rule #1, based on >>1437713.They appear to be two different works.
This is img2img meaning the AI was given >>1437713 as input, and it modified it to be >>2955564. Depending on the settings, this can be equivalent to a human artist redrawing an image while basically using the original image as a base layer. There’s no current case law here for AI, but had a human drawn >>2955564, I expect it would be classified as not a copy, thus the artist tag would be incorrect under my understanding of the derpi rules.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 22
The Smiling Pony
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡° )
@Background Pony #AA9F
That case is at its base no more different than any of the hundreds (or thousands, idk) of cum edits or similar that people have done with GIMP or Photoshop and unrelated to the issue of AI training datasets.
That case is at its base no more different than any of the hundreds (or thousands, idk) of cum edits or similar that people have done with GIMP or Photoshop and unrelated to the issue of AI training datasets.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 21
Background Pony #AA9F
@Ciaran
The pose lines up exactly and the uploader commented that they “used” Howl’s picture, which almost certainly means it was operated upon by the “image to image” function. If a human made it freehand by referencing, it is close enough in my eyes that I would expect them to credit the original picture when they share the new version - which they did, in the comments. Whether it’s a “violation of copyright” is above my paygrade to figure out.
The pose lines up exactly and the uploader commented that they “used” Howl’s picture, which almost certainly means it was operated upon by the “image to image” function. If a human made it freehand by referencing, it is close enough in my eyes that I would expect them to credit the original picture when they share the new version - which they did, in the comments. Whether it’s a “violation of copyright” is above my paygrade to figure out.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 20
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Background Pony #AA9F
This is the policy that we use to work these kids of things here. Substitute “derivative work” in place of “traced” and this document is a good introduction to the concept of derivative works and the protections they may have or may not have. Of course, this begs the question of “transformative” works but we approach those on a case by case basis here, usually working to find consensus between the artists involved.
This is the policy that we use to work these kids of things here. Substitute “derivative work” in place of “traced” and this document is a good introduction to the concept of derivative works and the protections they may have or may not have. Of course, this begs the question of “transformative” works but we approach those on a case by case basis here, usually working to find consensus between the artists involved.
And, keep in mind we’re not counting lawyers on pinheads.
I looked at what you linked, and I don’t see how >>2955564 is derivative, or any kind of a violation of copyright or violation of Rule #1, based on >>1437713.
They appear to be two different works.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 19
Background Pony #AA9F
If the resulting image is derivative, then if the copyright holder wants the derivative image deleted, it gets deleted. The original artist’s rights are reserved.It does not matter if the derivative work was made by a human, or by a machine. The original artist’s rights are reserved.But … if the resulting work is not derivative, then it is not derivative.
If the resulting works are derivative of the original artist’s works, then they are a copyright violation.
Do you have a definition of a derivative work (which is not as simple as “was used during its creation” because that would incorrectly include learning/reference material and transformative works) and a way to ascertain whether something is or isn’t derivative? These are necessary for your statements to have meaning.
If you have an example of someone using AI or machine generated art to replace an artist here on this site, please report it or send me a link via PM. I would very much appreciate it if you would share it. If someone is literally doing what you are describing, then that would probably be a Rule #1.
I have one example of the reverse, where they used another artist’s work as the foundation and reinterpreted it via AI: (explicit) >>2955564 and see the comments which refer to (explicit) >>1437713. I have not reported it because I do not see a “no edits” DNP for the artist whose drawing it is unquestionably derivative from.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 18
Exedrus
@The Smiling Pony
This is going way beyond what I was trying to say. My point is that it is not currently clear whether the act of downloading an image for AI training is fair use. If it turns out to not be fair use, then artists could likely license their works to explicitly disallow that.
This is going way beyond what I was trying to say. My point is that it is not currently clear whether the act of downloading an image for AI training is fair use. If it turns out to not be fair use, then artists could likely license their works to explicitly disallow that.
The similarities between AI training and human learning may play some part in the debate. I’m not sure. (Though the feeling I get when reading through legal documents is that they’re more focused on precedent and the exact letter of the law than the philosophical implications.) Minimally, AIs aren’t given the exact same rights as humans since (in the US at least) AI-generated art doesn’t generally have copyright protection, while human-created art gets it by default. And it’s not unreasonable to have special rules for AI in particular, since AIs can do things that humans can’t: I can copy a single AI onto a thousand computers and have them churn out enormous numbers of images per second. That’s the sort of competitive advantage that could break the underlying balance that US copyright law exists to protect; a balance between encouraging creativity and protecting the results of those creative pursuits.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 17
The Smiling Pony
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡° )
Can the Tolkien estate prove that the people who wrote those D&D novels explicitly based their ideas on Tolkien’s work? I’m sure Tolkien had contemporaries. And his ideas were based on existing folklore/mythology. D&D novelists could argue they haven’t even read his books, they just read medieval European history.
lmao
90% of fantasy authors proudly proclaim how early they read Tolkein’s work, and what they learned from it. And in terms of orcs and dwarves, and elves and halflings, no, Tolkien had no contemporaries; he invented the modern conception for those fantasy races. Effectively anyone that writes a novel or script or game that has point-eared long-living elves, humanoid brutish orcs, stouty mountain-minin dwarves, etc. is as much of a “thief” as any random AI is for having been trained on someone’s image.
AND FURTHERMORE
An AI is as trained on an artist’s image as an artist is trained on what they themselves are copying from. It’s not like artists suddenly dreamt up Princess Celestia’s form, eye colour, mane style, etc. out of nowhere; they watched the show, they studied screencaps, they looked at other artist’s images (without their permission!). AI does the same; it looks at a whole lot of images and figures out the commonalities when people prompt “princess celestia”.
I really understand a lot of the concerns about AI art replacing artists, commission artists losing revenue, the “worth” of art being diminished. But this angle of “AI steals!” ain’t it. Everyone steals, everyone. AI just does it faster and is more honest about it.
Eventually people will train AIs starting up from basic geometric shapes and millions of iterations to recreate all sorts of objects and styles, with zero human art training. What then? AI will be creating new art based only on the subjective approval of viewers agreeing that it looks like what was asked and/or it’s aesthetically pleasing.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 16
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Exedrus
Well, still speculating, but someone doing that intentionally would probably either be trying to replicate a Patreon alternative image, which is very much not ok here (Rule #1). Or, would probably be doing an edit to embarrass or harass the original artist or something like that.
Well, still speculating, but someone doing that intentionally would probably either be trying to replicate a Patreon alternative image, which is very much not ok here (Rule #1). Or, would probably be doing an edit to embarrass or harass the original artist or something like that.
That kind of stuff happens now, but it’s always humans doing it.
If people start leveraging AI to accomplish the same thing, it will still be rule breaking. What tools they are using to break the rule doesn’t matter.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 14
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
If an AI is trained on an image, integrates it into it’s model, and then is explicitly used to produce images that would replace the need for that image’s creator …
If the resulting works are derivative of the original artist’s works, then they are a copyright violation.
But are AIs actually being used to replace individual artists?
At best, I see them sometimes able to emulate style or palette, and when given a source image to work with they are really good at filling in detail.
Admittedly, in music this is an entirely different world. Emulators fit in pedals now, and you can have something remarkably close to an actual, specific, artist playing drums for you in a package that fits in your hand. But there’s usually quite a bit of licensing tied into all of that, so the artist (or their representatives) are still getting a cut.
If you have an example of someone using AI or machine generated art to replace an artist here on this site, please report it or send me a link via PM. I would very much appreciate it if you would share it. If someone is literally doing what you are describing, then that would probably be a Rule #1.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 13
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
It’s also a little like the Tolkein estate suing Terry Pratchett’s estate because he once read The Hobbit.
As I’ve said several times now, my hook into all of this is protecting the copyrights of artists.
If the resulting image is derivative, then if the copyright holder wants the derivative image deleted, it gets deleted. The original artist’s rights are reserved.
It does not matter if the derivative work was made by a human, or by a machine. The original artist’s rights are reserved.
But … if the resulting work is not derivative, then it is not derivative.
The only real difference is that only humans can have original copyrightable works. Anything made by a machine is, by definition, not protected.
At least, not unless the ‘anything’ is music, and the machine was built by Sony.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 12
Exedrus
@The Smiling Pony
Can the Tolkien estate prove that the people who wrote those D&D novels explicitly based their ideas on Tolkien’s work? I’m sure Tolkien had contemporaries. And his ideas were based on existing folklore/mythology. D&D novelists could argue they haven’t even read his books, they just read medieval European history.
Can the Tolkien estate prove that the people who wrote those D&D novels explicitly based their ideas on Tolkien’s work? I’m sure Tolkien had contemporaries. And his ideas were based on existing folklore/mythology. D&D novelists could argue they haven’t even read his books, they just read medieval European history.
If an AI is trained on an image, integrates it into it’s model, and then is explicitly used to produce images that would replace the need for that image’s creator, there is a very clear line from the use of the artist’s works to them being flooded out of the market. This seems like the sort of thing that the “market impacts” part of the fair use doctrine is intended to prevent.
Site and Policy » Prevent AI crawlers » Post 11
The Smiling Pony
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡° )
It also might not be fair use since it’s clearly got potential to run artist out of business.
That’s a bit like arguing the Tolkein estate can sue Hasbro because their D&D novels and premade campaigns can run them out of business.
Showing results 1 - 25 of 36 total
Default search
If you do not specify a field to search over, the search engine will search for posts with a body that is similar to the query's word stems. For example, posts containing the words winged humanization, wings, and spread wings would all be found by a search for wing, but sewing would not be.
Allowed fields
| Field Selector | Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
author | Literal | Matches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this term. | author:Joey |
body | Full Text | Matches the body of this post. This is the default field. | body:test |
created_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation time of this post. | created_at:2015 |
id | Numeric Range | Matches the numeric surrogate key for this post. | id:1000000 |
my | Meta | my:posts matches posts you have posted if you are signed in. | my:posts |
subject | Full Text | Matches the title of the topic. | subject:time wasting thread |
topic_id | Literal | Matches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to. | topic_id:7000 |
topic_position | Numeric Range | Matches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0. | topic_position:0 |
updated_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation or last edit time of this post. | updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago |
user_id | Literal | Matches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term. | user_id:211190 |
forum | Literal | Matches the short name for the forum this post belongs to. | forum:meta |