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.

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

    Yes copies were made. The files were downloaded, one way or another (even as a hash, or whatever digital asset they claim to translate them into) then fed to their machines.

    They were put on the Internet for that very purpose. When you visit a website and view an image there a copy of it is made in your computer’s memory. If that’s a copyright violation then everyone’s equally boned. When you click this link you’re doing exactly the same thing.

    • Pulse@dormi.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?

      Downloading to view != downloading to fuel my business.

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

        No, and that’s such a ridiculous leap of logic that I can’t come up with anything else to say except no. Just no. What gave you that idea?

        • Pulse@dormi.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because this thread was about the companies taking art feeding it into their machine a D claiming not to have stolen it.

          Then you compared that to clicking a link.

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

            Yes, because it’s comparable to clicking a link.

            You said:

            By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?

            And that’s the logic I can’t follow. Who’s downloading and selling Rutkowski’s work? Who’s claiming credit for it? None of that is being done in the first place, let alone being claimed to be “ok.”