I would not have such a issue with it if the art is pulled from was all forcibly credited (because you know many won't bother). Like taking another base, you credit the artist who made the base because you did not actually make it, you edited it from another work. Or tracing, I don't mind tracing as long as the source is credited.

Currently, AI does not do this, and because no one knows who or where the aspects came from it directly ripped the real artists work it was fed will never actually be known. Thus its not much different from just stealing art and claiming it to yours to me.

We already find it impossible to get humans to reliably do that; just look at all the casual art theft, recolors, character impersonation, unlicensed R34, etc.

A good idea, but AI will inevitably be as scummy as the people that coded it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Bqq09Kaxk

Also, if you did try to pay the millions of artists royalties, you would either run your company into the ground, or they would be making less than a penny off it.

Also, I do recommend the video, the naivety of the AI person is astounding to say the least, cause his utopia does not solve the problem of absolute scarcity.

Never thought about the scarcity part actually. Thanks for bringing it up (my economics brain is firing up)

Also watching just 5 minutes into the video is making my ears bleed. The AI engineer's speech is so fast and frantic XD

Yeah, exactly my feeling. He feels extremely naïve.

This is pretty hard to do at this moment as far as I'm aware. Neural networks don't really understand where they source certain features from. Hopefully the AI experts will eventually develop technology to do that but only big companies will be able to have access to huge databases of sourced art, so this will not actually solve anything imo.

You're completely right. Even if the profits for the artists would be small, the amount that the companies in charge of the AI would have to shell out would be very large, maybe large enough to get them to stop and think "Do I really want to have to pay artists money for my AI program using their art?".

You don't need an IT expert for this. You need a copyright lawyer. And I am not one, but as a layperson on the internet I'll give an opinion anyway!

Enforcement would be difficult. This would rely upon the AI tools being very honest about what they sourced. Figuring out what the sources were if they're not honestly declared after the fact may be impossible.

But further still, it's not clear the sources would be entitled to any royalties, at least under US copyright law. One fundamental test about whether or not something is a copyright violation is whether or not it qualifies as a "transformative work." If the general public would look at the output of the AI tool, and not conclude that it's substantially the same as any of its inputs, it would not be infringing on any of them. Taking multiple pieces from multiple sources wouldn't qualify; that just makes it a collage. The act of combining them in a particular way is what makes it transformative.

Ahh yeah I wish we could do that. Though I don't think it'll happen since it might be difficult for them to contact each artist and so then they probably wouldn't do it much. That and they're trying to find ways to get art cheaper or free instead of paying an artist so I don't think they'd do that for the artists QuQ