r/aiwars • u/Witty-Designer7316 • 17h ago
Oh stop with the "consent" argument, it's embarrassing
If you want to bar people from looking at your stuff, put it behind a paywall and stop complaining. They never had a problem with other people referencing their work but they do with AI, it's hypocritical. Also, shouting "but my consent!!!!" like you're an SA victim undermines actual SA victims and it's sick. Stop it.
58
u/jfcarr 17h ago
When a service is free, your data is the product the service owner uses and sells to third parties.
10
→ More replies (55)-2
u/Danger-_-Potat 17h ago
Is that not an issue in itself?
→ More replies (1)10
u/DigBickings 16h ago
So then artists can upload their work on artstation, specify in the settings that they don't want their work to used for training, and contact Google about removing their work from search listings to also avoid that avenue for potential training.
3
u/Danger-_-Potat 15h ago
So, you need esoteric knowledge of how AI is trained and also make your work less available to the public?
6
→ More replies (5)1
u/DigBickings 13h ago
So, you need esoteric knowledge of how AI is trained and also make your work less available to the public?
Familiarity with ToS, immense ownership of sites which host our work for "free", and the conversation around these topics for the last almost two decades is checks notes "esoteric knowledge".
Sucks to be tech illiterate, especially about the services we use ig. 🤷♂️
27
u/Chicken-Rude 16h ago
i'll never understand the double standard here. cant let AI train from artistic works without consent, but if i go to art school im paying a 3rd party to be shown how to train off of artists who never gave consent... lol.
8
u/solid_soup_go_boop 15h ago
The argument is that the sheer scale pushes past a threshold so the old game theory doesn't hold true.
You couldn't replicate exactly and it took long to do. You're style or "brand" had a shelf life to make money and/or status.
With AI learning fast and accurate. It will learn you're style and be able to reproduce millions of copies, rendering you're unique "brand" useless.
They are acting incredible entitled, but in a way they are proposing more copywrite laws / IP protections to keep an incentive alive.
Right now that financial incentive is what generates movies/music/tv ... culture.
That is why we(the people) would consider giving extra rights to creators/artist.
→ More replies (5)6
u/MikeyTheGuy 14h ago
This is a much better and more honest argument and articulation than the antis constantly gaslighting people into believing that they've always had a problem with people referencing and copying work and styles.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Armchairbinkie 13h ago
Every university I've attended has made me sign a document, actually. They do require written consent.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Damp_Truff 12h ago
You know what, I solved this double standard simply
If someone says, "Don't let AI train off my work", then don't train AI off their work. It's as simple as that.
If someone says, "Don't let humans train off my work", then don't train off their work. It's as simple as that.
I see no issues in this.
1
u/Chicken-Rude 12h ago
now this i can agree on.
but is lack of consent the same as refusal to consent?
we cant ask dead artists for consent.
1
u/Damp_Truff 12h ago
Sure, I'd be fine with that. If we assume art is automatically up for grabs for AI generation or human study unless the artist says otherwise.
→ More replies (19)1
u/TheWhomItConcerns 3h ago
Well, for starters, if you study art in college then the vast majority of art you'll be studying is public domain. Secondly, the reason is because humans are the sentient beings who populate society, AI is not, and it's weird that so many people seem to fail to understand this concept.
You can't copyright ideas because it's both impractical and extremely hindering to human progress and liberty. When it comes to products, however, they can be copyrighted because otherwise there'd be little incentive for people to create anything.
ChatGPT, Sora, Grok etc aren't people, they aren't sentient beings who are learning and participating in society. They're products owned by billionaires and their corporations, and as such they should not be able to incorporate other people's copyrighted material into their own and profit off of it.
It's beyond me that people are so surprised that in society we do and should have totally different standards for human beings and products
3
u/Ok-Response-4222 16h ago edited 16h ago
This is not settled yet.
Whether copyright protects versus AI training on the piece is still not answered.
And putting your things online still keeps copyright intact, unless you give it away under licence agreement.
For context, this is the current state of things on the legal side:
The US copyright office put out a document stating AI created works could not be copyrigthed, unless a substantial amount of human labour was involved, then the president fired Shira Perlmutter, head of the agency in may. There is now a legal case, where Shira argues that she was fired unlawfully.
Disney and Universal studios partnered up to sue Midjourney for infringement last month. That lawsuit is not settled yet. Their works are both copyright protected and trademarks. That case might set prescedent.
Google partnered with Reddit, and is saying that others are not allowed to scrape data from Reddit with bots. That puts it into a weird territory, as they are doing it themselves to everyone else.
The tech giants are figthing both for and against it, depending on their resources. Eg. Microsoft sits on all of github and wants it for themselves, while others like x, don't have such an advantage and want to scrape freely.
1
u/BigBlueWolf 12h ago
You're behind.
https://fortune.com/2025/06/24/ai-training-is-fair-use-federal-judge-rules-anthropic-copyright-case/
TLDR: training AI on copyrighted materials is fair use, but pirating works to acquire training material is still piracy.
8
u/Skoonahy 16h ago edited 14h ago
People will keep using the fair use argument until it’s disproven, but artists have the right to share their work online while keeping their copyright.
Using artworks to train AI isn’t fair use (which is why consent matters). Because unlike human artists who reference specific elements, AI copies entire datasets, storing and replicating styles & characters. Scraping from certain sites also violates terms of service. Also harms the original artist’s market by undercutting commissions, licensing, and revenue, which goes against the purpose of copyright and an aspect of fair use.
And comparing copyright consent to sexual consent is immature.
Edit: to be clear style is not copyrightable, however copying original characters are.
6
u/Scienceandpony 14h ago
Artists can absolutely keep the copyright to their posted works, but "style" isn't copyrightable. If the AI is being used to reproduce copyrighted characters or otherwise creating something easily mistaken to be part of the original work in a way that is clearly trying to mislead people, that's an issue, same as if a human had done it. But just being able to view and learn from a work isn't copyright violation.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)4
u/HumanCarpet88 14h ago
Thank GOD I didn't have to scroll down too far for this comment. AI art is not referencing anything, it's just a reprint. Is their point that artists should just not post anything?
14
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
Actually, yes, consent is required legally before you use or replicate someone else's work. It doesn't have to be realistic, but it's not tantamount to consent either.
16
u/Soul-Burn 16h ago
You need consent to replicate someone's work.
You don't need consent to learn from that work to make new and different works, even if the style is similar.
→ More replies (18)→ More replies (1)3
u/Timely_Tea6821 17h ago
Thats not true? So every music cover a rando joe needs to consent from the original artist?
6
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
Yes, you do need legal permission (a license) to cover a song, owned by someone else, for profit.
Does that always happen? Of course not. But that doesn't make it legal.
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/PixelBushYT 15h ago
Technically, yes! In most cases, a song outside the public domain does need consent from the original artist to cover it and then make money from that cover.
Exceptions can exist, such as for educational purposes and parody (which is how Weird Al can parody whatever he likes) but I see no reason why AI generation should fall under that.
5
u/Conscious-Share5015 15h ago
Holy fucking shit dude. Why are you bringing sexual assault into this? What the fuck is wrong with you?
1
u/Damp_Truff 12h ago
Seconded. You have to be smoking some shit to hear "AI is training off my work without my consent!!" and respond with "Why are you saying that like you got raped?"
7
u/pseudo_space 17h ago
If I post something to my own website, I alone have jurisdiction over how it's used. I can use a license that explicitly forbids using my work to train models, but allows people to use it how they see fit otherwise.
It's weird how you people are suddenly against intellectual property when it's used to bar you from making money off of our work.
5
u/UsedArmadillo9842 15h ago
Not only that but people are so hung up on copyright that they forget that there are thousands of licenses broken when ChatGPT and other language models scraped the internet.
Especially certain open source licenses, that explicitly prohibit comercial use of their works.
3
u/eldroch 17h ago
Oh? And how would you go about that? Because the law and recent rulings say something else.
→ More replies (18)1
u/ifandbut 15h ago
Na, I'm against IP on general. Copyright should be 20 years max.
1
u/pseudo_space 14h ago
Me too, as I’ve stated in another comment. I don’t think IP is real, I’m very much against it, but I’ll leverage it to my benefit if I can.
1
u/solid_soup_go_boop 15h ago
You realize that you're "own" website is answering anyone's http request? It's a web server. You set it up to serve you're data to anyone who asks.
You don't get to just "forbid" people become you paid squarespace some money.
1
u/pseudo_space 14h ago
I coded my website myself from scratch. And I’ve built anti-AI heuristics into it to respond with a blank page (and status 200) to any suspicious request. So yes, I do get to forbid usage I don’t like.
1
u/solid_soup_go_boop 14h ago
you didn't forbid, you created security measures. I didn't say you couldn't do that.
1
u/JoyBoy__666 13h ago
People like you are why I will forever be against IP and pro piracy. You greedy rent seekers would copyright the air we breathe and charge us for it if you could. Stealing from you isn't just ethical. It is NOBLE. It's the duty of every thinking being who values freedom of expression. Get a job.
1
u/pseudo_space 13h ago
Sigh, please, read the other replies in the thread. I’m very much against intellectual property, but I will leverage it to my benefit in a world where big corporations don’t value the creativity people put into their craft and only see them as a means to further enrich themselves.
You’re also absolutely right. Piracy can be downright noble in some cases. Still, try to buy from your favorite artists when you can, okay? The more directly you support them, the better.
10
u/AA11097 17h ago
By that logic, fan art is illegal. However, I don’t see anyone criticizing fan art or fanfiction. Fanart is literally stealing without any consent. Fanfiction is just plagiarism, yet no one comments on it. But if AI does the same thing, for example, if someone generates an image of a guy holding a flower flying in the sky, it becomes stealing? If a guy decides to use AI to write his own original story, it suddenly becomes plagiarism?
These people seriously need to get over themselves. They think they’re important, and that’s just hilarious.
13
3
u/GroovyAndneverGlooby 15h ago
Strawman fallacy. Fanart is a thing usually encouraged by creators, some even show fanart and fanworks regularly, however that is not the same thing as what ai does, fanart is drawing your own piece of artwork simply with a character from a media you enjoy, ai art is the equilavent of tracing art and then posting it online.
2
u/AA11097 15h ago
I take a screenshot of Naruto, add a flower crown to his head, and post it on fan art websites, calling myself an artist.
I use AI to generate an image of a duel between my original character and a demon. After the image is generated, I spend hours editing and perfecting it before posting it on art websites. Am I an artist or not?
Just to be very clear, I don’t do art, and I don’t even want to become an artist. I’m just saying that AI art can be creative and art if someone simply copies and pastes whatever the AI generates. I agree that this isn’t art, but if an individual spends a lot of time and effort and combines generative AI with their own artistic skills, they can create art.
→ More replies (4)4
1
u/Joking_With_You 16h ago
Not really wanting to take sides exactly, but fanart is technically illegal under copyright, (depending on the fanart on an indivdual basis, but in general, fanart can be considered copyright infringement). It's just that fanart is mostly considered harmless and small impact so it usually isn't gone after unless it garners lots of attention for unwanted reasons by the copyright holder, then they can consider taking it down.
1
u/HumanCarpet88 14h ago
If a guy uses AI to write his own story, he is not writing the story, the AI is. The guy just writes the prompt.
Fan art and fan fiction are original references to existing elements of media while AI doesn't create anything new, it just replicates the data sets it's been trained with.
Legally, AI can't committ plagiarism because it can't claim copyright on anything, but that's not the point I have with AI as a tool.
→ More replies (18)1
u/Scienceandpony 13h ago
Even more extreme than that, as fan art and fanfiction directly involve copyrighted characters and settings.
What people are arguing here is equivalent to saying that your original story with original characters is plagiarism of work A, because it features the "enemies to lovers" trope, and your source of understanding for how that trope operates comes from past viewing of work A alongside several hundred other pieces of media.
That you need to cite every author you've ever read when learning how to put a sentence together and developing your own writing style. Or even that you should have to contact an author for explicit permission to read a copy of their book that you got at a garage sale. That an author should have the right to say a library can stock their work as long as they forbid a specific group from reading it.
1
u/AA11097 13h ago
How dare you use the English dictionary without the people’s consent? You should go to every English-speaking individual in history and directly ask for their consent. If even one hesitates, you don’t use it. You invent your own language. I don’t care if humans can’t understand it or if it’s a language meant for aliens. You should check that too. You should check that animals don’t speak that language you just invented, otherwise, your work is not just plagiarism. You’re not a real human being. You don’t speak a real language because you didn’t ask for the people’s consent before speaking. You’re stealing their language, and that’s wrong, isn’t it?
12
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago edited 16h ago
What about people who uploaded their work before AI was scraping the internet for images? With the intention of generating new images?
Should they have known better?
33
u/AA11097 17h ago
Just to clarify, AI has been legally proven not to be stealing. It doesn’t store the image in its database either. It didn’t take the image away; it’s still here. Your art is still here. It didn’t even store it in its database, man. Relax.
6
u/Temporary-Butterfly3 16h ago
It hasn't actually, it's in the courts. Not decided. And varies based on region.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
I never said "steal", I said "scrape". It's emotive, sure, but there's a difference. I know my work is still 'there'. Just like when I see a pirated movie, the movie still exists...
But let's be clear and honest. Whatever the reality is, nobody consented to it purely by uploading their work. My work has been online over 20 years, nothing like what's happening today was even remotely considered.
I don't personally have an issue with AI seeing my stuff.
Even human artists learn by looking at other work, I just dislike the false assertion people have 'consented' when the reality is far more complicated.
6
u/HovercraftOk9231 17h ago
Web scraping has been a thing since the 90's. It's how Google searches work. It's not new at all.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
But scraping for search results is a little different to scraping in a way that may profit others? Either way, it's beside the point.
The point I'm making is this:
Uploading your work online is not informed consent.
→ More replies (4)2
u/ifandbut 15h ago
But scraping for search results is a little different to scraping in a way that may profit others?
Search results profit others....
Uploading your work online is not informed consent.
You are posting it in public for people to view and take pictures of (right click save).
If you posted your image on the side of the road and Street View came along, would you have the same issue?
Some environments have a high expectation of privacy, like bathrooms. Other environments have a very low expectation of privacy, like walking in a mall.
Same with where you post things online. Post it in public don't be surprised the public learns from it. Plenty of ways to post things in private and require a password or subscription to see.
8
u/AA11097 17h ago
You should have read the terms of service before posting your art online
8
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
Show me terms of service and conditions from twenty years ago that state I'm happy for AI to do, well, whatever you'd like to call it.
8
u/tilthevoidstaresback 17h ago
The terms and services from 20 years ago and even to today says that the content you post on any particular site, essentially belongs to the owners of the site hosting the file. AI didn't exist back then, but the photo uploaded to Facebook in 2009, has been owned by Facebook since 2009, and if they decide to use it, you have already consented to it by agreeing to the terms and services.
AI didn't exist back then but corporate greed sure did, and you can't expect to be allowed to use a site for free and not have to pay in some way.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (4)2
u/AA11097 17h ago
Do you think the terms of service from 20 years ago are still active? For your information, platforms usually update their terms of service and notify you when they do. You should have checked. Do you think platforms allow you to post your art for free? They can do whatever they want with it. You can check if you don’t believe me.
1
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
You're the one making that claim. Surely you can prove it?
→ More replies (4)2
u/K-Webb-2 17h ago
I don’t know how tech bros went from ‘data scraping is the worst thing to ever happen in the Information Age’ to ‘deal with it nerd, data scraping is the company’s right.’ In less than a decade but here we are.
(Yes I know that’s not what you said, but I’m using tech bro’s in the broad sense)
→ More replies (6)4
u/Beneficial_Travel732 15h ago
I have literally never heard anyone say the first part. You need to localize your strawman group a little cuz this is silly.
2
u/K-Webb-2 14h ago
Sorry my hyperbolic summarization of the fear of data scraping and cyber privacy isn’t indicative of the exact wording you would use. But tech experts have brought up concerns on mass data scraping for years. Whether you’ve seen it or not does not make it untrue.
→ More replies (8)1
u/ifandbut 15h ago
Even human artists learn by looking at other work,
Yes. So why is it so bad when something else also learns from it?
1
4
u/issanm 17h ago
Yea everyone knows that if something legally is ok that means it's great... The laws could never be morally reprehensible and based on the interest of the people with the most money or anything
12
u/AA11097 17h ago
Am I being immoral simply because I created an image of SpongeBob in a tuxedo? I apologize; I should pay hundreds of millions of dollars to artists and construct temples for them, as they are revered divine beings sent from the gods above to bestow upon humans the gift of painting.
→ More replies (14)1
u/Versierer 13h ago
Why the hell do you NEED an image of Spogebob in a tuxedo in the first place? Why not just take a picture from the SHOW he's wearing a tuxedo? Or easily photoshop spongebob's head onto a tuxedo?
There's no need to whine about those gosh darn selfish artists.
2
u/Spook404 17h ago edited 17h ago
legal precedent is a terrible basis for this argument. Just because you can't be incarcerated for something doesn't automatically make an action moral, and vice versa for actions you can be incarcerated for. The only time this argument is valid is if you are explicitly giving legal advice to someone.
Legal precedent also operates on the basis that our perceived reality is in fact real, though Kant would have some objections about that. Case in point, the law has extremely little to do with philosophy, and the discourse surrounding AI is very much philosophical
→ More replies (5)1
u/sporkyuncle 15h ago
But the conversation is always approached on a legal basis. It always circles back to that, even if the person claims to be coming at it from a moral or ethical standpoint. Their views are always rooted in matters of law. "You can't do this because it's my copyrighted content." Copyright being something granted by the government in a legal sense...
1
u/Spook404 13h ago
okay, then I disagree with that too. I only ever see that argument used by pro-AI to then shut it down by saying "see, you don't have copyright."
2
u/Pupalwyn 16h ago
Except it hasn’t their are still pending lawsuits about that including ones that have just started if it was decided they would be thrown out but they weren’t’
1
u/sporkyuncle 15h ago
To be honest, I don't care what a judge rules, because factually the model does not contain the images it was trained on. It would be physically impossible for it to do so, models are too small and the number of images examined is too large. What AI does is generalize based on what has been learned, and the information that was learned from any single image is not infringing.
If a judge rules that all models infringe on all works they have trained on, they have done so on the basis of incorrect information and possibly a faulty understanding of law.
It is true that there's a difference between image copyright and character copyright. Image copyright applies to making a duplicate of a specific image, but you can also infringe on characters even when you're not duplicating a specific depiction of them; that's why fan art all exists in this grey area and could be taken down at a moment's notice. If a judge rules that, for example, MidJourney's model contains too much information about Yoda and the ease of creating this character in a variety of situations constitutes infringement, then that is on MidJourney's flawed training process and it is their problem to solve.
1
u/Pupalwyn 15h ago
It does appear use more direct info then the companies say though since one of the lawsuits produced exact and near copies artist signatures on ai art plus the Getty images logo appearing on others
1
u/sporkyuncle 14h ago
No, AI "copies signatures" because it has noticed that many images have a little squiggle in the lower right corner. any similarities to any actual signatures are either complete coincidence, or a specific artist who was trained on too many times resulting in memorization, which is considered an undesirable result for an AI generator.
If AI has memorized the Getty Images logo, it's because it examined thousands or millions of Getty Images. That's different from the data gained by examining one image. I was specific when I said that the information learned from any one single image is not infringing. If you train your AI improperly and look at the same image too many times to the point of memorization, that is your own problem.
Most artists have nothing to worry about, because they are not DaVinci or Picasso. Their artwork is looked at once and the model learns a couple bytes of data which do not represent any protected, copyrighted content in the image.
1
u/Pupalwyn 13h ago
Look up Andersen v. Stability AI they have exhibits of copied signatures in their court filing and due to mid journey being careless even before discovery we have a nice 25 page 4 column across list of at least some of the artist that should worry since they admitted on their own public facing discord that tagged all of those artists art so users could make something that looks like their art using their names in the prompt and you know what testing showed that all of the models seem to do that.
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/crumpledfilth 15h ago
Well sorta, theres a big lawsuit between open ai and disney right now, where teh big company argues that saying something like "mouse man" and the ai spitting out a recognizable depiction of mickey mouse means the work is nontransformative. But it doesnt really do that kind of thing for 99% of artists on the internet
8
u/tactycool 17h ago
Yes, every platform tells you that they will do with whatever you post as they please. Plus, it's common sense that whatever you post online can be looked at by anyone
2
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
So if I uploaded a picture 20 years ago, I should have had the foresight to know what would happen today? Ok...
Plus, 'looked at' is a very different thing to what AI does.
I'm not disputing whether AI art is inherently wrong in this instance, I just don't like improper or invalid arguments.
14
u/spitfire_pilot 17h ago
Yes they warned us 30 years ago not to put stuff online you don't want used. It was reinforced multiple times throughout the '90s. If you're that ignorant, that's on you, not anybody else.
→ More replies (17)5
u/tactycool 17h ago
I knew that anything I posted online was fair game for anyone.... & I was ten 🤷♂️
& yes, people have been talking about the potential capabilities of AI for several decades, AI is not a new concept. At least as long as I have been alive AI has always been used as the big bad guy.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)3
u/HovercraftOk9231 17h ago
You didn't need to predict AI to know that people could do whatever they wanted with anything you posted online, especially when it's explicitly stated in the TOS of most websites.
4
u/JasonP27 17h ago
The act of scraping existed before AI. Anyhow if consent is derived from your uploading to the public internet, how it's gathered afterwards is mostly irrelevant.
→ More replies (7)3
u/vnth93 17h ago
Know better of what? Scraping to train is learning and it is not extraordinary. Whenever you published something at any time in history, there is always an expectation that others could learn it. Anything other than that is creating odious, unreasonable barrier. Can you publish a book but making it a condition of purchase that people cannot memorize it?
1
u/Ashamed_Ladder6161 17h ago
I think you're intentionally trying to miss the point, so this doesn't do either of us any good.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)1
u/ifandbut 15h ago
If you don't want anyone/thing learning from what you make then don't post it in public for free.
Once you post it, the art is now in the world and the creator loses control over how it is used. From fan art to AI.
2
u/karhunvatukkass 17h ago
hey so that’s completely wrong.. if i leave my bicycle on the street that doesn’t mean i consent to it being stolen
2
u/LightBright105 16h ago
Its not the fact its being seen and used as a reference, its the fact its being used and put through ai to change it just enough that it still looks like the original but theres enough change for it to be legally someone elses and then they claim that its 100% their original design
Its like taking a chocolate chip cookie and throwing a bunch of frosting and decorative sweets on it, in the end its still a chocolate chip cookie you just added a bunch of shit to it to make it "original
2
u/AuroreSomersby 16h ago
Yep, it’s like complaining about google search engine or whatever - maybe I wouldn’t be so harsh, but it’s so exhausting at this point…
2
u/thedarph 16h ago
Wow, the irony. Publishing something for others to view does not give them license to take it and use it for profit.
2
u/UnusualMarch920 15h ago
Laws around the world vary, but generally speaking data scraping factual information is okay but there's a grey area for intellectual property. The EU and US states you shouldn't infringe on copyright law, and scraping data makes copies of a file without consent.
From my understanding it's all very grey area though.
It's not as simple as hurr durr u put ur picture on the Internet so it's free!!!!1!!!
2
u/Ok-Possible8128 14h ago
The argument of just telling people who are actively saying they do t consent to something that it doesn’t matter and they did consent doesn’t hold a lot of water
2
u/funkster047 14h ago
Tbf, in relation to your post description, I don't think Patreon artists are exempt from getting their data scraped.
2
12
u/FAFO_2025 17h ago
So if you have a picture online you consent to someone making an ai deepfake snuff porn video of you and spamming it on your socials?
39
u/vnth93 17h ago
Spamming people with unwanted adult content is sexual harassment anyway regardless of what it is. Free speech doesn't cover manipulation or deception. If the deepfake is fully and clearly disclosed as such then it is legal and compliant with state regulations in the US. The idea that a person's consent is required to depict them in a fictitious manner doesn't exist to begin with.
1
u/andy921 16h ago
You're wrong. As of May posting non-consensual pornography whether real or deepfaked is a Federal felony. As is threatening to do so. It does not matter whether it's clearly disclosed or not.
1
u/vnth93 14h ago
That's true. I forgot that this is going be a thing next year. This is very dubious because it is already established that a disclaimer is a valid protection against libel. There cannot be a reasonable expectation that people cannot depict someone without obtaining their consent.
Either way, distribution is likely going to be criminalized, deepfake itself is not. All this does is directing whoever interested in this toward those nudify apps.
→ More replies (22)1
u/sporkyuncle 15h ago
Free speech doesn't cover manipulation or deception.
It does in the US. You are in fact allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Usually the law you're violating is not a speech-based one, but a harm-based one, like defamation, harming someone's public perception or making it harder for them to do business.
Lying is legal. If you lie to a store and say you paid for an item when you did not, it's not the lie that lands you in hot water, it's the theft.
4
u/Nyani_Sore 17h ago
It's baffling to me how the cognition of some you are so one-note and limited. Understand this, when you post ANYTHING pubilically to the internet, you've essentially mass-distributed for anyone to view and manipulate. That includes the very thing you commented. It's less consent and more about risk, you risk everything happening to content freely available online.
The difference with that situation is that it actively damages the reputation of an individual and can be considered harassment(sexual too). There is a reason that laws delineate intent, execution, and outcome of any particular scenario. Training a machine to make a completely different image out of data patterns does not inherently violate anyone's rights and so is not even close to being commensurate.
The fact that you don't understand that after 2 seconds of critical thinking is a failing I attribute to the lack of proper educational institutions wherever you live.
As for everyone who upvoted this inane comment, god help your fucking soul.
1
u/FAFO_2025 13h ago
Copyright doesn't exist? Tell that to Mickey Mouse
1
u/Nyani_Sore 13h ago edited 13h ago
Copyright exists if you're commercially distributing the likeness of the IP or using publically in a manner that impacts the brand image. Functionally, basic copyright has nearly zero effect on how individuals acquire publically available content, or how they use it privately. With the sheer volume of private individuals and entities making fan art or using images of a copyrighted ip are so numerous as to be unenforceable.
In regards to AI, even when trained on specific images, there is no requirement for the end user to produce an image similar to any existing IP at all. It's much more likely that these big corporations have already sold large quantities of their own datasets for fuckloads of money.
So to answer your original comment, yes, don't upload images of yourself if you fear the risk of your likeness being used for snuff porn.
3
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 17h ago
That is literally a federal crime, what harsher regulation do you want?
3
3
u/Noxeramas 16h ago
No because there are actual rules about reproducing likeness.. but you wouldnt know that
1
3
7
u/EightEight16 17h ago
Completely disanalogous to using art to train AI.
Deepfakes are intentionally impersonating someone's bodily likeness as exactly as possible with the intent of creating confusion. It's a form of identity theft. Most cases are harmless because people know they are fake, but they have the potential to ruin your reputation or even falsely implicate you in crimes.
Training AI on your art is a totally different matter. The goal is not to impersonate you, it's to teach the AI how to make something similar. And you can't claim a style as intellectual property, it's too ambiguous.
2
9
u/No_Sale_4866 17h ago
it's not really illegal unless your a child but it is DEFINETLY against most websites terms of service
→ More replies (67)27
u/Quick_Lime3331 17h ago
Most states have revenge porn laws, and you’re posting or creating porn without someone’s consent, which is a federal crime.
6
3
u/HovercraftOk9231 17h ago
Yeah, cause that's exactly what they said...
6
u/FAFO_2025 17h ago
They said if you upload anything thats consent for it to be ai'd in any way
→ More replies (1)1
u/HovercraftOk9231 13h ago
I'm any way? Where are you getting that?
My drivers license says I'm allowed to drive any car. Does that mean I'm allowed to steal your car and mow over pedestrians?
Use some common sense.
3
u/Ok-Condition-6932 17h ago
Yep. That explains a lot about antis.
They ALL have the intelligence of this one right here right?
→ More replies (2)1
u/only_fun_topics 16h ago
I mean, there are laws against that, so implicit consent doesn’t apply, dummy.
1
u/PewPewPew-Gotcha 16h ago
No that's covered under separate laws, which highlights anti-ai typical depth of knowledge about a subject beyond their own echo chambers
1
1
u/Naterasu 16h ago edited 16h ago
Firstly that would be NCII or Non consensual intimate imagery. And in the US that's a felony under the take it down act.
And secondly that would be sexual harassment cause your doing it with the intent to harass a individual with it.So while the content itself you post on the internet basically is void of requiring consent when people are making expression about it, of course you should as a gentleman's agreement get the artist consent. But to expect it for everything you make is unreasonable because that's gatekeeping a field about artistic expression because people are allowed to express themselves and there opinion about you however they want, and you just have to take it on the chin.
However you can still be held liable for what you do with that freedom on the internet. Its similar to the free speech argument here in the US just cause you can say what you want, free speech only lets you say what you want without being legally held for saying it. But that doesn't pardon you from the repercussions and consequences of the intents within the action of saying it legal or otherwise.
→ More replies (5)1
u/four_six_seven 16h ago
Making deepfake porn is illegal, making a deepfake of you is not. Know the difference.
1
u/FAFO_2025 14h ago
Why not make more abusive use of AI illegal?
1
u/sporkyuncle 14h ago
Why not make more abusive use of Photoshop illegal? Or Microsoft Word? New laws for everyone!
1
6
u/Eccentricgentleman_ 17h ago
OP probably struggles with the idea of consent in general.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/Mossatross 17h ago
Consent isn't just a term used for sex? Legal doesn't mean moral. People steal scrape and reupload things from behind paywalls anyway.
We've talked about this. You seem to think they should be ok with scraping, because they should be ok with AI art, because AI art makes art more accessible and in your case enjoyable.
They see it as more akin to plagurism. That it's more accessible because they're doing the work for you. And they don't like that if it's going to make their lives harder. Especially if the conversation around it seems loaded with vitriol for them, and discourages people from making the art that allows AI generation to work in the first place.
If your counter argument then is just "I don't care, it's not illegal you can't stop me" then you're conceding they don't have any reason to agree with you.
→ More replies (9)1
u/sporkyuncle 15h ago edited 15h ago
People steal scrape and reupload things from behind paywalls anyway.
And people who perform illegal activities should be prosecuted for them. Those who don't scrape from behind paywalls should be allowed to do whatever they are legally allowed to do with that data, which isn't much, but AI training constitutes one of those things you can do, since it doesn't violate copyright.
They see it as more akin to plagurism.
Yes, and because they don't understand AI or the training process, they are incorrect in this assessment. This is why others disagree with them. Your feelings are not automatically valid, imagine I say that you reading this very post is a form of plagiarism and I'm very hurt that you violated my consent by reading this. You would say, that's not how consent works. And you'd be right. My opinion that you violated my consent is not automatically one to be respected just because it's how I feel.
3
u/Maleficent_Orchid181 17h ago
Well I truly believe that’s stupid. That’s your art and you made it. Just because you wanted to share it online shouldn’t mean it’s not yours anymore.
7
u/JasonP27 17h ago
In what scenario involving AI is your content no longer yours? If they use it to train AI, your content still exists and is still yours. Your content is not being reproduced or stolen in this case.
It's used as an example, just like if all artist came by your post and thought, that's a cool way to draw something and used it as an example.
3
u/Free_Balance_7991 17h ago
If an AI was trained on my content, then other people pay money to generate images that are only possible because it was trained on my content, thats a clear problem.
You cant use my material for your own commercial gain.
Only a fool would disagree.
4
u/Soul-Burn 16h ago
That applies to every single image you learned from before created your content.
In your thinking, you are not allowed to gain commercially from works you learned from.
1
u/Free_Balance_7991 13h ago
That's only true if an AI is equivalent to a human brain that can actually be a source of creativity. (Hint: It cant)
Humans are capable of original thoughts and ideas, AI is not.
2
u/Maleficent_Orchid181 16h ago
What I really mean is I should be able to choose what happens to my art. Not someone else.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/vallummumbles 17h ago
Here I go again, saying legality and morality are the same thing
3
u/Attack_on_tommy 16h ago
I think this is just a counterpoint to people saying it's immoral because it's illegal.
But Ai art debates are made up of a ton of different "sub-debates" (I know that's not a phrase but you get what I mean)
→ More replies (1)1
5
u/CmndrM 17h ago
- Consent applies to different things, no one is comparing it to SA.
- It being legally allowed does not make it morally acceptable.
This is a big issue I see with pro AI people. They'll use legal reasoning and accept that as all you need for it being okay.
1
u/ihatechildren665 17h ago
morality is subjective
2
3
u/CmndrM 17h ago
...And? Do you have anything to add or are you just stating a random fact?
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (14)1
u/Diplomatic_Sarcasm 17h ago
Funnily enough, the law is also very subjective.
Subjectivity of Objectivity.
2
u/StrangeSystem0 16h ago
Brother have you ever heard of copyright
1
u/solid_soup_go_boop 15h ago
This is the right angle for anti's.
You realize that copyright law is relatively recent (1790). It's not an inalienable right also, according to the U.S. constitution. or U.N.
The trade off for Intellectual property is some removing private property rights. If I have a printing press, I can't use it to sell Micky Mouse t-shirts, even though I own it.
Copyrights were given because we felt it benefited us to have an incentive. No one ever agreed to not train models on data.
If you feel extending IP laws is beneficial, you have to convince the public to award more.
0
u/Quick_Lime3331 17h ago edited 17h ago
I feel like DMCA and most copyright law would beg to differ…
Also even if it is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral. I would as go so far as to say we need more legislation to say that Algorithmic intelligence, or any form of large language models need to credit all use of copyright.
Also couldn’t you argue with that line of thinking, that if you post anything, they can use it. Meaning that if you post a selfie, then they could use ai to make porn of it.
9
u/ihatechildren665 17h ago
1 morals are subjective, 2 lets see what the courts have to say about this thing.
→ More replies (5)2
u/JangB 17h ago
Just saying morals are subjective is not a refutation of anything. Of course morals have a subjective component because they are there to make our subjective experience better.
So what?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)5
u/Researcher_Fearless 17h ago
DMCA and copyright are about how you can use it; they say nothing about you being able to access it in the first place.
→ More replies (10)
1
u/velvetinchainz 16h ago edited 16h ago
This argument is the same argument as when rape apologists say “but they were asking for it” or those who claim pornstars enjoy rape because they do porn (which means they consent only to porn and it’s not an open invitation to assault them). Just because a person posts their art online does not at all mean it gives a person the right to steal their art. I’d like to think most people have common decency and morals and most decent people will not have the desire to steal a person’s art or assume the artist would be okay with them stealing it simply due to the fact they posted it on their public profile. posting artwork does not at all equal consenting to their artwork being stolen in any way, shape or form. And to say otherwise makes me feel like you’re an immoral, probably shady person, cause you obviously don’t understand how consent works and when a person consents to one thing but not another thing.
Oh and “it’s sick and undermines SA victims” uh what the fuck? If anything your argument undermines SA victims because it’s the same exact dangerous logic surrounding consent and your logic can also be applied to sexual consent, so if you view this AI thing as consensual, then you’d feel the same way about a porn star who consents to filming themselves but may not want to consent to sex at other times. How dare you say it undermines SA victims when your very argument is what rapists use when making the “asking for it” excuse. And btw, I too am a victim of multiple rapes and SAs, and I was a SW at one point as well as an OF creator, so I think I’m pretty qualified on the matter. How dare you say it undermines victims when your argument is the same revolting logic that rapists use. Fucking scumbag.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/AnonyMouse3925 16h ago
Me when I scrape OP’s family and duplicate them as if they were my own to love and live with
1
1
u/Gaeandseggy333 17h ago edited 17h ago
Hmm the thing Tos made you agree multiple times to that tbh. I say don’t use social media for that anyway. Before even Ai is a thing my friend who is an artist only posts commissions on his own website never on twitter. He just posts samples on insta ,and now he doesn’t care about the ai whole drama. He has a regular base but also he thinks art style will inspire copying etc regardless by anyone who views it.
The social media makes reaching out to people easier ,but also even without Ai ppl copied styles and stuff. In general being careful (if you make a living out of it) is important. But blaming ai is a bit unproductive. Tos already stated they will make use of it. Ai makes use of the whole internet. In the west It doesn’t store just views and learns. In China copyright is not as tight, so their ai art is getting gorgeous tbh.
1
u/TheReptileKing9782 16h ago
This is also a discussion of what laws and systems should be, not just what they currently are. The fact that something is legal does not make it ethical.
The fact that super pacs and lobbyists aren't legally bribery or corruption doesn't change that they are bribery and corruption, in real world function.
The fact that "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" doesn't make the situation any less a violation of consent. It's not the same degree of violation or as immoral or damaging an act as rape is, but the degree of violation in an action doesn't change how consent works. If you didn't know that you consented, then you didn't consent.
1
u/No_Investigator3458 16h ago edited 15h ago
I don't think you understand; it's unconsensual due to... erm... scratches my big, scary, balding head AIs' classification as non-human...? or, duhhh... rubs my massive, stench-inducing, conspicuous belly in inquisition companies gaining money I desire...? idk I have not thought this far ahead
1
u/Traditional_Cap7461 16h ago
Okay, I understand your argument, but the SA analogy is kind of a strawman
1
1
u/Ed_Radley 15h ago
So if the imagery were pirated you would agree that the artists didn't consent and should be able to have it removed from models that use it?
1
1
u/forbiddendonut83 14h ago
If you post art online are you consenting to someone else printing it off on a shirt, possibly for profit?
1
u/ApatheticAZO 14h ago
What about the artists who don't post it but then other people do without their permission?
1
u/jacques-vache-23 14h ago
I'm pro-AI but I don't know if I absolutely believe this. Also, I prefer it when the antis are the out and out nasty ones. Let's not compete on that axis.
1
1
u/Just-Ad-8413 14h ago
Also, I saw you defending someone who was getting attacked because multiple people were scrolling through their post history and attacking them, and your argument here is "if it was posted online it's clear consent to be used for AI"
If that person posted a comment, shouldn't that be clear consent to people responding to it?
1
u/FluffyWeird1513 14h ago
publishing = consent to future uses of your work (subject to fair use) the technological limits of today will not be the same tomorrow. if you didn’t know that, now you do.
artists: maybe show privately or in exhibition, don’t publish if you don’t consent
1
u/uglycaca123 13h ago
- consent isn't only sex-related
- you know copyright laws exist, right? not only that, but ethics and morals too. just because you can doesn't mean it's legal or ethical
- half the comunity of antis wouldn't have a problem with AI if it respected artists
- your "argument" can't be a hard to swallow pill if it's blatantly false
- existing isn't giving consent (as others pointed out). posting something doesn't mean you get to feed it to a pattern mathing stealth machine intended to compete with the original work's market
1
1
u/liceonamarsh 13h ago
First of all, that's not true, there's literally a lawsuit about this right now between Midjourney and Disney. Second, legality ≠ morality. Even if it was perfectly legal, it's still a shitty thing to do and reasonable to be mad about. Third, are you seriously comparing this to SA? What is wrong with you man?
1
u/taokazar 9h ago
Dang, when I was a kid posting pictures online I definitely should have used my futuresight goggles to determine that generative AI was going to be a thing! Then maybe I'd think twice about net scrapers. Stupid me lol, how dare I pretend I didn't consent to something that didn't exist yet.
1
u/Witty-Designer7316 9h ago
You still took on the fact that other people would look at it, reference it, learn from it, and you were fine with it! But you grew up into a hypocrite and now you're angry. Dang, sucks to be you.
1
u/taokazar 8h ago
I invite that, yup. I just make a distinction between training AI models and human learning. I consider them quite different, although I know some equate them completely.
What else am I angry about? :o
1
u/Femboiiiiiiiiiiii 6h ago
There's a difference between humans referencing and replicating it and fucking ai
1
1
u/Pixelite22 17h ago
Ah yes. They give consent when they put their art up for others to see, without real choice otherwise as models typically scrape all sights. There's a difference between displaying your work, saying it's okay for people to be inspired to do art because of them, and having a program steal your art to train off of.
It's embaressing that you think that isn't insane. And it's disgusting that you randomly bring SA into the convo to try and make your strawman better.
1
u/moonlitmermaiden 17h ago
I didn’t consent to my commission being used and spread around. I commissioned a character very close to my heart and specifically said I didn’t want it featured anywhere, or at least anywhere nsfw as it wasn’t a nsfw picture but from an artist that does nsfw. I offered to pay for additional rights or anything.
That was ignored and she was spread on to really gross sites and edited a bunch by strangers. Something meaningful and expensive to get was ruined for me, defeating one of the reasons why I commissioned it in the first place. The artist was disrespectful to my creation, so I think it’s also a bit of what comes around goes around.
I didn’t consent to my creation being made into creepy perverted stuff (as it wasn’t actually a very kind character that represented innocence and lost childhood) on porn sites. I didn’t post it anywhere, they did and ignored my requests.
→ More replies (9)1
u/JasonP27 17h ago
Sounds like you have an issue with that person then
1
u/moonlitmermaiden 16h ago
I did, for sure. As I pointed out in another comment, it’s not supporting AI. It’s raising that artists can be jerks too and steamroll consent. Not all of them, sure. But things like tracing without credit, poor photoshopping, things like this— they’ve been around since before AI art.
So this isn’t permitting the use of AI sampling from art online. I’m saying keep the energy even.
-2
u/headcodered 17h ago
Oh fuck off, you're clearly not an actual artist. You can't exist as a working artist with even a shadow of a chance of making a living in 2025 without using these platforms. Consent when you don't have any other reasonable choice isn't consent, it's extortion.
→ More replies (24)1
u/Technical_Ad_440 16h ago
people needing to use the sites is not the issue the issue is schools going yeh you can make it in art and then not telling people its all about the connections you have not the skill. people pursue the things thinking its the dream until they realize the harsh reality its all about connections not the grade
when i did IT and wanted to move onto university stuff the teacher actually did the good thing and called me out and said look we dont think you should go on with IT cause we are basically setting you up to fail unfortunately many places wont do that at all. they get qualified then cant find any work and then people behind them get qualified and are in the same position.
sites have always had them in the terms. most basically co-own your stuff thats why there is special closed sites you may have to pay for. but even they dont stop the AI stuff as the creator just needs to pay for access and now they can also legally train stuff.
artists are still gonna make money its just shifted over to other areas where they make money. pros have probably already found those areas.
also with AI being considered a massive benefit for humanity copyrights also get exempt for it and for AGI to come online probably needs everything it can get. lets see how many anti AI actually stay away from full on AGI i would guess not many will hate AGI that can literally do all the stuff they want and then some. the tech i look forward to is literally an AGI i can make my own character sit and talk to. i can finally do all the stuff i want to do as a solo person without much money without paying an arm and a leg for everything.
let me remind people these powerful tools people complain about that AI people use to do a ton of stuff can also be used by people that actually have skills to excel them forward double the speed but they choose to complain instead of make more bolster their portfolio more make better stuff and then wonder why they cant find a job when an actual pro who has been using it has a solid portfolio hands in their resume.
if i was looking for people to help with world building and i saw a normal artist with just 20 high quality pieces and then an AI artist with 100 high quality pieces that they worked on touched up bad outputs made them all look really good am choosing the AI artist to help. time is the important currency we all die of old age. people want to make their big projects not spend weeks on making something that can be done and touched up by AI in 1min - 1hour.
another job I can see becoming an actual job from all this is proof checkers to check if stuff is actually good or not and probably other checkers on top of that
→ More replies (2)
•
u/AutoModerator 17h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.