Megacorps like Disney have mountains of exclusive data they “own” that they can use to create their own internal, proprietary, AI systems. They have every sketch, development photo, unused concept art piece, cut scene, note, doodle, rotoscope/animation reference footage, every storyboard, merch design document, you name it.
And that’s on top of every single frame of every movie and TV show. Every panel of every comic.
That’s why Disney supports the efforts to clamp down on AI for copyright reasons, because they own all the copyrights. They want that power in their hands. They do not want you to be able to use a cheap or free utility to compete with them. Along the way, they’ll burn the entire concept of fair use to the ground and snatch the right to copyright styles. Adobe has confessed this intention, straight to congress.
When the lawyers come, you won’t be accused of stealing from say, artist Stephen Silver. You’ll be accused of stealing the style of Disney’s Kim Possible™.
The EFF article and the one linked at the beginning of it are EXCELLENT and level-headed discussions that help shed light on the legal and moral issues surrounding AI art and writing.
What Would it Mean for Art if the Court Finds that Stable Diffusion Infringes Copyright? The theory of the class-action suit is extremely dangerous for artists. If the plaintiffs convince the court that you’ve created a derivative work if you incorporate any aspect of someone else’s art in your own work, even if the end result isn’t substantially similar, then something as common as copying the way your favorite artist draws eyes could put you in legal jeopardy.
From the other article:
This would result in the worst of all worlds: the companies that today have cornered the market for creative labor could use AI models to replace their workers, while the individuals who rarely—or never—have cause to commission a creative work would be barred from using AI tools to express themselves.
This would let the handful of firms that pay creative workers for illustration—like the duopoly that controls nearly all comic book creation, or the monopoly that controls the majority of role-playing games—require illustrators to sign away their model-training rights, and replace their paid illustrators with models. Giant corporations wouldn’t have to pay creators—and the GM at your weekly gaming session couldn’t use an AI model to make a visual aid for a key encounter, nor could a kid make their own comic book using text prompts.
What these corporations want to do is to control how AI is used. Just like you. They are infinitely more powerful. They want to use it to control how you use YOUR HUMAN TALENT. They do not care about you. They care about a machine that can make them money, and if it has the side effect of suppressing the artistic expression of others, that’s good for them too.
These articles discuss ways to ACTUALLY CURB THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF WIDESPREAD USE OF GENERATED IMAGERY AND WRITING ON THE ARTS.
If that is what you want, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL ISSUES AT HAND and not laugh at how you are fighting alongside Disney or Adobe. They are the WORST malicious actors in the legal field of copyright. If you are on Disney’s side you are on the wrong side.
And im sure it’s a coincidence that disney is pressing hard on this with the renewed unionization efforts
It’s a decent point, but it doesn’t really apply here, check the dates on the article.
