Artist Jingna Zhang built Cara, a platform explicitly intended to protect artists from having their art stolen by AI…and yet these people just won’t leave them well enough alone.
“defending AI art”… jesus, that’s sad.
Imagine having so little talent that you consider AI generated slop “art”
Edit*
Yeah good luck asshole.
PSA to anyone who uploads art online, anywhere. Poison it first. Use the latest version. I’m sorry but you are in an arms race now. Dickhead over here is full of shit, but even if they’re not, Nightshade is updated fast.
Poisoning it is sadly an Arms Race, one that will inevitably be lost
Which is why I take a completely different direction. I poison my artwork I post online through the one technique they can’t account for.
See, I’m not super great at drawing, and in order to protect their precious models, they’d literally have to go take a look and say “yeah, that drawing wasn’t very good”. They can’t detect that automatically yet!
/sorry for a very predictable joke btw
And then won, and then lost, and then won. That’s how an arms race works. And we have the advantage in numbers. There are far more people who don’t want their shit scalped than people working for the morons at OpenAI, or Google or Anthropic. And yes, they ARE morons. The battle is only lost when one side gives up. You only lose when you accept defeat.
The issue is that they can just reuse the existing art once they’ve “removed” the poison that was used on it. The artworks with poison in them aren’t forever inaccessible to them, they just get them slightly later.
That doesn’t mean we should stop, but it still is a war that we ultimately can’t win. Even if the poison technology advances faster than the AI companies are, they can simply use slightly older art with a less sophisticated version of poison.
I mean, is the goal to prevent training or poison training. Yes nightshade will never prevent your work from being trained on, but hopefully models don’t know it’s poisoned and it sows model dysfunction.
Going out of their way to disseminate creators’ art in the specific way they have asked not to, then to go and gloat about it is peak disrespectful jerk behaviour, and seems commonplace among the pro-AI crowd.
To give an analogy, if someone cooked a noodle dish, shared it with the public and asked people to use a fork or chopsticks, it would be one thing for you to take some home and eat it with your hands on your own. Weird but whatever. But to go and post online about them eating with their hands or another way, mocking the wishes of the creator for any reason other than disability accommodation, that’s not illegal but it is hella disrespectful and hurtful.
And AI bros think they’re okay. Fucking disgusting.
It’s amazing how disrespectful these idiots can be. They’ll destroy and steal people’s work, feed it to Big Corpo™ Slopinator 4.7, get shit-tier content in return, just because they chugged the kool-aid that this tech with billions of dubious investments is the future of everything.
Cunt
Recently I’ve been embedding metadata into pictures I upload which include the cost to license out the image for AI training: 1 million dollars. Then, if an AI company scrapes my picture, I can take that company to court and have a concrete dollar amount for how much that company owes me for damages.
Its a bit delusional to think you can sue them. For a number of reasons, not least of which is that you don’t have the funds for a protracted legal battle and that the burden of proof that your work was used is pretty much impossible to prove.
I don’t think so. First of all, if a lawyer thinks that I have a strong case, they could agree to be paid after I win, so I don’t need to pay out of pocket up front. Second, it is easy to prove that an AI company used my pictures, since they would need to download the pictures to train on them. Alternatively, if a platform sells it to the AI company, there is a record that it was sold for the purposes of AI training.(In that case, we don’t have to prove that the image was used for training, since the crime is the sale.) Lastly, since the license and purchase info is contained within the metadata of the picture, they can’t argue that the license was unavailable or something. They have it right there in their servers!
Second, it is easy to prove that an AI company used my pictures, since they would need to download the pictures to train on them.
The problem is the AI isn’t going to use exactly the original image it will take parts of it and use it to create a new image that does not include the metadata. Just proving they downloaded it wouldn’t be actionable since they would need to download the image to get your metadata which contains the terms. You would need to prove that they applied the transferred the data to the training algorithm which would be an internal process.
Also there’s the concept of consideration to… uh… consider. Is a million dollars reasonable consideration?
But that being said, it’s worth a shot. Worst case is you get nothing, but you’d get nothing if you didn’t put licensing terms in the metadata anyway. Just seems very unlikely you’ll get a million dollars by doing this.
I’m not a lawyer, but as an artist, bravo. You’ve changed how I look at this. No sarcasm here. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Tbh, that was bound to happen. At least the author is stupid enough to come forward and get in the prime spot for cyber bullying
Honestly tho, fuck all IP copyright bullshit. It’s all based on western hegemonical laws meant to oppress the poor.
I quite of second this. People often seem to forget the fact that everything we post to the Internet, unless it got some sort of password-lock or GPG/PGP/E2EE encryption, should be considered as already exposed or something…
And, hell, even with encryption, the recipient risks leaking it once they open it. Screenshot-lock? The recipient can take a photo of the screen with a second device, or use analog HDMI splitters (akin to how movie streams are pirated) to capture the thing digitally. Poisoning the well? The recipient can apply heavy photoshopping to it until the subpixel elements are rendered meaningless, or they can even rotoscope on top of the art before feeding it to VLMs (I highly doubt Nightshade and similar algorithms would be able to poison traced-over derivatives). File metadata and things such as alternative NTFS streams? Doesn’t last long after being uploaded to a back-end, the most of which will likely strip it all for privacy/security reasons (e.g. because EXIF can sometimes carry geolocation data, so platforms may end up stripping EXIF altogether). Paywall? Nothing technically stops a buyer from uploading it somewhere else.
The only thing that could theoretically protect it after the publishing is the usage of licenses (e.g. Creative Commons, or All Rights Reserved), but, in practice, we know the only ones who could truly afford enforcing their licensing terms are those who can afford a legion of lawyers, namely studios such as Nintendo and Disney. We, amateur artists, we are neither a Nintendo nor a Disney.
And I say this as an artist myself. I once made a 3D model of an owl in Blender, fully sculpted from scratch (there’s something magical in the fact that an UV sphere can become an entire character after treating the sphere like a ball of clay to be molded) and rigged/morphable. I’m very fond of this creation of mine, I love her, she is practically sacred to me, so sacred I don’t want her to be misused. I don’t want her to become a commercial product (original or derivative), and I know even a CC-BY-NC-SA wouldn’t protect her from that because I couldn’t afford one lawyer, let alone a legion of these, to sue whoever corporation or individual dared to misuse my creation. So I leave her unpublished because, while she’s unpublished, nobody can do improper uses of her, not even AI corporations.
The moment me, as an artist, publish something online, I can’t truly expect my creation not to be misused somewhere… So everything I publish, I publish with this in mind. I don’t believe in “Intellectual Property” (bc ideas aren’t apples to become scarce), but I believe in the fact that a creation risks misuse whenever it reaches some hand other than my own.
If You put your stuff online, it is easy to steal. Otherwise people wouldn’t be able to view it.
Accept that and move on.
If you park your car outside, it is easy to steal.
Accept that and move on.
The original images are gone? How did that happen?
If not, and we are still in consent that copying is not stealing… well, then the more fitting analog would be that it is terribly easy to make a photo of your car
If you keep your stuff in your house, it’s easy to steal. Otherwise people wouldn’t be able to break your door down.
Accept that and move on.
Nailing a 100€ note to the ground is a different kind of invitation than having a safe.
Wow I really don’t know what the downvotes are all about because your point is pretty much correct.
Real world example: If you hang up an image in a public space people can and will take pictures of it. You can’t stop this.
The whole thing has pretty much nothing to do with AI…
