Is this part actually coming from artists? What’s the suggested amount(be it upper quadrillion dollars per second or $0.25/use)?
I think compensation as a condition is only assumed implied, that financial gains are artists’ motives and they actually live off that income. Rather, I see a lot of vocal oppositions to AI image generators that aren’t drawing for profit at all.
So, is the money going to solve it, or is it a wrong assumption, or is it that it will have to be settled by lump sums?
Yes. The group of artists that are suing Stability AI and Midjourney are calling for consent, credit, and compensation.
https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/
> Since then, we’ve heard from people all over the world—especially writers, artists, programmers, and other creators—who are concerned about AI systems being trained on vast amounts of copyrighted work with no consent, no credit, and no compensation.
I think the details of credit and compenstation aren't as important, because once you require consent, artists can decide whether they're happy with the compensation model and choose to give consent (or not) based on that.
Is this part actually coming from artists? What’s the suggested amount(be it upper quadrillion dollars per second or $0.25/use)?
I think compensation as a condition is only assumed implied, that financial gains are artists’ motives and they actually live off that income. Rather, I see a lot of vocal oppositions to AI image generators that aren’t drawing for profit at all.
So, is the money going to solve it, or is it a wrong assumption, or is it that it will have to be settled by lump sums?