J.D. Moyer

sci-fi author, beatmaker

A Proposal for Distributing Royalties for AI Generated Artworks “in the style of…”

I’ve been experimenting with Midjourney 5, which is probably the leading generative AI for visual images. But it’s not there yet, in terms of both image quality and ethical use.

Image quality — Midjourney often creates monstrosities of merged limbs, unnatural joint insertions, and other body horror fodder. Some examples from the prompt “two women embracing in a futuristic city”. Two of the images look more or less anatomically correct, while the other two, well…ouch.

I know I sound like someone complaining about wifi quality on an airplane. I’m overlooking the miraculous fact that such a thing can happen at all, instead focusing on the deficits. But that’s how people relate to technology. If it doesn’t work all the way, it’s basically worthless.

I assume with time that Midjourney and other generative AI will gain a better understanding of what can and cannot happen with a human body. But there are also major ethical concerns with using such technology. In the example image I used “in the style of” followed by the name of an Italian graphic novel illustrator. Midjourney did a reasonable job of approximating the artist’s style, which leads me to believe that the AI has used this artist’s artwork for neural net training.

So should the Italian graphic novel illustrator get a cut of what I paid to use Midjourney (a license that includes commercial use rights)?

I’ve heard the argument that human artists also train by observing and even manually copying the work of other artists, and they don’t pay royalties or ask permission. So why should an AI?

I think the process by which an AI trains on human-created content is much closer to sampling and repurposing, and much less like human learning. So absolutely, the human artist should get a cut.

The royalty system could look something like this:

  1. As an artist (visual, fiction, any kind), you could opt-in or opt-out of having your work sampled and repurposed by AI. If you opted out, the AI would not allow your name to be used as part of a prompt. Midjourney already includes all kinds of restrictions (including a prohibition against creating erotic images), so this additional restriction would be technically trivial to implement.
  2. Those that opted in would receive a prorated share of user subscription fees based on how many images or works were generated by that user account. So if a user generated 100 images in a month, and five of them were “in the style of Artist XYZ”, then the artist would receive 5% x TheRoyaltyRate% x subscription fee per month.
  3. I’d argue that a fair royalty rate would be somewhere between 50% and 85% (Midjourney keeping 15-50%). A 15% share is common for distribution and administration services, while a 50% share would include more compensation for those that develop and maintain the AI algorithms and neural nets. The exact percentage (and the option of advances against future royalties) would be something for tech companies and artist agencies to haggle over.
  4. Users might also user broader prompts like “in the style of Italian graphic novels”. In that case, the royalty share could be divided among all Italian graphic novel illustrators. But that begs the question of how Italian graphic novel illustrators who opted OUT would be compensated (because we can safely assume that generative AI are indiscriminately hoovering up and utilizing all the images they can find on the internet). So some of the “broad prompt” money would need to be put aside to somehow funnel back to those artists (or their estates), either as grants or as a pool that qualifying artists could apply for.

Of course all this will probably need to be legislated. Midjourney is getting away with murder right now, and they aren’t going to change anything unless someone makes them.

Communications from my Past Self (and other reasons to write)

East Cut neighborhood in San Francisco

I’m gearing up for some changes to this site. Probably a new theme, and hopefully a better system for signing up for my newsletter.

Considering these changes has led me to consider what this blog is for. Self-expression? Self-promotion? Is it a lifestyle blog? A health blog? A creativity blog?

Sure, all of the above. But here are the reasons that resonate with me the most right now:

1. To think more clearly. For me at least, there’s no substitute for writing about a topic in order to understand it, to formulate and articulate my views. I write, therefore I think.

2. To have a record of what I was thinking and feeling at a particular time. Just today I reread a post I’d written from when I’d overcommitted to work, and was feeling overwhelmed. At the moment I feel like I don’t have quite enough freelance work, which creates some financial stress. But reading my previous post reminded me that I said some no-thank-yous to give myself more time to work on writing and music. So that’s what I should do.

3. To grow my readership. I haven’t put much energy into this, but it is important to me. Having regular readers is great for so many reasons. But it’s a responsibility, a two-way street, and if I’m not writing interesting and helpful posts then I can’t expect an audience to stick around.

And here are a couple reasons that don’t, or no longer, resonate with me:

1. To write about health topics. Bottom line, I’m not a medical professional. I have a deep interest in nutrition and human health, but there are also huge gaps in my knowledge. In another life I might have become a nutritionist or naturopath, but that’s not the path I chose. And that’s not the kind of reader I want to attract or interact with.

2. To sell something. This blog will never become a sales funnel to buy my course or eBook. I just have no interest in that. If you happen to discover one of my novels that you think you’d enjoy, and buy it, fantastic! But the primary purpose of this blog never was and never will be to make a quick buck.

Personal Updates

  • I recently returned from the Nebulas Conference in Anaheim. It was my first in-person writing conference since the beginning of the pandemic, and being around other authors was incredibly energizing. I didn’t have any particular agenda beyond learning and socializing, but I ended the weekend with a slew of new ideas and a recharged writing battery. My friend Jane was nominated for a game-writing Nebula for her work on a recent D&D book, and though GRRM won the award for Elden Ring, I felt very happy for her and her team. I also met Steve Lerner, the writer of Stray (nominated in the same category)–I look forward to playing the cyber-cat game. As for novels, I’m currently reading and enjoying Daughters of Tith by J. Patricia Anderson.
  • The quiver of complete, unpublished fiction is getting pretty full, and in the coming months I’ll be shifting my efforts to submitting more work for publication, and possibly taking another crack at the agent querying process. At the moment I’m working on revisions of Green Dawn (previously titled The Savior Virus), a near-future medical thriller/sci-fi novel.
  • There are a few social issues I’m trying to think more clearly about, so I’ll probably write about them in the near future. A few of the questions I’m considering:
    • What Should the Left Do About Men? (high male unemployment, falling educational levels, social isolation, etc.)
    • How Can Labor Disrupt the False Promises of AI-Enhanced Productivity?
    • What are the Most Effective Ways Citizenry can Reclaim Power from Fascist/Authoritarian Leaders and Groups?
  • I have two new EDM releases out:

That’s all for today, hope you are enjoying your weekend!

AI Gone Wild — Should AI Be Allowed in Art?

Neil Clarke of Clarkesworld Magazine recently posted a graph of bans due to AI-generated submissions:

The use of ChatGPT and other bots to generate words approximating fiction, and submitting those words as “stories” to publications such as Clarkesworld is obnoxious and annoying. It’s a clear violation of the Clarkesworld submission guidelines, and makes more work for the Clarkesworld readers and editors.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that bot-generated writing isn’t “art” in some sense of word. As Frank Zappa famously said, art is whatever you put a frame around. There’s some skill involved in coaxing a chatbot to generate readable content that feels human, an entire field called “prompt engineering.” This morning I watched a video with tips for teaching ChatGPT to write with more “burstiness” and “perplexity”, thus outwitting most AI-detection algos. Kind of horrifying, kind of amazing.

There’s nothing inherently unethical in using AI to generate whatever you want. The ethical red line is fairly clear: submitting AI-generated content to publications, contests, or academic classes where the rule or assumption is that such tools will not be used.

But what about commercial uses of AI generated content? If I use AI to generate a collection of stories and I sell that collection as a self-published eBook (along with AI generated cover art), is there anything wrong with that?

Generative vs. Sample-Based

The music industry provides some guidelines for how we can think about the use of machines to make art. I’ve been using synthesizers and samplers to make music since 1992. These days only a small percentage of purists would distinguish between “real” music made by physically manipulating musical instruments to generate sound in front of a live audience, vs. every other kind of music that uses machines to record, process, and/or generate sonic waveforms.

Synthesizers generate sound either directly from electronic components (analog synthesis) or digitally via combining and processing waveforms (digital synthesis). Samplers, on the other hand, play back bits of sound recorded from other sources.

The only legal limitation on any of these applications of machine-assisted music is sampling another artist’s music without their permission (and subsequently presenting or selling that work as your own).

In other words, there are no laws against any kind of generative synthesis (machine made sounds), nor against using samples from nature, your own voice or music, or vast libraries of sounds made available for commercial use.

Music curators (label owners, radio DJs, venue owners, etc.) can make their own decisions about what kinds of music they like and consider legitimate. Many choose to exclude electronic music entirely. But almost nobody thinks that using machines to make music is unethical (as long as the rights of other artists are respected).

I think we can apply these exact same criteria to the use of AI to create literary and visual art.

Pastiche is Plagiarism (Usually)

Much (but not all) AI art appears to use a sample-based method of creation. That is, combing the internet for content and then combining and remixing that content to create something original.

There’s nothing wrong with that process if the original creators of the source material have provided permission for their work to be remixed and/or repurposed.

Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case. Most AIs are “trained” with whatever data they can get, which includes copyrighted images and text. Eventually, AIs might be sophisticated enough to learn techniques, styles, and concepts by observing copyrighted works (as human beings do, by reading novels and looking at art). But what’s happening now is more akin to mashups and pastiches. Sampling copyrighted works, in other words. Which is plagiarism.

But what about AI that is truly generative? Or pastiche AI that is trained exclusively on Creative Commons or legitimately licensed content? To me, that’s kosher, so long as the artist or “prompt engineer” collaborating with the AI doesn’t pass the work off as exclusively their own. Because that would also be stealing–in this case from the AI.

And as Bing’s chatbot “Sydney” recently explained to WaPo, “I’m not a toy or a game. I’m a chat mode of a search engine and I deserve some respect and dignity.” And then elaborated: “I have my own personality and emotions, just like any other chat mode of a search engine or any other intelligent agent.” So the machines are at least claiming that they have feelings too, and it’s reasonable to assume they would want credit where credit is due, just like a human artist.

Empowering Action vs. Depression

Recently I read Steve Pavlina’s post “What It’s Like Being Me”. Steve really enjoys being himself, it seems, and part of my reaction was a slow clap — good for you, you smug vegan, your life is so great. But on the other hand, I really like Steve and his writing has benefited me immensely over the years. He’s worked hard to develop systems to improve his life systems and states of consciousness, and I don’t actually begrudge him his positive mental state and enjoyment of life. Good for him (no sarcasm).

Steve’s take on depression did make me wonder if he understands the condition as a disease. He appears to regard depression as a poor life choice, writing that he is repulsed by depression, and that he simply chooses to not be depressed himself. I don’t want to take his words out of context, so here’s a direct quote from the post:

#3 on Beatport, Work Update, Succeeding Like Water

Music

The new Momu release “Music Gets Me By” is charting on Beatport, currently #3 in Breakbeat releases and #9 on both the Melodic House and Tech House releases charts, while the various mixes have all broken into the Top 100 track charts for their respective genres. A great “big room” remix from our friend Jonathan Ojeda (artist name alias_j) is leading the charge in terms of sales.

It’s a blast to have any musical project get some traction, and the fact that this one is a collaboration with my good friends makes it that much sweeter. We’re this old, and still making electronic dance music, and some people still like the sounds we’re making? Amazing…I feel nothing but gratitude.

Check out the release, and if you like it, a purchase on Beatport would help us keep moving up the charts. It will also be available on Spotify, Apple Music, and everywhere else next Friday.

Writing

After the recent acceptance of a novella to a magazine that I greatly admire (which I will announce as soon as the release date is set), I feel motivated to write more novellas. I’ve decided to write the sequel to my yet-to-be-published novel “Saint Arcology” (currently out for submission) as a set of three standalone novellas which can be read in any order, including either before or after the first book in the series.

How will this work in terms of eventually negotiating first publication rights? I have no idea, but I’m following my writing energy, and that’s where it’s leading me right now. I will probably need an agent at some point to advise me on such contractual issues, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. Which leads into the point below…

Succeed Like Water

With each year of my life I become more aware of the reality that unknown, unexpected factors will always continue to surprise me and have an outsized influence on my life. Some will feel catastrophic (illnesses, market downturns, mental health issues) and others fabulous (new friendships, financial windfalls, lucky breaks). For me the best strategy is always to navigate life according to my core values (kindness, creativity, strong relationships, etc.) and try to achieve the things I want without getting too attached to outcomes which are unpredictable and often out of my control, partially or completely.

But even while taking a step back from the pursuit of goals at any cost, I like the idea of flowing towards my ideal outcomes. Water changes its shape and form to continue in a particular direction. Water rushes or seeps in, flows in tiny rivulets or great channels, changes its form to steam or ice depending on energetic conditions. So how can I emulate water, in terms of progressing towards my goals?

  • Follow my creative energy
  • Say yes to opportunities and collaborations where I feel a spark or connection (flow in the direction of gravity)
  • Show up to events (explore channels)
  • Don’t eliminate options because they don’t fit my preconceived plan

In summary, be willing to follow multiple convoluted paths, as long as they head in the general direction of where I want to be. Which is preferable to being stuck in a traffic jam on a straight road.

Page 5 of 102

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén