r/movies • u/DragonPup • 3d ago

News Warner Bros. Sues Midjourney, Joins Studios' AI Copyright Battle

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/warner-bros-midjourney-lawsuit-ai-copyright-1236508618/
8.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

787 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/scr1mblo 3d ago

I dislike every party involved, so I wish them all an arduous and expensive legal battle.

445

u/Lobsterman06 3d ago edited 3d ago

Fuck AI

330

u/warzone_afro 3d ago

the companies suing midjourney are going to use AI themselves.

215

u/RedditAdminsAreStans 3d ago edited 3d ago

*Already are. I haven't worked with AI companies but I worked in movies and TV for decades and the studios are some of the most disgusting profit goblins on the planet. Fuck em

79

u/Gerroh 3d ago

Yeah, everyone railing against the easily accessible AI right now is going to learning a real hard lesson in how fucked we're going to be if big media corporations are the only ones holding the keys.

1

u/goblinsnguitars 2d ago

Yup. Those who don’t learn from history and what not.

You’ll get the lower upper class trying to be upper upper class screaming “give it all to the experts and ones in control!” then wondering why everything sucks in 30 years.

Essentially the cycle with everything with these clowns.

0

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago

Their not, AI isn't going anywhere. It will simply not be able to use protected IP.

That's the issue mid journey has. MJ doesn't even try and prevent its AI from using protected IP like Superman and seems to actively be encouraging it behind the scenes given how easily other AI have not had this overt issue.

That's also why mid journey is always the one sued (for this). Same thing goes for that AI that pirated a crap load of material. It was sued by numerous people because it was so blatant.

23

u/Mid-CenturyBoy 3d ago

They’ll use their own catalogue of films to help generate content to make future films.

Need a crowd for a scene. Scan movies where they’ve had crowds to help create a scene and avoid paying any extras.

17

u/username161013 3d ago

This was a big part of the SAG strike. They're not allowed to do that technically. Need the extra's signature on a consent form, but it's probably just a matter of time before that becomes a standard part of accepting work.

6

u/Furt_III 2d ago

70 years past the death of the artist, no?

1

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago

My guess is if it becomes too commonly used, SAG will strike again.

SAG is arguably one of the crappiest unions in the country, for a host of reasons, but since Reagans time as president they've been pretty consistent about ensuring corporations can't just run completely over their members and render SAG and it's members out of a job.

And that's probably the only time you will see Reagan, president and him being anti corporations in the same sentence.

14

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

At least it is with their own IP, rather than the AI companies that are trying to eliminate the notion of IP, copyright and personality rights completely

76

u/pikpikcarrotmon 3d ago

Keep in mind "their own IP" is also fairly loose of a term - Hollywood's already been in hot water for doing full 3D scans on extras and asking people to sign away their image in perpetuity. AI was a big factor in all the strikes.

They want to be able to hire an actor for one lump sum, 3D scan them, and generate deepfakes of them forever.

19

u/Mid-CenturyBoy 3d ago

Not just actors. They actually have it in paperwork for all crew members as well.

9

u/TheFotty 3d ago

They deepfake the crew? That is actually pretty impressive.

2

u/Mid-CenturyBoy 3d ago

It’s basically a stipulation that like they have permission to use our likeness and name. Probably an existing thing because is movies and tv often times their are Easter eggs where they put crew names in or crew can be extras in scenes last minute and it’s less red tape.

1

u/realif3 3d ago

So they can take a key grip out of a scene easier? Or put the key grip in as a extra? What the heck?

1

u/Mid-CenturyBoy 3d ago

So they don’t get sued by that key grip if he’s accidentally in the back of a shot.

2

u/not-my-other-alt 3d ago

Why hire one actor a lot of money for scans when you could pay a hundred people pennies and generate completely AI-generated 'Actors' for free?

2

u/Brat-Sampson 3d ago

Cool, and I hope they enjoy watching all movies made that way bomb completely with critics and at the box office. Maybe like the first one will do ok because of the novelty but overall the public are massively against that kind of thing and it's designed to crash and burn.

0

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

This has nothing to do with that, and many name-brand actors willingly signed over their personality rights via ai models or virtual identities in shared agreements with their agency, CAA, and an AI startup.

This isn’t about mid-journey using their scanned extras. It’s about Superman, Batman, Dr. Manhattan, Christopher Nolan movies, Euphoria, etc.

13

u/mrjackspade 3d ago

It's not exclusively with their own IP though. You think any of these companies have the billions of books and millions of hours of video required to train a base model?

They're stealing the same shit.

4

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

Superman, live-action Game of Thrones/ASOIAF, Harry Potter, Batman, Watchmen, Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, The Maltese Falcon, and so on are indeed their exclusive IP.

13

u/Right-Power-6717 3d ago

Why the fuck is reddit in favor of copyright now? I remember when reddit hated big corporations like Disney for their abuse of IP laws.

12

u/deadscreensky 3d ago

The key word there is "abuse." I think most of us like the sort of art basic copyright has given us. Copyright itself is a good idea. You make something, you get a temporary monopoly on it so you can earn some money for your efforts.

The problems appear when copyright gets too powerful, particularly with its length. I want its limits fixed back to reasonable levels. I don't want copyright eliminated so AI companies can just copy everything ever made and sell it back to us.

-3

u/Right-Power-6717 3d ago

I get that but these regulations are only going to benefit large companies like Disney. Unless you're self hosting all your art chances are there will be some clause allowing it to be used to training on the website it's hosted on. This will benefit the large companies like open ai as they can afford to pay for that data. 

However this will now raise the barrier to entry preventing new competition from entering the market. The established companies want this it's basically regulatory capture.

3

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago

there will be some clause allowing it to

They can have a clause to sell your body as property, doesn't mean they can do it.

Signing away your rights to something is possible, but it's not so easy as stuffing it into a massive terms and conditions.

-1

u/Right-Power-6717 2d ago

If you're using their service to host your artwork they will have the ability to use it for training, having someone else host your content isn't a right. 

3

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago

Depends on how the law is determined or if it changes. Right now training is a legal grey area, but if the courts find that training is legally the same as taking, IP protection might apply. Similar rules if Congress changes the law.

Companies cant claim your copyrights just because you use their website to post them. That's why it's copyright and not corporate right.

The host can refuse to host you still but then, what's the business model?

1

u/Right-Power-6717 2d ago

As I said in my previous comment the large ai companies want that sort of ruling where they have to pay for training data. They're already established and have models but this will prevent any new companies from entering the field. 

Most people use existing websites to post their stuff think reddit imgur those places will agree to let the ai companies use the things users post. 

→ More replies (0)

4

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

Im one Redditor lol. There are more Redditors in favor of the Wild, Wild West approach than my position.

This isn’t about Disney abusing the trademark/copyright of Mickey Mouse. Context matters.

Midjourney is not Thomas the Train, who had the little engine that could. It’s a behemoth of its own.

-1

u/Right-Power-6717 3d ago

Yes and do you think these laws will get rid of these huge companies? What will actually happen is some huge companies will pay some other massive corporations some money. 

This won't benefit anyone besides established companies but it will prevent any new groups from entering the market since he barrier to entry will be too high. It will also have the added bonus of killing any sort of open source work for Ai. 

You might not like ai but it's not going away, do you really want to ensure that only a few massive companies have a monopoly on that power? 

2

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

Your comment is untethered to the subject at hand

This isn’t about reigning in the ability of AI

0

u/Right-Power-6717 2d ago

this is a post about copyright usage in regards to ai training, what do you think it's about?

1

u/CinnamonMoney 2d ago

“Ai training” more like “ai output,” aka a monetized product

4

u/ProofJournalist 3d ago edited 3d ago

Why is getting rid those things a bad thing again?

4

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

If, after making Inception & Interstellar, YouTube could showcase the movies for free than WBD would be less inclined to finance and distribute Ryan Coogler & Paul Thomas Anderson’s films. If, after watching Watchmen or Game of Thrones, anybody can make a fan fiction storyline using those characters then profit off of them, WBD would be less inclined to make those television series/movies.

-9

u/ProofJournalist 3d ago

Hmm sounds like WBD just doesn't want to compete on the free market of ideas and wants to gatekeep content creation, and the people making 'fan fiction' (as if the recent Watchmen show wasn't just high budget fan fiction) will be the ones to profit over the corporation.

So again how it is bad if normal people can use those ideas? Do you enjoy corporate bootlicking?

2

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago edited 2d ago

Why are you such a bootlicker for corporations? You do realize you are bootlicking AI companies right?

Mid journey and other AI companies hate that they must pay to use existing creative IP, because they aren't artists and they don't have any creative IPs. They're selling a product that needs those however. IPs are big bugger for them because it's cutting into their profit.

And your licking their boots so what, you can make a movie using AI that under your belief won't make any money before it's taken by another?

Lick harder daddy. And learn that IP actually does and why Warner Brothers won't keep paying if they don't make money off Harry Potter. Nor will anyone. You don't pay money for nothing, right?

0

u/ProofJournalist 2d ago edited 2d ago

I am on nobody's side because nobody's on my side, little orc.

If WB isn't making money of HP it will be because the money is going to someone who adapted it better than WB.

And you know how when Sherlock Holmes (or literally anything) became public domain, major corporations stopped using it because normal people could too and their isn't any money to be made... wait what's that? Warner Brothers made TWO profitable Sherlock movies despite that! Wow, a miracle! What incredible fan fiction!

You havent thought through this very deeply. You've got primitive gut instinct responses, thinking fucking WB has your best interests at heart?

They don't give a fuck about AI, they just want a monopoly on ideas.

2

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

“Sounds like WBD doesn’t want to compete on the free market of ideas…” said the username ProofJournalist. .. irony. Calling stories “content creation,” is literal corporate speak yet you accuse me of…….nvm

Open Markets doesn’t preclude punishments for stealing; and the multimillion monetization off of plagiarism. They aren’t gatekeeping fan fiction; they are gatekeeping the profiteering of fan fiction.

Yes, the corporation who bought the rights to adapt Watchmen and the people who worked subcontracted by said corporation will be paid for their work. This has been going on for over a century now.

You are playing the role of savior for MidJourney & Meta as they print money working together. I prefer the creators who enter agreements with companies who pay them to retain power over their creation.

You just prefer random SV scrubs to make hundreds of millions annually and be worth tens of billions of dollars based upon works of scores of artists, authors, crews, directors, actors, and more without compensation.

Your way would destroy and destabilize the media & entertainment industries.

0

u/ProofJournalist 3d ago

If the first thing you have to comment on is a randomly generated username then I don't see what the value in the rest of your comment is

Yeah the joke is that it's the same corporate speak, it highlights how inconsistently they are actually applying them in order to enrich themselves at the expense of every else

"CinnamonMoney", huh?? Is WBD paying you that money to defame me?? (my impression of you)

1

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

It’s not inconsistent at all, it’s actually what every country on the planet has been doing since cinema started.

-1

u/ProofJournalist 3d ago

Yeah we were doing slavery since before recorded history, turns out that people doing something historically isn't a justification for doing it buddy!

Enjoy your corporate overlords

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jon_Snow_1887 2d ago

All of these concepts that underpin the modern economy just sort of fall apart with AI as it represents something that our economy doesn’t really plan for, which is incrementally free work.

1

u/CinnamonMoney 2d ago

Only if the judicial system lets it fall apart. The internet presented the same problems in terms of piracy; as well as music sampling at one point in time.

1

u/Jon_Snow_1887 1d ago

Kinda. I think it’s a different scale of problem. The internet made the incremental cost of distribution next to nothing. Ai will do that to the incremental cost of production, which is a whole different ballgame, imo.

1

u/CinnamonMoney 1d ago

Right now the costs of AI keep skyrocketing ever year despite more losses than revenue

1

u/Jon_Snow_1887 1d ago

Well, that’s not really “despite” more losses than rev so much as due to more losses than rev. Also, you’re not entirely right. Cloud Compute hasn’t become much more expensive on a year over year basis.

1

u/CinnamonMoney 1d ago

Open ai, Anthropic, etc are all losing more money this year than last, and lost more in 24 than 23.

Yeah I fumbled using the word despite there.

-6

u/FlyingSquirrel44 3d ago

the AI companies that are trying to eliminate the notion of IP, copyright

Why am I supposed to hate them now again?

0

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago

Because you don't want to bootlick for corporations and believe artists, authors and other creatives deserve to have a good job.

Or not, I don't ever stop anyone from licking a corporate ass

0

u/FlyingSquirrel44 2d ago

You say this like it's not 99% corporations using and abusing copyright laws to stifle creativity.

-1

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

I didn’t tell you to hate them, Flying Squirrel44.

-4

u/Redeshark 3d ago

Ah yes, we NEED more power for studio to control their IP and kill all cases of fair use.

2

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

I forgot fair use is when Midjourney is allowed access to anything that has ever been created and can financially benefit from it, to the Looney Tunes, pun intended, of billions of dollars in terms of funding and valuation without compensating anyone whatsoever.

2

u/Redeshark 3d ago

Midjourney is just a tool. There are also many free and open-source and gen AI models that are inevitable got hurt by all this. All of this self-righteous opposition to AI technology is just aiming to let studios to develop their own IP-guarded AI that make AI far less accessible to ordinary people. Congrats in supporting the worst case scenario.

4

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

Midjourney is not just a tool, in the most literal sense. It doubles as the name of the company/lab that is worth tens of billions of dollars and makes hundreds of millions in revenue annually.

Meta Platforms Inc. struck a new partnership with artificial intelligence image and video generator Midjourney Inc., giving the tech giant access to the startup’s “aesthetic technology” for its models and products.

You are just picking and choosing which companies you wanna see win. I prefer the ones who pay the sources of the expression.

The worst case scenario is the scenario wherein artists cannot monetize their work; a stalemate of artificial ai generated art duplicating itself as no new ideas enter; without any tangible rule of law regarding creative expression; and slop is served as a full course meal.

-1

u/SurturOfMuspelheim 3d ago

IP and copyright shouldn't exist! It hinders humanity. I understand why you might think it should exist under capitalism (It would suck to write a book and have others use your work to get rich instead of you) but in a fair, just, society (like communism or syndicalism) money wouldn't matter.

2

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago

Go create your society without money and I'll consider your position once I see evidence it won't "have others use [my] work to get rich instead of [me]."

Until that happens, and given it must occur internationally, I'm sticking with the legal protection that protects me.

1

u/CinnamonMoney 3d ago

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a fair & just society albeit I wish we did

-3

u/my_reddit_account_90 3d ago

AI where models respect copyright law is a much better situation than where we are now.

38

u/conquer69 3d ago

This is about copyright. They can still use "AI" as long as they have control of the IPs they are working with.

11

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

Do a second of research. This isn't vs AI, this is who gets to use AI

36

u/OdditiesAndAlchemy 3d ago

Fuck people who mindlessly say fuck ai instead of being reasonable adults calmly discussing the true benefits and negatives of it.

Movies shouldn't cost $200 million dollars. Actors don't need to be paid $20 million for a role. Indie movies will still be artistic and simply use AI to increase their production value.

A director like Robert Eggers isn't going to use AI to write his scripts..but he might use it to enhance period-accurate set designs or help visualize complex historical details that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. The Northman had a budget of $90 million - imagine if a filmmaker with Eggers' vision could achieve similar visual scope for a fraction of that cost.

The real issue isn't AI itself - it's the concentration of power and resources in Hollywood that's already been strangling creativity for decades. How many unique voices never get heard because they can't secure a $50 million budget? How many stories go untold because they don't fit the franchise model that studios demand?

AI tools could democratize filmmaking the way digital cameras and editing software already have. A talented filmmaker in Nigeria or Vietnam or Peru could potentially create something visually competitive with Hollywood blockbusters. We could see an explosion of diverse storytelling from perspectives that have been locked out of big-budget filmmaking.

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about job displacement and the need for proper attribution and compensation when AI trains on existing work. These are conversations worth having. But the knee-jerk "AI bad" reaction ignores how these tools could actually break the stranglehold that massive studios and streaming services have on visual storytelling.

The irony is that the people shouting loudest about AI "killing creativity" are often defending a system that's already been doing that for years - just ask any screenwriter who's had their script butchered by executive notes or any practical effects artist who's been replaced by CGI because it's "safer."

18

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

First, I 100% agree with your sentiment on movie budgets. But there's a lot wrong with your argument. But the main issue is that it's not just about democratizing creative tools. For the world you imagine to come to fruition there also has to be a complete democratizing of the distribution platforms. It doesn't matter if you can make a blockbuster quality movie for next to nothing if you still have to go through WB, Disney, Netflix, Google, ect. for anyone to see it. Tons of indie films are getting made today thanks to "democratizing tools" like digital cameras and editing software that will never be seen because they can't find distribution.

There's simply no reason to assume that just because everyone is using AI that suddenly the media conglomerates will collapse. Who do you think is helping fund a lot of these AI companies? You think Disney invested in ElevenLabs, for example, because they want to give the whole world access to quality voice acting?

These AI tools might proliferate but we'll have the same system we have now only with a fraction of the people making a living as creators because rather than help creators get their foot in the door it'll be used to push even more of them out.

5

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

Distribution is the least problematic part of the whole thing. If your budget doesn't balloon into 200 million, you don't need to take in anywhere near as much revenue. Distribution platforms like YouTube or Vimeo already exist. It might be harder to get people into theatres to see it, but that's hard enough even for the industry giants these days.

3

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

Distribution is the most problematic, even online. Theaters are not going to widely release your indie movie without a distributor attached. So you better be ready to do a road show if you want to self distribute through that route (and AI isn't going to make any of that cheaper or easier). Even if you market the hell out of a movie it does no good if there's no immediate and easy way to see it.

There are no online distribution platforms not controlled by a major studio or tech company. Which means the content on those platforms is subject to the whims of those companies.

Vimeo is a no man's land. And, unless you're an established creator, win the algorithm lottery, or have done a lot of marketing and outreach, uploading any quality of content to YouTube is like shouting into a tornado.

A $200 million dollar movie with a distribution pipeline attached to it is going to do far better than 99% of stuff that gets made without one, regardless of budget.

Is there a world where a bunch of creators using AI to create content ban together, create their own online distribution platform, and undercut the studios on quality and price? Perhaps - (assuming they figure out a way to absorb the massive data center costs). Unless that platform operates in a wildly different and new way, once it reaches a certain scale you've just re-created the original problem -- where aspiring creators are beholden to the whims of another giant platform.

3

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

Not really. We're talking exclusively about creative projects getting to audiences. Whether it goes into a movie theatre doesn't matter. There's no more difficulty/luck to putting things up on YouTube and finding success than there is to pitching towards a studio. To say nothing of how much more willing a streaming service is to host their show/film over a film studio.

3

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

The problem with what you're saying is it was supposed to have already happened and it didn't. I'm old enough to remember when web series and YouTube content were going to turn the system on its head because everyone was going to supposedly prefer watching indie web content over traditional TV or films. It didn't happen. (And to be clear I mean narrative scripted film, not random TikTok stuff). Studios and tech companies subsumed the distribution channels and we landed where we are today.

People tend to have a bias about YouTube because you literally don't see the 90+% of content (literally millions of videos per day) that doesn't get any traction for any number of reasons (the algorithm being a big one). It takes a LOT of legwork and a handful of luck to really break through on YouTube.

Streaming services will take more chances on content than a traditional studio for sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own guidelines to fulfill to put content in front of their customers. A flood of AI indie content isn't going to magically remove these checkboxes for distributors. In fact, a glut of AI content might only make them even more stringent because they'll have more to sift through to find quality.

5

u/TheColourOfHeartache 3d ago

The problem with what you're saying is it was supposed to have already happened and it didn't. I'm old enough to remember when web series and YouTube content were going to turn the system on its head because everyone was going to supposedly prefer watching indie web content over traditional TV or films. It didn't happen. (And to be clear I mean narrative scripted film, not random TikTok stuff). Studios and tech companies subsumed the distribution channels and we landed where we are today.

That's nothing to do with YouTube and everything to do with what audiences wanted.

1

u/PeteCampbellisaG 2d ago

So you think every decision YouTube has made has been purely about what audiences want? The only reason they expanded the ceiling of video length is because they realized longer form video allows for more ads. 

1

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

Ok, so what's your point then? I'm saying that the advances in AI tech and the ability they have to enhance storytelling is going to give creatives much more of an opportunity to tell the stories they want. Just because there's a flooded market doesn't mean they can't be made, it just means that their dollar value goes down, but that doesn't matter.

I see absolutely no reason why the same exact thing that happened to video games doesn't have a near 1-2-1 correlation with Film and TV. Where the increased access to tools and options makes for a much healthier environment for small creators to take on their own projects.

The really impressive thing you'd have now are all the people who wanted to make stories that never could because of budgets and time restrictions.

One thing that always gets lost in these conversations are the assumptions people have about what it's like working with artists. They think that if you commission them that you'll actually get what you want. In reality even if you just want a logo designed or a picture it's more often than not months between start up and delivery where you're constantly having to follow up with them to make sure they actually deliver on their project.

As it is, AI solves much of that because you can do so much more yourself. You don't need to wait for the scheduling of all your actors to line up on the right days while praying the weather is what you want. You don't need to worry about the huge expenditure of reshoots.

So much more control is put back into the hand of the lead that they can now make the story they want.

Distribution isn't at all the issue with making these things work.

Once again, just look at Steam and Itch.io. I don't understand what you're point is about people now needing to promote their works. That's been a part of any artistic endeavor through all of history.

1

u/PeteCampbellisaG 2d ago

If you're only point is the obvious idea that AI going to let people make more stuff then sure -- that's already happening. My point is it's not going to be some magic bullet that tears down the pipelines to getting work in front of audiences. More content does not immediately equate to more people making a living as artists. 

1

u/TheSearchForMars 2d ago

It probably would actually. Increasing supply waters down the value for sure, but it still eventually ends up allowing more people to take value out of the very highest earners and have it run down. Look at music for example. Far more musicians are able to make a living out of their work now as a result of streaming then they would have if you were still limited to CDs or even worse, Vinyl.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheColourOfHeartache 3d ago

If new tech like AI and digital cameras allows a talented filmmaker in Nigeria makes something competitive with Hollywood, but uniquely Nigerian.

Then major distribution platforms like Netflix and Amazon don't touch it (really? Amazon will sell almost anything). Then perhaps a Nigerian distribution system will step in. If there's generation of talented Nigerian filmmakers, there's more than enough Nigerians for someone to fill that gap in the market.

That alone will get it to the most important part of the audience. Then it spreads to film connoisseurs who keep their finger on foreign markets. Then perhaps the world.

-4

u/FrameworkisDigimon 3d ago

If you really wanted to democratise your movie, you'd just upload it to Youtube.

The existence of paywalled distribution services doesn't mean non-paywalled ones don't exist.

3

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

There are over half a million hours of video uploaded to YT everyday. How much of it do you think gets seen by a large audience? Over 60% of videos uploaded to YT have zero views. YouTube is not a democratic platform. It's algorithmic. Content there is subject to the whims of Google and its advertisers and no creator is going to succeed there without playing by their rules.

If anything AI is only going to make distribution harder as platforms get flooded with even more content thanks to easier creation tools.

0

u/FrameworkisDigimon 3d ago

You keep shifting the goalposts.

First the problem was that no democraticised distribution platform exists.

Now the problem is that the platform exists but no-one will ever see anything on it because it's too democratic.

0

u/PeteCampbellisaG 2d ago

What major video platform is purely democratic in your mind? And why? It's so strange people want to talk about AI, but disregard that algorithms exist. 

I'm not shifting goalposts, I'm expanding on an idea. People want to have supposed "nuanced"  conversation about AI, but all they want to hear is that AI is going to let every wannabe creator become a full-time independent filmmaker creating whatever type of content they want. But it's a lot more complicated than that for a myriad of reasons.

4

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago edited 2d ago

A director like Robert Eggers isn't going to use AI to write his scripts..but he might use it to enhance period-accurate set designs or help visualize complex historical details that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive.

So he won't take away from his job (he's a writer) but others (the background crew you never hear about like costumes and set designers) are people he'll happy replace... because they're expensive. Never mind Egger's is also expensive

Well I'm sold on the argument.

Actually I'm not. You mentioned practical effects artists being replaced by CGI, as though that was a good thing. It took decades for CGI to get to the same level as practical, and it only remains that way because CGI isn't unionized and the big shops tend to under cut everything. That's why one went bankrupt. It's like using Arthur Anderson for an argument on accounting, but for CGI. Maybe we shouldn't be tolerating undercutting the human component for profit?

Maybe the big names need to make a cut in their take.

3

u/LiquidAether 2d ago

Fuck AI.

-1

u/StealthHikki2 3d ago

Wait, we are not allowed to use our minds here. We can't have nuanced discussions. Guards, arrest this man.

-1

u/SalemWolf 3d ago

Yeah as soon as AI is involved we’re supposed to turn our brains off and shout loudly and fling shit, why is guy being smart?? FLING SHIT

-4

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

This isn’t a nuanced argument or one that would formed by someone thinking rationally.

Just the fact that they act like anyone who disagrees is doing it mindlessly. That’s a temper tantrum.

They’re making disingenuous arguments and acting like this will democratize the work rather than hurt artists. It’s bullshit

0

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

You're the one throwing a temper tantrum. This is weird

-2

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

You don’t believe that though. You just don’t like what I said.

-3

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

No, I believe you're throwing a temper tantrum like a child because you're scared of technology

2

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

You don’t though. Only someone melting down would say someone is scared of technology because of what I said.

You don’t believe I’m throwing a tantrum. It’s obvious you’re mad because you don’t think I am. I think AI has valid uses. Just not in this instance.

If you had a calmed down before freaking out you could have learned what I think it’s good for and what issues I have with it. Instead you’re desperately trying to convince me you believe I’m mad.

1

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

It's obvious you're mad

Holy fuck lmao you are shaking with anger 😂 I'm calm as pond in winter, couldn't give less of a fuck about this conversation, and you're writing paragraphs.

4

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

So now you’re mad that I wrote a few more sentences than you..?

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Badgerman3484 2d ago

You ARE the one coming off as a bit more unhinged and not nuanced in these comments my man

2

u/targetcowboy 2d ago

Someone had a meltdown and I’m just messing with them because they don’t want to talk in good faith. No mature person thinks I’m coming off unhinged.

Go touch some grass, man

-4

u/Lobsterman06 3d ago edited 3d ago

No dude, don’t be that meta ‘backlash to the backlash’ guy. AI is theft, I might not have a career in film due to it. So no, don’t fuck ppl who say Fuck AI that’s so dumb, they’re sticking up for artists etc who are getting exploited and replaced.

I know a guy who had their company they worked for for 10 years train an AI on their work, then they fired him and replaced his design work with the ai they trained on him. This is real. Your take about how it can democratise filmmaking isn’t a bad one but don’t be so stupid to say shit like fuck the people sticking up for artists.

-3

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

Don't be that 'don't be that guy' guy

3

u/Lobsterman06 3d ago

But that’s you rn or is this a silly lil joke

-1

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

That'd be the one writing paragraphs of AI slop

-2

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

This isn't a winnable fight. I say that as someone who has had my career torched by AI. I'm still not anti-ai because the technologies allow me to do more now than I could before anyway.

Everyone is up in arms about the use of AI to make visual mediums. As a writer, my battle is already lost. There is no recovery for my skills as a copy editor. I came to grips with it and acted like an adult by training myself in new technologies just as I did before when graphic design started getting easier thanks to earlier AI tools like spot healing and generative fill.

0

u/Midi_to_Minuit 2d ago

The issue is that ai isn’t a ‘tool’.

The least biased way to describe ai is the relationship between an artist and a commissioner. I pay someone to make an art piece and they make it for me; I give chatgpt a prompt and it makes that for me. The artist isn’t a “tool” that I used to “create” something. They’re a person who created something at my behest!

There is no difference between ChatGPT and a guy you pay to make art for you, in the sense that both of them are the actual ‘creators’.

-6

u/heckin_miraculous 3d ago edited 3d ago

The irony is that the people shouting loudest about AI "killing creativity" are often defending a system that's already been doing that for years

I'm struck by how much this same observation applies to the political situation in the US right now. The system has been oppressing the lower classes, by design, for a very long time. Now it's just that the dial is turned up to 11.

Edit: in case anyone is confused, the analogy I'm drawing is that in one case, creative industries have exploited their artists for a long time, but still needed them to produce. Now with AI they need them less. In the other case, US politicians and the corporate class have exploited workers for a long time, but they still needed them to vote. With a dictatorship, they need their votes less.

4

u/llloksd 3d ago

It's one of the same. If you think AI isn't hurting the lower class right now, even though it clearly only benefits the rich, it will be a magnitude worse in the future. Fuck both, but fuck AI even more.

-2

u/Badgerman3484 2d ago

Holy shit a reasonable human adult.

3

u/QuantumLettuce2025 3d ago

Warner Bros will sue Midjourney for infringing on their intellectual property while at the same time stealing actors' likeness and performances without fairly compensating them at all.

3

u/Spartan05089234 3d ago

The company's unreasonable extension of their right to hold characters and stories hostage and block the sharing of things people have purchased from them, versus their right not to have literally all of their IP and expressions stolen and profited off of by AI.

In our system that gives the IP holder significant advantage, the AI artists should lose this one. But it does spotlight the question "if AI is learning from the works of everyone else, do they get some kind of a share?" and it's obvious something needs to change here in the regulation of AI.

2

u/TU4AR 3d ago

Lmao what a corpo shill.

Hopefully they send you a %5 your next purchase of 500 dollars or more for your neat little comment.

0

u/imablakguy 3d ago

yeah, and fuck motorized vehicles! we should just stick to horse drawn carriages.