These complexities and nuances of sci-fi culture and artificial learning were quite possibly lost on whoever decided to file the takedown claim for Warner Bros.
Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
21–30 of 70 posts
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#22The idea of this is way more interesting than the actual result. Unfortunately it just ends up looking like something run through content aware fill rather than anything interesting visually.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#23This article alludes to, but never actually brings up, something much more interesting than the project in question:
How can copyright coexist with human-level automatic analysis and synthesis of works of art?
For example, Spotify is flooded with "covers" of hit songs that are made to sound as similar to the original as possible. In my understanding, it doesn't matter how similar it sounds, as long as it's "remade", it's considered a new work of art. So what happens when the cover song process can be automated? It seems likely that courts and lawmakers will need to define a sphere of similarity around each work of art, within which all points are considered copies.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#24Bullshit... this is still encoding. It does not matter that it is using neural network to encode frame. Guys, when you get over this neural network hype?
I can as well create and encoder using some machine learning, to create a blurry and inferior version of the movie. But what's the point?
I could as well used other prediction method with some kind of memory, much superior and nobody will enjoy it.
Summing up: nothing impressive here.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#25This article alludes to, but never actually brings up, something much more interesting than the project in question: How can copyright coexist with human-level automatic analysis and synthesis of works of art? For example, Spotify is flooded with "covers" of hit songs that are made to sound as similar to the original as possible. In my understanding, it doesn't matter how similar it sounds, as long as it's "remade",…
Music has that sorted already.
There is copyright.
There is publishing right.
If you make a cover of a recording, it is the latter that you are involved with. You'd have to go to the publishers of a piece of music to license the right to publish your interpretation of the work.
Obviously this post simplifies, but it's already answered.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#26This article alludes to, but never actually brings up, something much more interesting than the project in question: How can copyright coexist with human-level automatic analysis and synthesis of works of art? For example, Spotify is flooded with "covers" of hit songs that are made to sound as similar to the original as possible. In my understanding, it doesn't matter how similar it sounds, as long as it's "remade",…
Music has that sorted already. There is copyright. There is publishing right. If you make a cover of a recording, it is the latter that you are involved with. You'd have to go to the publishers of a piece of music to license the right to publish your interpretation of the work. Obviously this post simplifies, but it's already answered.
Re: publishing rights, you can make a cover version of a song using a "compulsory mechanical license", whether the owner likes it or not.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#27This article alludes to, but never actually brings up, something much more interesting than the project in question: How can copyright coexist with human-level automatic analysis and synthesis of works of art? For example, Spotify is flooded with "covers" of hit songs that are made to sound as similar to the original as possible. In my understanding, it doesn't matter how similar it sounds, as long as it's "remade",…
I'm pretty sure the law as it stands is robust enough to deal with these issues on the basis of similarity vs substantive difference. A cover usually sounds quite different to an original, enough so that a fan would certainly not consider them the same thing.
OTOH, simply using some well recognised phrases (not necessarily a sample) can infringe on the mechanical rights, which are the copyright on the composition as distinct from the performance.
Also consider fake paintings and photos. Recent cases have shown that even dong things like re-staging an iconic photograph or transferring the image to another medium can constitute copyright infringement. As ever, it comes down to the duck test, generally in the opinion of a judge.
An automated re-encoding of a movie would almost certainly be at least a derivative work (if say, you applied a deep-dream filter to each frame) or at worst a straightforward lossy copy like any other encoding.
In order to be considered a new work, there would need to be some substantial reinterpretation of the original. It shouldn't matter whether that reinterpretation is done dy a human or AI, but current AI just isn't capable of doing that yet.
Disclaimer: IANAL, so treat my understanding of copyright law with the usual level of scepticism applied to Internet comments.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#28Can anyone explain what does this encoder actually does and how is it different than any other encoder? The article almost seems to make it sound that this encoder somehow reconstructed the film...
This is possibly the next generation of video/audio/image codecs.
What he did was create a specialized compression algorithm that works very well to compress the data that is each frame of Blade Runner, and decompress it (lossily, like mp3) back into a video stream.
To put this into perspective: Blade Runner is 117 minutes long. At 25 frames per second, that is 175_500 frames.
As he says, the input data he used was 256x144 with 3 colour channels, meaning each frame was 110_592 bytes. This results in an input amount of 18_509 MB, uncompressed.
His neural network compresses each image down to 200 floats though, i.e. 800 bytes. So the whole movie as compressed by the NN is 132 MB.
A friend of mine who works with neural networks estimated his NN to be roughly 90MB at 256x144, so the storage needed for the movie he created is about 222 MB.
This means that if this technology can be made fast enough, and the reproduction high enough in fidelity, we could be looking at replacing compressors (Fraunhofer MP3, Lame, MP4, DIVX, JPEG) made to handle all types of input equally well; with compressors that can are so good for one specific set of data that compressor + data is smaller than anything the traditional compressors could create.
And even if its not fast enough, it can still be a very efficient compressor, trading size for CPU.
Plus, lastly, the NN itself can be compressed as well, and classic compressors can possibly be applied to the frame data.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#29Bullshit... this is still encoding. It does not matter that it is using neural network to encode frame. Guys, when you get over this neural network hype? I can as well create and encoder using some machine learning, to create a blurry and inferior version of the movie. But what's the point? I could as well used other prediction method with some kind of memory, much superior and nobody will enjoy it. Summing up: nothi…
I agree. I was wondering why this is such a big deal. When a "neural networking" computer has a flash of inspiration and creates a screen play for a movie, and creates a virtual world based on that screen play. Then we'll have a something to talk about.
Re: Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks
#30Bullshit... this is still encoding. It does not matter that it is using neural network to encode frame. Guys, when you get over this neural network hype? I can as well create and encoder using some machine learning, to create a blurry and inferior version of the movie. But what's the point? I could as well used other prediction method with some kind of memory, much superior and nobody will enjoy it. Summing up: nothi…
I agree. I was wondering why this is such a big deal. When a "neural networking" computer has a flash of inspiration and creates a screen play for a movie, and creates a virtual world based on that screen play. Then we'll have a something to talk about.
See my explanation for why this matters here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11830140