ML revolutionized translation a long time ago and the demand and pay for translators went down. It also used the works of thousands of humans who translated text and they never saw a dime. Copyright applies to translations so we've already gone through something similar. The same will happen with art and every other medium that ML touches. I have a love/hate relationship with ML because of this. It seems that there will be a painful transition period as many humans are displaced, probably even average coders like me. In a way, it's no different than what a human does but humans can't scale like computers. I hope someone can engineer a new economic system that works for what's coming.
Copyright infringement in AI art
11–20 of 155 posts
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, per the article “ style and a ‘look and feel’ are not copyrightable”
I wonder if they can be trademarked. If not now, maybe later.
Yes they probably can be trademarked.
But a big question is why? Trademarks are very expensive.
It makes sense for a company logo that was AI generated, but spending 100K+ for very limited protection of a piece of art seems questionable.
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#13What I'm dreaming of is an AI which can make any song covered by any performer or band in history of music.
Totally doable but would likely put you on the most wanted list above all the drug lords.
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does the manner in which the image is generated play into whether it infringes a copyright? Yes, it does. Let's leave AI out for a moment. If you lock yourself into your room with no Internet access, and you draw (or write etc) something independently that just happens to look exactly like some already existing copyright-ed work, you are still not infringing any copyrights. If you produced the same work by making a…
AI isn't locked in a room. No end user can verify the sourced training images, so anything coming close to an existing work should be assumed to have been part of the source material for the derivative.
Oh but you can. I've scanned the LAION training data set (which was used for mini DALLE, Imagen, and Disco Diffusion) and I recognized several images that long to business partners of mine.
How does an AI know what Obama looks like? It memorized thousands of images of him, most of which were by professional photographers and, hence, copyrighted.
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI isn't locked in a room. No end user can verify the sourced training images, so anything coming close to an existing work should be assumed to have been part of the source material for the derivative.
Oh but you can. I've scanned the LAION training data set (which was used for mini DALLE, Imagen, and Disco Diffusion) and I recognized several images that long to business partners of mine. How does an AI know what Obama looks like? It memorized thousands of images of him, most of which were by professional photographers and, hence, copyrighted.
I think the problem is with the definition of copyright. It doesn't apply to the current environment. It could even be the case, that it never made sense in the first place, and only now, we are realizing.
I have never seen Obama in real life. If I can draw him because I know him from copyrighted works, is my draw copyright infringement?
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#16ML revolutionized translation a long time ago and the demand and pay for translators went down. It also used the works of thousands of humans who translated text and they never saw a dime. Copyright applies to translations so we've already gone through something similar. The same will happen with art and every other medium that ML touches. I have a love/hate relationship with ML because of this. It seems that there w…
Community ownership. We need everyone to be part owner in the economy that they rely on. Then productivity gains are good for people even if there is less work to do.
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#17ML revolutionized translation a long time ago and the demand and pay for translators went down. It also used the works of thousands of humans who translated text and they never saw a dime. Copyright applies to translations so we've already gone through something similar. The same will happen with art and every other medium that ML touches. I have a love/hate relationship with ML because of this. It seems that there w…
> I hope someone can engineer a new economic system that works for what's coming.
What's coming is post-scarcity for all kinds of intellectual work. There will be nothing to economize: supply of both labor and product will be infinite. I don't want corporations engineering a made up economy where there is none.
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if they can be trademarked. If not now, maybe later.
Yes they probably can be trademarked. But a big question is why? Trademarks are very expensive. It makes sense for a company logo that was AI generated, but spending 100K+ for very limited protection of a piece of art seems questionable.
Trademarks are actually much cheaper than that, I paid a few thousand dollars for mine. The price range your quoting is more typical of patents
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#19ML revolutionized translation a long time ago and the demand and pay for translators went down. It also used the works of thousands of humans who translated text and they never saw a dime. Copyright applies to translations so we've already gone through something similar. The same will happen with art and every other medium that ML touches. I have a love/hate relationship with ML because of this. It seems that there w…
> ML revolutionized translation a long time ago and the demand and pay for translators went down.
ML translation also caused a noticeable drop in the average quality of translated text in my experience. Companies now ship machine-translated manuals for minor languages that are often little more than gibberish. Human translators weren't perfect - for example, often you could see that the translator didn't know the terminology of the field. But at least the rest of the text was usually intelligible.
If this is where we're heading to with visual art as well I'm not looking forward to the future. Imagine an instruction manual where illustrations are machine-created. Everything looks kind of weird and inconsistent. If you quickly flip through the book it looks like all the important points are shown on the pictures, but looking closely shapes don't match with reality and the details are all wrong. The number of bolts changes from picture to picture. It's all there just to check a mark on someone's list, but doesn't really help you in servicing the thing.
Re: Copyright infringement in AI art
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does the manner in which the image is generated play into whether it infringes a copyright? Yes, it does. Let's leave AI out for a moment. If you lock yourself into your room with no Internet access, and you draw (or write etc) something independently that just happens to look exactly like some already existing copyright-ed work, you are still not infringing any copyrights. If you produced the same work by making a…
AI isn't locked in a room. No end user can verify the sourced training images, so anything coming close to an existing work should be assumed to have been part of the source material for the derivative.
> AI isn't locked in a room.
Humans aren't in a locked room either. Unless you put them there. Same for AI.
To say the same thing with less snark: in the future there might be a market for AIs trained on 'clean room' data.