Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright infringement in AI art

technollama.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 155 posts

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#61

Post by olalonde »

eru wrote: post #9
Imnimo wrote: post #3

I'm not copyright expert, but I would have imagined the answer is relatively straightforward: if an image would be infringing if drawn by a human, it's also infringing if drawn by a model, and similarly for non-infringing. Does the manner in which the image is generated play into whether it infringes a copyright?

> 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…

> 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.

That's not true.

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#62

Post by Angostura »

angusturner wrote: post #54
trention wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the basis that the "machine" is not a human and there is nothing that necessitates allowing neural networks to do all the things humans are permitted to do.

I don’t think it makes sense to talk about these systems as though they have any agency (and I think I was careful not to). Of course there is nothing that necessitates letting these systems do what humans do. What I am saying is that I am allowed as a human to ingest copyrighted material, learn from it, form mental abstractions and use those learnings to generate new art. Why then, would I be forbidden from external…

> What I am saying is that I am allowed as a human to ingest copyrighted material, learn from it, form mental abstractions and use those learnings to generate new art. Why then, would I be forbidden from externalising some of that process into an artificial system that operates on similar principles.

For the same reason you aren't allowed to make unlimited photocopies of a library book.

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#63

Post by visarga »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #56

I think it’s clear that what’s happening is (mostly) legal, but the better question is whether it should continue to be. It will be a bad outcome if a few people profit off of a huge group of people’s labor without their consent and without compensating them, in order to put that large group out of work. Technological advances change the labor market all the time, but it’s absolutely different to exploit your own lab…

It's not just the model publishers that profit from generative models, the users gain something as well. And the access barrier being lowered, now many more people can benefit. Even the artists can benefit.

Let's not forget the contribution of the prompt to the final result. The users have a finger in there too. That means they are directly involved in the creative process, they deserve a claim to the copyright.

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#64

Post by egypturnash »

OmarAssadi wrote: post #40
tkgally wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former professional translator here (Japanese-to-English, 1986 to 2005). I have very mixed feelings about MT. On the one hand, as you and others point out, rates for human translation have been hurt, and the quality of a lot of MT-enabled translation visible to the public is mediocre to poor. On the other hand, MT is enabling communication among people that was not possible or practical before. A small start-up is ab…

Good points! As an example, as a hobby, I am interested in things like anime video compression and such. Two of the most essential sites for me in terms of resources and information have been almost entirely Chinese. And while they appreciate and respect the international users, at the end of the day, they can’t translate each and every single forum post into English or any other language that someone may need. And a…

Similarly, I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to transform or straight-up copy and distribute someone else’s art if it provides people with happiness.

Would you stop doing it if the artists said “this is making me unhappy”?

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#65

Post by eru »

olalonde wrote: post #61
eru wrote: post #9

Earlier 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…

> 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. That's not true.

Please see this as a long-winded and approximate description of clean room development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design) which is definitely a thing.

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#66

Post by eru »

rvnx wrote: post #22
eru wrote: post #9

Earlier 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…

Wait, if you draw Pikachu or Homer Simpson from your memory, even without access to internet, you are still infringing the rights of the holders of the characters. How is it different than OpenAI or Midjourney drawing pictures of Homer Simpson from their database/"memory" ?

Drawing Pikachu or Homer Simpson from memory is more likely to violate trademarks than copyrights, I would guess?

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#67

Post by egypturnash »

revicon wrote: post #4
Imnimo wrote: post #3

I'm not copyright expert, but I would have imagined the answer is relatively straightforward: if an image would be infringing if drawn by a human, it's also infringing if drawn by a model, and similarly for non-infringing. Does the manner in which the image is generated play into whether it infringes a copyright?

I’m also not a copyright expert, so I wonder about things like if I draw a (crappy) picture of Spider-Man and slap it on a tshirt, can I sell it without violating copyright? I’m sure there’s established law about this kind of thing.

If your shitty Spidey is a drawing you did yourself, you are not violating copyright. You are however blatantly violating Disney’s collection of trademarks on “Spider-Man”, the distinctive appearance of the character, and a host of associated marks.

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#68

Post by sva_ »

pornel wrote: post #50
angusturner wrote: post #46

The question that fascinates me about this whole debate is on what basis (if any) one draws the line between a machine learning from copyrighted data vs a human learning from copyrighted data. And I do think “learning” is the correct metaphor here. There are good reasons to believe that the brain is doing something conceptually similar to generative statistical models. i.e compressing inputs (/percepts) into some kin…

I think it makes sense to have a distinction between human and machine learning. • Human memory has natural limits in capacity, accuracy, speed, etc. Even if you wanted to, you just can't launder copyright all of humanity's works in a blink of an eye. Things done by humans are limited to human scale, but automation can elevate things to an industrial scale (it's legal to fart, it's not legal to have an industrial-sca…

Humans get away with much more, such as just photographing other people's work and then selling those photographs[0]. I don't see how generating a bunch of images, selecting one, and perhaps tweaking it more is any less fair use.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#69

Post by patengineer »

sgift wrote: post #42
patengineer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what the painter does with the 'new painting'. If it is solely that the painter(considered a student) is learning how to paint, then copyright infringement would not apply as it would be covered under 'fair dealings'. This would apply in the UK, perhaps Europe. I'm not familiar with US law. Quoting the Act - "Fair dealing with a artistic work for the purposes of private study does not infringe any copyr…

Either you or I misread the question. I think it wasn't about selling a copy. It was about using copying to learn how to paint (which is fine, as you've stated) and then produce your own painting which you then sell. The sold painting isn't a copy. So .. no copyright infringement?

Ah, I think it depends how you interpreted the question. I took 'new painting' to mean a copy of other painter's work.

Looking at it from your perspective(which on reflection is the right interpretation), I would say no copyright infringement assuming the 'new painting' is an original creation i.e. not a duplicate of an existing piece of art by another artist.

Plenty of people, myself included, learn creative arts by mimicking others and then developing our own style which might be similar to the artists we got our inspiration from. I think as long as it's clear that there is no duplication of the original works(for sale), then all is okay.

So if I learnt my art by mimicking Van Gogh and my new paintings are of a similar Van Gogh style, as long as they are original creations, no copyright infringement imo.

Re: Copyright infringement in AI art

#70

Post by tablespoon »

sva_ wrote: post #68
pornel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes sense to have a distinction between human and machine learning. • Human memory has natural limits in capacity, accuracy, speed, etc. Even if you wanted to, you just can't launder copyright all of humanity's works in a blink of an eye. Things done by humans are limited to human scale, but automation can elevate things to an industrial scale (it's legal to fart, it's not legal to have an industrial-sca…

Humans get away with much more, such as just photographing other people's work and then selling those photographs[0]. I don't see how generating a bunch of images, selecting one, and perhaps tweaking it more is any less fair use. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince

> Humans get away with much more, such as just photographing other people's work and then selling those photographs[0]. I don't see how generating a bunch of images, selecting one, and perhaps tweaking it more is any less fair use.

Humans have also gotten away with murder. I don't think that kind of reasoning is very solid.

My understanding is in industries where it really matters, like music, "tweaking" like that would require royalty payments at least.

Post reply on HN