231–233 of 233 posts
This copyright "issues" are against the true nature of innovation. By the means of Artificial INTELIGENCE, we must to accept a mind or intelligence is free to perceive external elements and use every stimulus to execute its own creative process. The world is a perpetual iteration cycle amongst human beings. Good artists borrow, great artists steal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems it is possible to generate images which are very similar to the existing stock photos if you feed getty images' description into DALL-E. I tried it with a distinctive banana image: https://imgur.com/a/0OrIr6e
Those bananas are completely different. There's no copyright infringement there. I could take a photo of a banana and photoshop it repeatedly onto a pink background. That would look just as similar, and there's no copyright problem there. You can't copyright an idea.
Another example, picking a random image from the Getty Images site. "A young parkour flips through the city,guangzhou,china, - stock photo":
The images are obviously different, but it appears that DALL-E maps the getty images description to similar tone, similar perspective, similar background, and similar weather conditions. I'm sure there are thousands of possible backdrops in Guangzhou, and many ways to show a parkour flip. Even in the Google image search results there's more variance than in the output of DALL-E.
So you can't copyright an idea, but you can certainly scrape a copyrighted DB with image metadata, and use it to create your own product. My point is that DALL-E itself might be a derivative work of Getty Images and thousands of other online catalogs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment should be on the Wikipedia article for "parody indistinguishable from reality"
Regardless, I think I agree. I use images from all sources as inspiration for my art. I know people who have used my pieces for inspiration as well. Intelligence and creativity aren’t bound by IP law. Why should AI be bound by it?
It's the same cynical people questioning if "machines going to replace people" didn't figure out that the machines need to build themselves first.
When machines build themselves (with no humans since conception), let's see how the "patent ideas" world wouldn't fall apart.
Until then, We can get our piece of Cake by augmenting our human creative process.
Sorry but I'm not the daydreamer here. I can't live under the false premise that Intelectual Property is something that would control the input(training, learning, etc.) for all the A.I. (created or to-be-created).