If you draw a cat then you need to pay authors of every cat drawing you ever saw. Also all the owners of actual cats you saw. It's only fair.
AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
51–60 of 705 posts
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But they are compressed lossy copies of all that data So are those you are storing in your mind... (Edit: i.e., "learning is not a violation". Also see below.)
Well, if you copied a famous piece of art from memory... That'd be a copyright violation.
I meant that _learning_ is not a copyright violation.
I do not see much space for misunderstanding: which relevant box takes instances of input data to output one of them?
Edit:
Make your point explicit, sniper... You can hide in front of the ### consuetude of "silent disagreement", but it remains violently annoying. The article contains "nuances" like "derivative work", but the poster is objecting to the article calling «neural networks» not «copies», as «compressed lossy copies», and I retorted that so is everything you learn, and holding them in the "corpus" is not considered "retaining a copy". If you have objections to that, either you present them, or there is no contribution in shaking your invisible head.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#53Or is AI eating Copyright?
I think this is the better question, given that the current major use of AI is to launder copyright away from the work of mostly independent artists.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#54I have no clues about laws and stuff and as a software engineer, I'd say please replace me by machines i dont care all the contrary, let's go. But please, please, protect art making from machines. These paints made in those caves werent done during work hours, it was probably the first forms of leasure our ancestors experienced. The first forms of enjoyment in the rude life of early humans. I think there is some high…
While I appreciate your comment and the sentiment, and believe that artists whose work companies trained models on without their consent should get their rights honoured, I disagree that the art field needs any extra protection.
There will be innovation outside of the latent space thanks to the AI art movement, that will be a positive development. An enormous body of artworks has zero online presence and exists outside of its reach, at least for now. However, art reflects its time, and generative, machine learning, text to image art will all influence artists in unseen ways. Offline artists are watching.
Nobody needs a computer to do outstanding art. Even the most primitive tools can produce unmatched results in the real world. That's the beauty of making art. Models cannot even begin to touch it. Good artists have nothing to fear about ML as a tool, which is fantastic and promising as such. It's undoubtly diruptive. As image-making takes less time, the value of an individual image will tend to zero. Prices will go down, and artists will adapt. That's what they do. Sure, there will be a bunch of profeteers and imposters using AI. Art always had its share of those. Art is a dream field for fraudsters. A known issue since we commercialised art, because it carries intangible value. Hence why NFTs started with art. That doesn't make the whole initiative a fraud. That said, digital artists who have copyright issues should absolutely fight back. The gray areas around training model with art by living artists needs an open discussion.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure they did.
On what basis?
Human nature. We haven't changed that much in the past 50k years or so. Some people are very altruistic and giving, others not so much. An artist might club you over the head for stealing his techniques and ideas and copying them into a new portion of the cave or rock wall, others would have taught you and approved of your work.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#56> But other than netting a hefty fee for the lawyers who bring the suit, what is the endgame, exactly? Pay people whose works you want to extract value from, it is that easy… Unless the whole point of this "AI" bubble is to create monetary value for the companies and their shareholders without being held accountable. I do not mean that creating, configuring, tuning a model, or even compiling a massive dataset is not…
Trying to legislate model training is impossible and stupid. At worst some copyright holders will sue a company because a model is biased and produces close-enough replicas of something under copyright. Model builders will respond by penalizing models that reproduce copyright images too closely, and better curating data sets to avoid bias, at which point the issue will be moot.
I don't want anybody to feed any of my work into a model at all without following all the terms of the licenses of my work. If my work is used to generate, via a computer program, a derived output, then you need to follow my licenses.
People keep pretending that AI is the exact same thing as a human learning, but it's really a lot more like a fancy compiler with highly non-deterministic output. AI is not a human.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#57If you draw a cat then you need to pay authors of every cat drawing you ever saw. Also all the owners of actual cats you saw. It's only fair.
AI is not human. Machine learning isn't the exact same thing as human learning. Treating them as exactly the same is disingenuous.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#58> [...] and also, for software authors, prohibiting ML training would be antithetical to the Open Source Definition. So that probably won’t work. Of course. As an author of OSS, I'm more than happy to let your AI "learn" from my code as long as the trained model is released under a GPL compatible license.
That the original post elided this point really stood out.
I don't hear complaints about code getting used for training.
I hear complaints about code being used in proprietary products in what appears at first and second glance to be a code laundering scheme without attribution or their rights respected.
If it was trained on the source code for Windows 11, AWS, and Google Search maybe everyone would feel more magnanimous. If those were used I have the feeling that the lawsuits would be much faster.
I don't get how "I'm only sharing this under these conditions" is complicated to grasp. Maybe it's a technical annoyance but... good?
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it comes down to use. Web crawlers like Google are fine because they index the web and then the search engine directs users to the original source. If instead Google recycled all the content they crawled and hosted everything on google.com while scrubbing all attributions from the pages then they’d fall afoul of copyright law (specifically the moral rights [1]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
They already do though. I've read several articles about people's blogs plummeting after google adopted their text into an "info box", same as the Google News controversy a few years ago where newspapers lost traffic. It's all bad. They really should pay the "little man" not just publishers with lawyer budgets - same with AI.
That's a separate issue and definitely a problem! There's no way they would get away with that if they were a small company. The fact that they can and do so routinely is yet another piece of damning evidence that our laws are broken because they don't apply equally to regular people and big corporations.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#60> [...] and also, for software authors, prohibiting ML training would be antithetical to the Open Source Definition. So that probably won’t work. Of course. As an author of OSS, I'm more than happy to let your AI "learn" from my code as long as the trained model is released under a GPL compatible license.
This author really does not know two shits what they're talking about. Surprising this whole post isn't flagged. If your AI software is vomiting derivative works stripped of their original license, provided the license even allows derivative works, then yes, you need to lawyer up.