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

AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

heathermeeker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 705 posts

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#131

Post by [deleted] »

lelanthran wrote: post #99
kragen wrote: post #12

maybe one country or another will outlaw generative ai or ai art or media synthesis or whatever it ends up being called, but presumably they'll be left behind by rapid cultural and technical development in whatever countries don't the cat is out of the bag, the worms are out of the can, the feathers have blown away in the wind these developments seem very likely to be central to programming, all other kinds of engine…

If it really turns out to be a problem then copyright holders are simply going to add in a not-licensed-for-training clause in all their licenses[1]. Sure, existing works already licensed can still be used, but at least both parties (copyright holders and AI trainers) won't have anything to argue about. [1] Anyone from CC reading this? Make it the default.

[deleted]

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#132

Post by YellowStuDregg »

sdenton4 wrote: post #114
belorn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright doesn't have an explicit size, but rather uses size as one of many indicators. For example, I could take a massive 8k video and covert it into a very small 144p youtube video. Am I in the clear simply because the output is tiny compared to the input? Similar I could take a huge studio master copy of a song and convert it to a very small and rather compressed (distorted) mp3. I partially agree that some of t…

Thumbnail images don't violate copyright, and are a very helpful comparison case to consider. "Transformative Use" is a major consideration in fair use copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use ML models do not supplant the pre-existing work, and provide fundamentally new modalities. Transformative use seems like a slam dunk to me, but I guess we'll see what the Supremes decide in twenty years or so…

So is market harm

"Some courts have held this factor to be the most important in the analysis."

https://ilt.eff.org/Copyright__Fair_Use.html#Market_Harm

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#133

Post by seydor »

Taywee wrote: post #49

> If the AI industry is to survive, we need a clear legal rule that neural networks, and the outputs they produce, are not presumed to be copies of the data used to train them. Otherwise, the entire industry will be plagued with lawsuits that will stifle innovation and only enrich plaintiff’s lawyers Or maybe, get this, how about people running AI only feed them information that they legally have the right to use? Ho…

> legally have the right to use

is the "right to use in ML training" well defined?

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#134

Post by profile53 »

pigsty wrote: post #116
jeroenhd wrote: post #105

There's no part of AI that is being swallowed up by copyright. AI companies can ask for permission if they want to train their models on other people's works. It's not that hard, various image hosting sites have already added an opt-in/opt-out toggle to their services. Sites might even get away with using this stuff as compensation for free hosting. The fact of the matter is that the AI companies don't want to ask fo…

It’s strange to me that there’s a lot of overlap between people who think AI training should require explicit consent for every piece of training data, and people who think copyright and patents are insanely restrictive in the music/movies/literature/software world. It’s also worrying that requiring consent to train an AI model will inevitably lead to requiring consent to make handmade art that’s a little too similar…

I don’t personally think it’s that strange or internally inconsistent. People seem to be saying “within the current copyright system, consent should be required, but I still think the copyright system is broken”.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#135

Post by jeroenhd »

kirse wrote: post #121
jeroenhd wrote: post #105

There's no part of AI that is being swallowed up by copyright. AI companies can ask for permission if they want to train their models on other people's works. It's not that hard, various image hosting sites have already added an opt-in/opt-out toggle to their services. Sites might even get away with using this stuff as compensation for free hosting. The fact of the matter is that the AI companies don't want to ask fo…

AI companies can ask for permission if they want to train their models on other people's works Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? Do you ask for permission when you get new ideas from HN that aren't your own? Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of "copyrighted" insights that they eventually remix into their own creations without necessar…

I'm not a computer program.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#136

Post by wvenable »

quadcore wrote: post #29

I 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…

A lot of art is produced like sweat shop labor right now -- just think about the visual effects in any recent Marvel movie. And why isn't software art? I write software in my leisure time for fun.

The line you're drawing is entirely meaningless.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#137

Post by threeseed »

echelon wrote: post #104
jakelazaroff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very curious that so many people adopted this position exactly when it became feasible for giant corporations to profit by mass producing laundered copyrighted works!

Those wanting AI to respect copyright are going to find that the big players will navigate copyright just fine. It's the small players that won't. They're advocating for institutional control over AI.

So if I want AI to respect copyright to protect individual artists, designers etc.

I am not fighting for the smaller players but for large enterprises. That is illogical.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#138

Post by seydor »

lost_tourist wrote: post #55
throwanem wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

thats not the case. almost all human works ever was not even attributed to the author. Nobody considered copyright when they recited Homer or published reprinted manuals until 1700

the concept is very new

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#139

Post by threeseed »

kube-system wrote: post #97
candiodari wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright only governs publishing. So you have the right to train AI with any and all data you have access to, as far as copyright is concerned.

Yes but using AI to generate works that can be used commercially is the way commercial AI companies plan to monetize AI.

There have been leaks where OpenAI is charging $42/month to use their service.

How much of that is going back to the copyright holders whose work their service derives value from ?

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#140

Post by SxC97 »

YellowStuDregg wrote: post #132
sdenton4 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thumbnail images don't violate copyright, and are a very helpful comparison case to consider. "Transformative Use" is a major consideration in fair use copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use ML models do not supplant the pre-existing work, and provide fundamentally new modalities. Transformative use seems like a slam dunk to me, but I guess we'll see what the Supremes decide in twenty years or so…

So is market harm "Some courts have held this factor to be the most important in the analysis." https://ilt.eff.org/Copyright__Fair_Use.html#Market_Harm

I’m unclear about this. Let’s say a movie comes out and I make a YouTube review using brief clips or screenshots from the movie. Since my review is transformative, I should be in the clear (I think?).

But when it comes to market harm, does the tone of my review effect the enforceability of copyright?

As in, if my review is negative it would harm the market for people going to watch the movie vs a positive review right?

Post reply on HN