231–240 of 705 posts
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.
Prompt: "cat leaving bag, golden hour, trending on artstation, 4k"
I think the underlying question is one of "degrees of derivation". There's a famous Carl Sagan quote: “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe” which hints at the problem: Nothing is created in a vacuum. Let's compare what Stable Diffusion does with what Franz von Holzhausen, head of design at Tesla, does. Franz didn't come into existence out of nothing and knew how to design…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
All or nothing, in my opinion. Either abolish or severely reduce copyright, or abide by it. The simple fact of the matter is that Disney and Getty invest a lot of money into these materials being out there in the first place. Open source programmers and artists spend a lot of time producing works for no cost other than some minor courtesies. AI companies aren't your friend or the little mom ''n pop shop down the road…
It's Disney that are, by proxy, suing Stable Diffusion to create the legal precedent that you desire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a computer program.
I don’t think one can know that for sure. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[flagged]
Like it or not, you can’t stop people from copying strings of ones and zeros. Time to let go of primitive notions of copyright and embrace that we’re all one species and we benefit by sharing our knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of "copyrighted" insights that they eventually remix into their own creations without necessarily reimbursing the original source(s) of their creativity. Yes, and humans are being found liable for copyright infringement for doing so. All that's needed to establish liability is access and substantial similarity ; the bar for the latter can be very low indeed (see Williams et al.…
Humans also (usually) remember where we saw something and can attribute the source. ML at this point doesn't do that.
US copyright law only applies in the US. AI can be developed outside of the US where other laws apply. So, the US using the straight jacket of copyright law to stifle innovation would only cause AI companies to move their business; or non US companies stepping up. I don't think that's actually going to happen though. The stakes are too high for that and this case seems quite weak. Copyright law has its limitations. B…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> “Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books?” I’m not able to read billions of books in less than an hour. Even if we agree that machine learning is like human learning, scale commonly matters in law.
I am not a lawyer, so the following is only my opinion.
Scale matters, but so does the legality of the thing that scales.
Reading two dozen books by other authors, or studying hundreds of artworks, or visiting the museum of awesome statues every week, in order to get inspired for ones own novel/painting/scuplture, isn't illegal.
So a lawsuit will have a really hard time argueing that it somehow is a problem if its two dozen billion books/paintings/sculptures. Because, such a lawsuit would suddely need to explain why the smaller scale is also problematic, only less so. And given that this is basically how art worked ever since the first human had the idea to paint pictures on a cave wall, that's a hard sell.
