AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

Post by ehnto » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

metacritic12 wrote: post #394

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…

Regardless of whether one agrees or not with paying creators of the training data, I think the deeper issue here is about societal wealth distribution and who gets paid for X now that X is being done very well by AIs. A less equitable world has Google or billionaires getting paid. A more equitable world has the artists. But I want to argue here that for purposes of this latter question, your proposal of copyright enf…

Post by kragen » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

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.

Post by paulryanrogers » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 2:28 PM UTC

clnq wrote: post #459

sircastor wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. When you buy a book, you’re not paying a licensing fee. You’re exchanging for goods. You’re granted very few rights to own a copy of the work. But they’re almost all to do with distribution. None of those rights is the right t…

When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It's not just assumed, it's celebrated when a work of art gathers fans who produce their own, inspired content. Not sure why it needs to be over-complicated or different for silicone neural nets. But I think it will get very ov…

Post by kragen » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

rogers18445 wrote: post #176

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…

It's surprising that so many people on this site side with the Luddites. The back pressure ML is generating is at this point too strong for anything to make any difference. Anyone who attempts to stop it will just be practicing self-sabotage.

Post by hnlmorg » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 2:30 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #438

hnlmorg wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. No you don’t. That would fall under the category of “derivative work” which is still the intellectual property of the original author under most jurisdiction copyright laws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Unless the resulting "derivative work" is sufficiently transformative. Which, i would argue, training an AI/ML is. Therefore, using a training dataset does not constitute copyright violation. If the AI outputted an exact copy (or a close enough copy, that the laymen would agree it's a copy), then that particular instance of the AI's output is in violation of copyright. The AI model itself violate any copyright.