121–130 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the cat is out of the bag so to speak, any attempt to force ai companies to generate their own content to train on means we are signing up for a future where only multi billion dollar companies are in control.
If they were truly forced to do this, even they would find it difficult.
Hence the headlong rush to implement regulatory capture.
In theory, a company that owns Christian (c 2023) content could be filing DMCA claims every Sunday.
The silliness of digital-racketeers must end at some point. =)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photoshop doesn’t install with a massive directory of other people’s copyrighted works to draw snippets from.
Yes it does...
It is very unlikely Adobe would be shipping their software with copyrighted material without paying for them first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can "hand paint" in Photoshop, but you can also assemble collages composed of bits and pieces of other copyrighted works and create a result that is still copyrightable. Why is the latter currently legal in your opinion?
If you do not license the "bits and pieces" then the courts will find you in violation of their copyrights. Pretending AI is different is bizarre out-of-touch "but I'm so special" solipsism.
I can quote a book in my article without licensing the quote from the author. I can clip eyebrows off of copyrighted magazine portraits and assemble them into a eyebrow version of some famous art piece and never have to license a thing. I can take screenshots of copyrighted YouTube videos and assemble a "shirts of YouTubers" that I lasso tool'd and collaged together and create an entirely new copyrighted work without having to license a thing. I can take a photo of a street which contains an art gallery and copyrighted art can appear in my photo without having to license anything from the artist. Fair use would cover taking 1 out of 1 million pixels and assembling it into a new image if a human were to perform that action.
I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
> is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material But then you are just shifting the problem forward by an inch. What happens when tomorrow someone declares that their model is generally intelligent and is therefore allowed to disregard copyright when training just like a person can?
The future will clearly yield a class of "beings" striving for some degree of indistinguishability from or coexistence with humans. Proposals that discriminate --literally discriminate -- without respect for the principles of universality and equal treatment under law are creating and condemning a marginalized group before it even reaches maturity. This is an old and tired theme repeated through history. Let's foresee this and not get it wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it makes sense for both model builders and the model’s users to separately obtain licenses for the same works used in the training set. A model trained on several copyrighted data sources cannot somehow be used in a way depending on a subset of those sources. So all parameters of usage and compensation should be settled by contract between the model builder and copyrighted data supplier, before the copy…
I slightly disagree, in that I think the person using the tool should bear the burden of copyright. I.e. if the model outputs something under copywrite it merely can't be republished. In this same way, i can use Photoshop on proprietary data but I can't necessarily sell the results.
The determination of copyright violation should be made against the output of the model in the event that someone uses it for commercial purposes.
If the models have a risk of generating copyrighted content, it will be up to the consumers of the system to mitigate that risk through manual review or automated checks of the output.
I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
My problem with this is that artists learn by studying other artists, cutting that off because it's AI rather than focusing on whether the resulting work is derivative, seems more of a problem to me. It seems to me that an AI can be used for either original work or derivatives, proving that you can get derivatives out of it has always struck me as no different than commissioning a copy of someone's work from a human…
Most LLMs are just profiteering from people’s labor without their consent. And there’s nothing new being produced. It’s always a statistical output of previous works.
AI Jesus chat-bot could claim copyright over biblical content. In theory, a company that owns Christian (c 2023) content could be filing DMCA claims every Sunday. The silliness of digital-racketeers must end at some point. =)
Is there anyone willing to make the case for allowing generated works to have copyright protections? A lot of people here seem to mistake copyright for "right-to-sell" generated works. As it stands now, with no copyrights granted for AI generated works, anyone can sell any generated works unless some copyright holder believes it violates their copyright.
This is _exactly_ how it looks when a society commits suicide.
AFAICT this is a novel problem. Personally I think the logical conclusion will be to fair use/copyleft everything, but that seems like a win for society.