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

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 321 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#251

Post by bionhoward »

cj wrote: post #82
meowkit wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion as a SWE who is dating a lawyer (joke, not a serious qualification but it does provide some insight): Generative models traverse and interpolate high dimensional state spaces. These state spaces are created from input data. I would argue people do the exact same thing - the first main difference is we can use novel inputs (e.g. we can use images or words to develop our music/temporal state spaces and vice…

I can appreciate how this line of thinking might be attractive. But IMO the human machine comparison doesn't lend itself much credence. We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too. I think some care should be taken when considering if we allow machines to have the same privileges as humans.

“It’s just a machine!”

So are you!

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#252

Post by scotty79 »

rickmode wrote: post #14

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…

"anything goes" is the best and most natural solution. Just don't let people copyright the output if they don't have full copyright on all of the inputs. This should finally get rid of the cancer that is copyright in a generation or two.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#253

Post by marcinzm »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #102
vouaobrasil wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a math quiz. For practical purposes, we can start with a list of technologies that are clearly harmful. Generative AI like ChatGPT, AI image generators, AI text generators that write something based on a prompt, etc. all halted.

Why would you want that? What is "clearly harmful" in your view?

Change scares people. This has been the case for every single technological invention including writing. Predicting the transformative impact of a technology is nearly impossible (or sci-fi writers would have a better hit ratio) but thinking about how it will break what we currently have (versus what will replace the current status-quo) is fairly easy. Accepting ones own limitations and inherent ignorance about the future is something many people very much do not want to accept.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#254

Post by jasrys »

Nevermark wrote: post #165
kuchenbecker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that problem is already solved. Copyright holders are already protected from (I.e. can legally prohibit) distribution of obvious copies, or clearly derivative works. Regardless of how they were produced by hand, copy machine, Photoshop or with a model. The new problem is that artists styles are being “stolen” by incorporating their copyrighted work into models without their permission. And that problem can easily…

This is probably a somewhat unpopular opinion on HN, but it is where many of the artists I work with are generally trying to get to. Consent, compensation, and credit.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#255

Post by Retric »

chii wrote: post #210
Retric wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is the artists assertion that it’s either original or a copy from something else. DALLE 2 can’t tell you if it’s original or not. These AI’s have no idea and the company or group that created them doesn’t review individual output so they can’t say either.

> DALLE 2 can’t tell you if it’s original or not whoever pressed the button to run DALLE will make the assertion, just like whoever was running photoshop to make the image today would make the same assertion.

Based on what?

A photoshop user controls what data photoshop uses, a DALLE user doesn’t. Even a prompt as generic as “Cat” could be producing an obviously derivative work if you compare it to the original. This is true for all prompts.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#256

Post by Retric »

mjan22640 wrote: post #217
Retric wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, someone using a model can’t know if the generated text/image/sound is a nearly identical copy of the original material they don’t recognize. If use of the output of these systems comes at significant legal risk then then such systems become nearly useless.

The generated content is a derivative work of each piece of the material the model was trained on. That material can be listed.

So your suggestion is to list 100’s of millions of works and have users manually review them? I don’t think that’s going to work.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#257

Post by Retric »

JamesBarney wrote: post #223
skydhash wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make sufficient changes to the design I think that’s one of the issue. The transformation done by these tools are mechanical. Even if it may be extensive. The human input is too small. Omniman may have similarities with Superman, but he is not him in the larger context of the story. LLMs can not yet be that consistent for marketable output that deserves to be copyrightable. I’m perfectly fine for LLMs to aid with s…

Why shouldn't a prompt output be copyrightable?

Because prompts lack sufficient creative control.

Typing a search sting into Google doesn’t provide copyright over its output.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#258

Post by LegitShady »

idle_zealot wrote: post #51
LegitShady wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing you're authoring is just your prompt. Apply for a copyright for it. The image or text generated in reply is generated by a computer with no more input from you than someone commissioning work using very precise words, and lacks human authorship.

This falls apart when you start getting into things like control net and posing, or iterative erasing, reprompting, and in/outfilling. It starts feeling more like some weird combination of 3d modeling, photoshop, and a really advanced autofill.

if you keep prompting an artist for edits over and over again for more changes, you don't suddenly own the copyright.

the lesson you should learn is that advanced ai autofill in photoshop may lack human authorship, but it wasn't good enough to become a serious copyright issue until those tools came into existence.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#259

Post by LegitShady »

evilduck wrote: post #98
LegitShady wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used words very carefully. It depends on the level of human authorship. If you use a tool to correct some pixels thats directed by a human closely, no thats not a problem. If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship of those parts of the image. You could then go in and author changes to the work that you could further add to your copyright. But you would never chan…

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 the things you're collaging can't be copyrighted because they lack human authorship, you can only copyright the arrangement, not the things you're arranging.

If they have human authorship, its the original human artist's work you're collaging and now you're creating an unauthorized derivative work violating many copyrights.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#260

Post by jasrys »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #211
kuchenbecker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see 2 problems with that. (1) how do you know if the image that just generated is substantially similar to an existing copyright work? Maybe if some registration tool existed, but other wise the burden is too great (2) what is stopping someone from generating millions of images and copy righting all the "unique" ones? Such that no one can create anything without accidental collisions.

1. lots of established law and case law (at least in the US), this is already a well-settled problem and folks have the tools and proper venue to bring infringement claims. Yes, federal copyright infringement litigation is prohibitively expensive for many issues. There is a now a "small claims court" for smaller issues. [1]

2. Those works cannot be copyrighted (at least in the US). [2]. And hey, someone already tried copyrighting every song melody [3]

[1]: https://copyright.gov/about/small-claims/

[2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJtm0MoOgiU

Post reply on HN