221–230 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this could be any different than say a person reads a book. Then uses what they learned from that book to write another book? Sure, if they're literally copying material from one book and then adding that as their own work into their book, that could be against copyright.
Because a machine can do it millions of times faster
I'm really looking forward to the EU framework around "AI". It's definitely a better approach than having individual artists sue and get dismissed on technicalities (that don't even apply in most of the EU - e.g. in France, if you release something by default you get copyright on it, so the judge's reasoning couldn't apply here) and judges deciding based on their interpretation of vague laws crafted in an age when "A…
After GDPR and the cookie pop-ups my expectations for things coming out of the EU is quite low. Every company I have worked it has a different and often conflicting interpretation of GDPR, and some places uses it to play politics, and governments of individual EU countries are not doing their part to clarify how things should be interpreted. It's a dumpster fire IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyright is something we made up to extend the logic of commodities to the full value chain for books, which made sense 200 years ago. But it makes no sense to apply the logic of commodities to digitally produced and distributed media. Great! So given your articles are in the public domain on your website I can make millions out of it without given you a cent or direct credit and sources without paying you and can…
Anyone who programs for a living should be making whatever preparations are possible for being replaced by an AI. If AIs are good at art they'll be better at coding. I have sympathy for the artists, but frankly this is progress and it can't be stopped. The economics are so lop-sided in favour of silicon that the law won't be able to hold it back without crippling society at large. Artists aren't the only ones affecte…
Not sure about that. It's like saying if AIs are good at art, they'll be better at math.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is intellectual right? I respect authorship, with obvious consideration that no intellectual activity happens in a vacuum, as Isaac Newton said: "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.". I believe that I should never be able to get financially hurt or go to prison because I used other person's thoughts.
> I believe that I should never be able to get financially hurt or go to prison because I used other person's thoughts "Use another person's thoughts" is obfuscating the reality of the situation so far as to be disingenuous. The way society ensures new works are created is to guarantee a temporary monopoly over certain narrow types of ideas to their creators. Why would anybody be an author if everyone could download…
This will be the greatest act of Intellectual Property theft in history. All because judges will be befuddled about what to do after hearing terms like “training data” and “compression”. We will, of course get the emails in 10-20 years showing that it’s all lies and that the CEOs of these companies knew exactly what they were doing. If this continues, AI will be the great inequality machine in history. Take data from…
We've been here before several times: Silhouette painting, Photography, Airbrushing, Pianos, Synthesizers, Sampling, Photoshop, Ray Tracing, and many more. "It's not real art", "they're stealing from us", "we'll go hungry!" .
Some of these are already quite old. For others, I've actually been asked the question back when I was in school: "Are you really making music if your instrument has a microprocessor in it?". Um, yes, yes I claim I am making music thank you very much.
First people complain, then they adapt, and then they end up making awesome art with the new tools and/or instruments. Which isn't to say historically it was all rainbows and roses, but it was never the end of the world either. Seeing the newer generation of AI tools and how the tools end up getting integrated into regular workflows, it seems to be going the same direction.
To quote the song, I think it's "all just little bits of history repeating".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for specific narrow coptright "The other problem for plaintiffs is that it is simply not plausible that every Training Image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable), or that all DeviantArt users’ Output Images rely upon (theoret…
> When is my work protected? > Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. > Do I have to register with your office to be protected? > No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a…
Well, here's the actual text from the decision:
> Each defendant argues that McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims must be dismissed because neither of them has registered their images with the Copyright Office. They also move to “limit” Anderson’s copyright claim to infringement based only on the 16 collections of works that she has registered. See, e.g., Declaration of Paul M. Schoenhard (Dkt. No. 51-1), ¶¶ 5-6; see also Compl. ¶ 28 & Exs. 1-16.3
> In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
> Likewise, plaintiffs do not address or dispute that Anderson’s copyright claims should be limited to the collections Anderson has registered. The scope of Anderson’s Copyright Act claims are limited to the collections which she has registered.
TL;DR: plaintiffs didn't attempt to argue that the copyright claims should be construed broadly, defendants argued they should, so defendants win at motion-to-dismiss stage. The defendants actually lost their argument that they should win because Anderson didn't identify the specific registered works, the entire case should be thrown out--the judge said there's enough specificity to let the case go to discovery to figure out which registered works may have been infringed.
My perspective is there are two different main issues about AI (especially Stable Diffusion). One is how it works consistently with the current law. Ml model is basically a highly lossy compressed data format. If you collect millions of copyrighted images, merge them into a super big image, then compress it into a .jpg. Are you allowed to redistribute this .jpg file? To me, it's mostly depending on how lossy (low qua…
So just to be sure: the list of URLs + metadata that gets used for stable diffusion is several terabytes. Not the images. Just the list of URLs alone (and a bit of other metadata). Stable diffusion itself is just 6+ GB, and fits comfortably on my USB stick. That's one heck of a lossy compression algorithm, sir! (this thread has more discussion on this line of thinking https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37879938 )
Thanks for sharing this info which I'm aware of. However, this fact is not as significant as it might sound in terms of whether it's a lossy compression algorithm.
In most lossy compression algorithms, the compression rate is arbitrary. For example, for an algorithm that based on fourier transform, you can choose only take the first sin wave, or the first 1000 ones (a bit oversimplification here).
So yes, SD is small. Quite miracally small, and its size alone implies some important insights on how human see and read artworks. But this fact doesn't change whether I see it as a lossy compression. (In my previous comment I stated human brain stores lossy compressed data too, so you can see I'm using a broad definition of "lossy compression".)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you memorize all of harry potter word for word, or some famous solo vocal track from memory, are you committing a copyright violation? Or only if you then recreate it and try to redistribute your copy? The scenario where AI training is locked down doesn't result in 1,000,000 individuals getting paid. (What would they get paid, and by whom?) It results in Disney, Adobe, etc.—massive companies with existing licenses…
Yes, and you know how humans acquire works to learn from? They pay for it. They buy the books. They buy tickets to theatre. They buy entrance to the gallery. The trick that's being done now is hey, we don't have to pay since it's not a person. (to the creator) But hey, it is just like a person when it learns! (legal system) If AI models require human training data, then they should pay for it. Easy.
They're saying, "You can't consume my book in that way."
Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…
> Orrick spends the rest of his ruling explaining why he found the artists’ complaint defective, which includes various issues, but the big one being that two of the artists — McKernan and Ortiz, did not actually file copyrights on their art with the U.S. Copyright Office.
In other words, the story here is mostly that the lawyers screwed up badly in pursuing a copyright lawsuit before ensuring copyright had been filed.
Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…
Other humans have always been doing exactly that with anything you published.