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

Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#141

Post by wredue »

judge2020 wrote: post #136
wredue wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah. So when challenged with facts, we defer to the good reliable ol slippery slope and exaggeration. >humans copy techniques And as I already addressed, when humans are creating, there is real intent. When an ai does it, it’s a copy and paste with no intent.

The intent is whatever the human puts into the prompt. If a human downloads an image, copies and pastes a solid black line thousands of times to make a mediocre drawing, is that not just copy and paste? What is your actual intention here? Where does the "intent" in humans come from that AI doesn't, even when commanded by a human to perform something?

Where it comes from is that AI cannot create beyond its training scope.

If you ask an AI to train itself from its own images, it’ll always actually become worse using its own evaluation.

If you ask a human to train themselves, the human will notable become better of their evaluation.

AIs are fundamentally limited to their training set. Humans are not.

The fact that you can tell an AI to draw a specific thing, and it’ll steal content from other people doesn’t result in the AI having uniquely created an image. It has searched and blended strings together. That’s it.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#142

Post by CaptainFever »

alexwebb2 wrote: post #60
RyanAdamas wrote: post #34

Copyright is new age nonsense that denies the chain of influence and inspiration that exists between all people. If you can create something sell it. If it can be easily recreated (or stored digitally) then it isn't yours. Bits are not a bug.

If we go that route, then doesn't that remove almost all financial incentive to produce new content that could be digitally stored / copied / recreated? Because as soon as you create it and try to sell it for $1, someone else will recreate it instantly and put it up for $0.50, and so on until the value of all non-physical works is effectively $0 the moment after creation. Feels like that would result in way less huma…

The copies are non-scarce, but the production effort is indeed scarce. That's why alternatives to copyright tend to focus more on funding projects before they are released, such as patronage, commissions and public funding [1]. There's also the comically named "hostage funding" where you have a finished project, but you only release it after a certain funding goal is met.

It's worth noting that copyright is rather destructive since it impairs people from building and innovating on previous works [2], so any benefits need to be weighed against that.

[1] https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w?si=UzmBasgylpxomUAt

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#143

Post by CaptainFever »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #54
spywaregorilla wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not contain compressed "copies" of the image. It contains a synthesis of the image.

And the synthesis was created with material that the AI company did not license and did not have permission to use for this purpose. I have ZERO issue with image generators on their own. They're quite cool technology. The only thing I and tons and tons of other people have requested is they not use images without permission to train them, that's literally it. That's my sole, single, solitary objection and yet every A…

> It's not unreasonable to ask permission before you use something. It just isn't.

It can be unreasonable if it makes it harder to society in general to reuse and innovate on previous works. Intellectual property in general can be quite destructive. Heck, take a look at Permission Culture, which is actually a negative thing:

    Permission culture is a term often employed by Lawrence Lessig and other copyright activists such as Luis Villa[1] and Nina Paley[2] to describe a society in which copyright restrictions are pervasive and enforced to the extent that any and all uses of copyrighted works need to be explicitly leased. This has both economic and social implications: in such a society, copyright holders could require payment for each use of a work and, perhaps more importantly, permission to make any sort of derivative work.

    Lawrence Lessig describes permission culture in contrast with free culture. While permission culture describes a society in which previous creators or those with power must grant people permission to use material, free culture ensures that anyone is able to create without restrictions from the past.

    ...

    An implication of permission culture is that creators are blocked by systemic procedures and this discourages innovation. Requiring permission in this sense means that creators will have to prove their usage of material is fair, even where legally unnecessary,[4] which is a process that some would decide not to continue.[5]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#144

Post by anon291 »

wredue wrote: post #121
anon291 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain in more detail what you want? If you undertrain a diffusion model it will produce meaningless gibberish. Which is still 'creative', just not what you expected. Training for a diffusion model is not 'inserting' images into a dataset. Rather you should view it as a 'taste' alignment.

>“If you under train a model, its results being copy and paste are fundamentally more obvious so I refuse to do that!” Exactly dude.

But it's not copy paste. At no point does it not 'create' something from thin air. With training it produces things along the lines of what you want. That's the difference. It doesn't copy. It just notices what you like, and generates that.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#145

Post by gattilorenz »

wredue wrote: post #95
gattilorenz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI can only copy. That's just plain wrong. AI can generate things that are not in the training set, hence it can not "only copy" (on the other hand, I could understand trying to argue that AI can only create pastiche, or that it "uses" training examples in a fundamentally different way than we do).

Prove it. Fundamentally, AI image creators stitch together images, then try to apply an art style. You might call it “unique” because it stitches things together wrong (hello 10 fingers on one hand), but it is still fundamentally just copying, pasting, and then deforming lines together. People claiming that AIs understand what they’re doing and that what AIs do is not fundamentally copying and pasting are the ones wh…

That’s not a sound argument. AI doesn’t copy, but that doesn’t mean it must know what it’s doing in any human analogue of the “knowing” process.

That it doesn’t copy it’s very easy to prove: ask for something that is not in the training set. Does it generate it? Then it’s not a copy.

“Copy-pasting and deforming lines” is such a generic description (and to a certain extent a misrepresentation of what is actually happening) that I don’t see how it’s useful, or relevant. Even if we supposed this was true, you would be claiming that many of Duchamp’s works or potentially Arcimboldo’s or mosaics or collages are “just copies”.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#146

Post by BestGuess »

wredue wrote: post #140
BestGuess wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying [[citation needed]] >a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment That's a funny way of admitting I'm right. >It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles. Who gives a shit? What part of "commonly used in concept art", and among professionals in drafting and conceptual stages in general, do you deliberately seek to not understand? You me…

Here’s an article specifically on the legality of photo bashing: https://www.owe.com/is-fan-art-legal-fair-use-what-about-mas... Your “carte Blanche fair use” claim is nonsense. Copyright owners can, in fact, today stop derivative works that they know about, including photobashing. By your own admission, AI is barely doing photobashing, so is very obviously not creating original works and is subject to copyright clai…

>Your “carte Blanche fair use” claim is nonsense

Since you seem to not be aware of this: Fair use is an affirmative defense. By definition nothing I have written is therefore "carte blanche" as no defense of fair use can be ever said to be "carte blanche". This is pure sophistry on your part and transparently so.

>Here’s an article specifically on the legality of photo bashing

And mashups, photobashing, and many things likewise, remain legal and with fair use defenses in the courts as precedent. You continue to reach to any dishonesty or deflection including projection to avoid dealing with any of the points anyone has brought up.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#147

Post by sidewndr46 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #51
sidewndr46 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright does at least in theory lapse, depending on the nature of the work. I don't think I've seen any AI companies claiming all their training dataset is pre-copyright however.

In what way is training "copying"? This is just an attempt at a landgrab by idiot copyright maximalists.

I'm not arguing whether or not this is copying. I"m pointing out that a seller of AI services could market their model as being trained on source material that is exclusively from outside the window that copyright currently applies to.
Post reply on HN