Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#2Provable how?
What's an AI watermark?
What's a work of art?
How inundated by works containing supposedly unique digital signatures nonetheless susceptible to collision attacks do they wish to suffer?
The Law cannot match Mathematics in formulation, nor can it match it in meaning.
I wish mathematicians spent more time educating legislators so the rest of us can think and communicate in peace and clarity.
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#3Absolutely terrible idea. The idea that making a copy of art is somehow theft has lead to nothing but bad outcomes, artificial scarcity, and whining from wealthy institutions complaining about their imagined profits. Intellectual property is one of the most distasteful oxymorons of our age.
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#4Provable how? What's an AI watermark? What's a work of art? How inundated by works containing supposedly unique digital signatures nonetheless susceptible to collision attacks do they wish to suffer? The Law cannot match Mathematics in formulation, nor can it match it in meaning. I wish mathematicians spent more time educating legislators so the rest of us can think and communicate in peace and clarity.
These are all fair questions, and speak to a difference in approach between US and EU regulators. The EU gets a lot of criticism (from US commentators) of the fact that the GDPR and DMA legislation leave a lot to interpretation. It always comes across to me as people wanting to know the hard lines so they can get as close to them as possible, where the intention seems to be to ensure that companies meet the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law.
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#5Seems like ambitious legislation to request something from a standards agency and then keep lawing as if said standard existed.
The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#6Provable how? What's an AI watermark? What's a work of art? How inundated by works containing supposedly unique digital signatures nonetheless susceptible to collision attacks do they wish to suffer? The Law cannot match Mathematics in formulation, nor can it match it in meaning. I wish mathematicians spent more time educating legislators so the rest of us can think and communicate in peace and clarity.
These are all fair questions, and speak to a difference in approach between US and EU regulators. The EU gets a lot of criticism (from US commentators) of the fact that the GDPR and DMA legislation leave a lot to interpretation. It always comes across to me as people wanting to know the hard lines so they can get as close to them as possible, where the intention seems to be to ensure that companies meet the "spirit"…
Yes, and I'm an European. I don't think this is a matter of spirit or letter of Law, rather it is a matter of rigour or fluffy wooliness of thought.
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#7Absolutely terrible idea. The idea that making a copy of art is somehow theft has lead to nothing but bad outcomes, artificial scarcity, and whining from wealthy institutions complaining about their imagined profits. Intellectual property is one of the most distasteful oxymorons of our age.
Not all artists want their art taken and distributed or modified endlessly.
Regardless, I think it seems important to create a system for tracking attestation of AI produced materials, especially with regard to disinformation campaigns. This may not be the sole/express purpose of the legislation, but we will need systems of attribution in the future to determine what's human made and what's not.
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#8Provable how? What's an AI watermark? What's a work of art? How inundated by works containing supposedly unique digital signatures nonetheless susceptible to collision attacks do they wish to suffer? The Law cannot match Mathematics in formulation, nor can it match it in meaning. I wish mathematicians spent more time educating legislators so the rest of us can think and communicate in peace and clarity.
> What's a work of art?
According to the Wikipedia Article on Copyright Law in the United States:
> The United States copyright law protects "original works of authorship" fixed in a tangible medium, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Copyright law includes the following types of works: Literary, Musical, Dramatic, Pantomimes and choreographic works, Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, Audio-visual works, Sound recordings, Derivative works, Compilations, Architectural works.
If there are confusing edge cases, a judge will decide what counts, since definitions are subject to interpretation. But for the most part, this stuff is pretty clear cut and common sense.
None of this is to say I agree with this new legislation, I just don’t like when people on HN act as if the law falls apart in the face of freshman philosophy questions.
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#9Absolutely terrible idea. The idea that making a copy of art is somehow theft has lead to nothing but bad outcomes, artificial scarcity, and whining from wealthy institutions complaining about their imagined profits. Intellectual property is one of the most distasteful oxymorons of our age.
Not all artists want their art taken and distributed or modified endlessly. Regardless, I think it seems important to create a system for tracking attestation of AI produced materials, especially with regard to disinformation campaigns. This may not be the sole/express purpose of the legislation, but we will need systems of attribution in the future to determine what's human made and what's not.
I don’t want my mind polluted by content derived from people who want the power to restrict what i do with that art
Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal
#10That's not going to work, fellas. Cute idea though. Keep trying to put the cat back in the bag, I love this creative energy.