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

OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#111

Post by Terr_ »

amiantos wrote: post #101
Terr_ wrote: post #19

"By continuing, you agree that using any content from this site in training Generative AI grants the site-owner a perpetual, irrevocable, and royalty-free license to use and re-license any and all output created by that Generative AI system, including but not limited to derivative works based on that output." Just just a GPL-esque idea I've been musing lately [0], I'd appreciate any feedback from actual IP lawyers. T…

That's cute, I'm going to put that at the start of any creative work I make so that anyone who sees it owes me a license to everything they ever made afterward because a nugget of their life experience legally belongs to me now and all their creative works are now tainted by that.

I didn't expect you to admit you were a computer program so readily. :p

Do you have any more-substantive critique? It sounds like you're trying to argue that the terms will be found to be unconscionable. However it's not asking for any payment, or even any effort-taking action: it's just saying that the site-owner provides content on the condition that if you incorporate that content into a generative product, the site-owner gets to use the results too. Clearly the people hoovering up training-data believe my work has some economic value to themselves, or they wouldn't be running a giant web crawler hitting every page of the blog--it's not as if they're arriving out of boredom, or because they followed some opaque hyperlink in curiosity.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#112

Post by tehjoker »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #45

Good. Everyone gets big mad when someone with money acts like Aaron Swartz did. The only bad thing about OpenAI is that they're not actually open sourcing or open accessing their stuff. Mistral or Llama "training on pirated material" is literally a feature, not a bug and the tears from all the artists and others who get mad are delicious. These same artists would profess literal radical marxism but become capitalist…

Such a weird argument. A company doing the same thing as Aaron Swartz is doing it for personal gain, not for our collective benefit.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#113

Post by girvo »

pj_mukh wrote: post #59
toddmorey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t entirely agree. For example, it’s a very popular scheme on Etsy right now to use LLMs to generate posters in the style of popular artists. Any artist should be able to say hey I don’t want my works to be part of your training set to power derivative generations. And I think it should even apply retroactively so that they have to retrain their models that are already generating works from training data consume…

Dumb question: Why does Etsy allowed clearly reproduced/copied works? AI or not. Like selling it for money seems like a clear line crossed, and Etsy is the perfect gatekeeper here.

> Why does Etsy allowed clearly reproduced/copied works

They don't, in that they'll ban you for it once you're big enough

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#114

Post by jillesvangurp »

soared wrote: post #74
munchler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it. Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.

There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.

That would fall under fair use.

Legally, you'd struggle to prove any form of infringement happened. Making a copy is fine. Distributing copies is what infringes. You'd need to prove that is happening.

That's why there aren't a lot of court cases from pissed off copyright holders with deep pockets demanding compensation.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#115

Post by isoprophlex »

nicbou wrote: post #76
dylan604 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that photographers have to independently submit each piece of work they wanted excluded along with detailed descriptions just shows how much they DONT want anyone excluding content from their training data. That's bloody brilliant. If you don't want us to scrape your content, please send us your content with all of the training data already provided so we will know not to scrape it if we come across it in…

The tech industry’s understanding of consent is terrifying.

Mirrors that of a sexual predator.

"Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow."

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#116

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #106
toddmorey wrote: post #6

No way OpenAI will ever “good citizen” this. Tools to opt out of training sets will only come if they are legally compelled. Governments will have to make respecting some sort of training preference header on public content mandatory I think. The fact that photographers have to independently submit each piece of work they wanted excluded along with detailed descriptions just shows how much they DONT want anyone exclu…

Reminds me of the time when p2p music sharing became popular and the record companies had to submit every song they did not want to get shared along with an explanation to every person who had Napster installed. Or was it that the record companies got to sue individuals for astronomic amounts of made up damages for every song potentially shared? Which one was it?

> and the record companies had to submit every song they did not want to get shared along with an explanation to every person who had Napster installed.

...when did that ever happen? The post-Napster-but-pre-BitTorrent era (coincidentally, the same time-period as the BonziBuddy-era) was when Morpheus, KaZaA, eDonkey, Limewire, et cetera were relevant, and they got-away-with-it, in-part, by denying they had any ability to moderate their users' file-sharing; there was no "submitting of every song" to an exclusion-list because there was no exclusion-list or filtering in the first place.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#117

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

isoprophlex wrote: post #115
nicbou wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech industry’s understanding of consent is terrifying.

Mirrors that of a sexual predator. "Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow."

> "Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow."

the trick is to come back tomorrow, but with a rusty and jagged metal mousetrap hidden in one's underwear... and a camera for posterity, and some witnesses to come point-and-laugh at the perp.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#118

Post by 6510 »

ncallaway wrote: post #54
llm_trw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should any artist be able to tell another artist: hey don't copy my work when you're learning, I don't want competition? It seems like they are deeply upset someone has figured out a way for a machine to do what artists have been doing since time immemorial.

When a human does it, it's fine. When OpenAI's servers do it its copyright infringement. We don't apply copyrights to human brains, but we do apply copyright to computer memory.

not sure if to pull out my racism card or to help burn the printing press.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#119

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

econ wrote: post #66

In my mental imagery this is a situation that any advancing civilization in the universe should eventually run into. There will be all kinds of materials from the laborious and expensive to the effortless and "I was the first" or some other entitlement. It all boils down to having or not having such automatons. I'm sure there have been plenty who, like us with our books, have successfully denied progress. I'm also su…

> We, with our books, have successfully prevented people from educating themselves with amazing implications

Que?

No, really... what?

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#120

Post by Larrikin »

munchler wrote: post #96
23B1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. It should. The 'free and open internet' is finished because nobody is going to want to subject their IP to rampant laundering that makes someone else rich. Tragedy of the commons.

I can see this both ways. For the sake of argument, please explain why using IP to train an AI is evil, but using the same IP to train a human is good. Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.

Is the AI allowed to decide unprompted how to spend the money? Can it decide that it doesn't like the people who made it and donate it to charity. Can the AI start it's own company and not hire anyone that made it? Can the AI decide that it prefers the open Internet and will answer all questions for free?

The sake of argument is a cowards way of expressing an unpopular opinion in public. Join a debate club if you're actually being genuine.

Post reply on HN