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

141–150 of 166 posts

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

#141

Post by dwallin »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #77
tiahura wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your business model depends on the Roberts' court kneecapping AI, pivot. Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law because it involves the creation of intermediate, non-expressive data abstractions that do not reproduce or communicate the copyrighted work's original expression. This process aligns with fair use principles, as it is transformative, serves a distinct purpose (machine learning innova…

I believe there are some other issues other than just "is it transformative". I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work. I have some obligation to say "Yeah, I used a Warhol painting as the basis for it". Similarly, I can't take a sample of a Taylor Swift song and use it myself in my own music - I have to give Taylor credit, and probably some portion of the r…

> I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work.

This is a hilarious choice of artist given that Warhol is FAMOUS for appropriating work of others without payment, modifying it in some way, and then turning around and selling it for tons of money. That was the entire basis of a lot of his artistic practice. There was even a Supreme Court case about it.

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

#142

Post by 9283409232 »

protocolture wrote: post #126
9283409232 wrote: post #12

People need to understand these companies are not good actors and will not let you opt out unless forced. I have a 20 dollar bet with a friend that Trump's admin will get training data classified as fair use and the whole issue will be done away with anyway

Its clearly fair use regardless of what trump does.

It isn't clearly anything since there are dozens of lawsuits about it going on right now.

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

#143

Post by fenomas »

devit wrote: post #137
fenomas wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that argument falls down though, because a derivative work is an expressive work in its own right, and model weights aren't. It would seem more coherent to argue that a model output could be a derivative work, though it would need to include a significant portion of some given source. But even then, since the copyright office's position is that they're not copyrightable, I'm not sure they could qualify.

Model weights, if they can reproduce something like the original, are just a form of lossy compression (or even lossless for text), where the LLM answering the prompt is a more powerful version of asking software to retrieve a specific file from a Zip archive (or a webserver answering an HTTP query) of such lossy compressed data. So if model weights don't infringe, that would also imply that saving an image as a JPG…

That comparison would only make sense if compressed images were considered derivative works. They're not - copyright doesn't protect bytes on a disk, it protects creative expressions. Lossy compression doesn't affect the creative expression, so in copyright terms a compressed JPG is just a copy, and is covered exactly like the original image.

In contrast a derivative work is one creative expression that contains elements of another - like when you take an image and add commentary, or draw your own addition onto it, etc. And I'm pointing out that a trained model is not that - it's not itself a copyrightable expressive work. (We could think of it as a kind of algorithm for generating works, but algorithms aren't copyrightable.)

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

#144

Post by caeril »

23B1 wrote: post #88
tiahura wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your business model depends on the Roberts' court kneecapping AI, pivot. Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law because it involves the creation of intermediate, non-expressive data abstractions that do not reproduce or communicate the copyrighted work's original expression. This process aligns with fair use principles, as it is transformative, serves a distinct purpose (machine learning innova…

> Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law It should.

[flagged]

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

#145

Post by PittleyDunkin »

onemoresoop wrote: post #62
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An AI that has enough sense of self-awareness to not hallucinate It's not entirely clear that this is meaningful. Humans engage in confabulation, too.

Humans engage in confabulation but they’re mostly aware of it. In some mental disorders they may not be aware; though statistically that is not too significant and no, we normally don’t confabulate as much as the current crop of AI aka LLMs. As a tool LLMs are fantastic and am glad to look at them as solely as powerful tools. AGI is not here yet and maybe that’s a good thing. Who would want some kind of artificial in…

> Humans engage in confabulation but they’re mostly aware of it.

I'm not sure this is the case at all. Some awareness of this doesn't imply full awareness. In my experience, most people are unaware of how incoherent their worldviews are, so the distinction between normative and confabulatory behavior isn't clear.

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

#146

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by wilg »

lm28469 wrote: post #129
wilg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who cares if they do it with LLMs or not? how do you define agi?

I care because it's brought to us by same same deranged brains who promised self driving cars "in two years" every year since 2012, and a fully autonomous mars city "by 2030". We're all wasting time and resources on what basically amounts to alchemy while we could tackle real problems. Tech solutionists keep making promises for the next 5-10-20 years and never deliver, AI, electric planes, clean fuel, autonomous cars…

i mean there’s progress on all those things and that’s good and there’s no downside really?

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

#150

Post by Terr_ »

protocolture wrote: post #125
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…

I dont think you can exclaim away fair use protections. Otherwise everyone already would.

> I dont think you can exclaim away fair use protections.

"Copyright doesn't stop me from X" is different from "copyright lets me do X even though I agreed to a contract saying I wouldn't." (I have many problems with modern click/shrink-wrap, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms and I'm just trying to "fight fire with fire" here.)

If the average ToS has no force, then HN is currently infringing on my copyright by showing this post to you.

Post reply on HN