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

AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

jasonwillems.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 138 posts

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#21

Post by AlienRobot »

wtetzner wrote: post #5

> If you paint a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog in your living room, you are technically creating an unauthorized derivative work Is this even true? It might violate a trademark, but I don't think it would violate copyright law unless it was a copy of an existing picture.

It's not true. You don't need "authorization" to create a derivative work. You do need a license to distribute copyrighted works, including derivatives. And this only matters when you are distributing it to a sizable audience.

For example, if you rent a movie, you can watch it with your family. Nobody is going to sue you for distributing the movie with 5 people in your room. That's pure nonsense. Same with music, books, etc.

If you try to play the movie in an establishment with dozens of people, then it can become a problem, because you're essentially a theater now.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what the law is on selling fan art on a convention or even privately commissioned fan artwork. But things aren't as draconian as people assume it is.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#22

Post by hackyhacky »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #2

Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition

> Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition

As the article has pointed out, it's not the principle that has changed, but the scale. Lots of things that are tolerable at small scale (e.g. lying, stealing) become disruptive to society at larger scale.

Copyright has been used in the past as a way for corporations to rent-seek and limit innovation. Now it may be the only legal means to stop them from doing that.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#23

Post by JoshTriplett »

realusername wrote: post #6

Personally I feel that the excessive duration of copyright just weakens authors arguments against AI. If even WWII-era documents are still under copyright, building a model respecting that would be impossible.

> If even WWII-era documents are still under copyright, building a model respecting that would be impossible.

"We can't do this legally, so we should be allowed to ignore the law."

If you can't build a model while respecting licenses, don't build a model.

I don't want copyright to exist, at any duration, and I certainly think it should be much shorter than it is. However, as long as it exists, AI should not get any exception to it; such an exception inherently privileges massive entities over small entities or individuals.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#24

Post by masklinn »

k__ wrote: post #8
wtetzner wrote: post #5

> If you paint a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog in your living room, you are technically creating an unauthorized derivative work Is this even true? It might violate a trademark, but I don't think it would violate copyright law unless it was a copy of an existing picture.

Yeah, in some countries private stuff isn't illegal at all.

I don’t believe there’s any country where derivative work is intrinsically illegal. The Berne convention considers them protected same as originals.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#25

Post by at1as »

falloutx wrote: post #20

Basically a rage bait. If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? In fact Anthropic is literally paying $1.5B on the copyright settlement, that indicates its completely a settled issue that AI companies have been violating this law. Some have been caught and fined, others are been lucky or that influence over the government. > Copyright Law Was Built for Human Scale No where in the law it has this kinda…

> Basically a rage bait. If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? In fact Anthropic is literally paying $1.5B on the copyright settlement, that indicates its completely a settled issue that AI companies have been violating this law. Some have been caught and fined, others are been lucky or that influence over the government.

Yes, but they were found not liable for copying the books they purchased. They were found liable for the books they torrented.

The former is something publishers still want to address

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#26

Post by Spivak »

klustregrif wrote: post #7

Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.

Hollywood sure, publishers sure, but tech? Where? The pro piracy pro game cracking open source p2p distribution people?

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#27

Post by saulpw »

falloutx wrote: post #20

Basically a rage bait. If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? In fact Anthropic is literally paying $1.5B on the copyright settlement, that indicates its completely a settled issue that AI companies have been violating this law. Some have been caught and fined, others are been lucky or that influence over the government. > Copyright Law Was Built for Human Scale No where in the law it has this kinda…

> If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it?

Yes.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#28

Post by AlienRobot »

repelsteeltje wrote: post #15
wtetzner wrote: post #5

> If you paint a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog in your living room, you are technically creating an unauthorized derivative work Is this even true? It might violate a trademark, but I don't think it would violate copyright law unless it was a copy of an existing picture.

LLMs are often framed as lossy compression , and surely converting some copyrighted Sonic the Hedgehog image from PNG to JPEG is considered copyright infringement, no?!

Relevant: What Colour are your bits? https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#30

Post by masklinn »

wtetzner wrote: post #5

> If you paint a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog in your living room, you are technically creating an unauthorized derivative work Is this even true? It might violate a trademark, but I don't think it would violate copyright law unless it was a copy of an existing picture.

It is true but meaningless. Derivative works are not illegal, and you don’t need authorisation to create one.

So if you draw sonic in your living room you are indeed creating an unauthorised derivative work. And someone can call it an unauthorised derivative work. And the only reaction that should induce is raising an eyebrow and replying “ok?”

Post reply on HN