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

Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#11

Post by eointierney »

Uehreka wrote: post #8
eointierney wrote: post #2

Provable 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 This protection is available to both published and unpublished works.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,…

I used to be an artist and then studied science. The first constitution I read was that of the USA, then that of Ireland. I've been reading law since. The decisions of judges are of variable quality and always susceptible to appeal, especially to autonomy. And the Law always falls apart in the face of the philosophy of freshmen, it's how we hold it together in the face of each other that makes it worthwhile.

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#13

Post by baxtr »

puppycodes wrote: post #3

Absolutely 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.

Bad outcomes for one side are great outcomes for another side.

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#14

Post by a2128 »

I don't know if I'm reading this correctly. If this applies to images, and if these watermarks are something like a comment stored in the file's metadata, wouldn't this effectively make it illegal to make a thumbnail of an image? Or to screenshot an image? Or convert it to a .bmp?

> The bill also directs NIST to develop cybersecurity measures to prevent tampering with provenance and watermarking on AI content.

So somehow NIST would have to develop a cybersecurity measure to stop me from making an AI generated image and just screenshotting it, discarding any metadata. I'm not sure how realistic this is.

If the watermark were embedded into the actual pixels of the image then of course it'd be preserved by a screenshot, but my understanding is that those watermarks are not very robust to the image being resized, compressed or cropped

At the end of the day you can also just take a picture of an AI-generated image on your screen using a camera (bonus points if you're in a future where cameras embed digital signatures to verify the image is authentic and not AI generated)

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#15

Post by tamimio »

> like through watermarking.

Good luck enforcing that in open source tools.

> Such content also could not be used to train AI models.

And... how would you make sure it won’t happen?

I don’t think they know how the digital world works, let alone generative AI. You might regulate big companies, but never the community, not to mention companies that are outside of the US that can still access and train their models on such materials.

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#17

Post by voltaireodactyl »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #9
twojacobtwo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

FWIW I don’t want my mind actively polluted by the media and materials derived by people who consider art “content” and all human output “training data” to support their own misguided gambles in the hopes of saving their personal portfolios from self-imposed disaster. And yet here we are. So. I hear you.

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#18

Post by puppycodes »

twojacobtwo wrote: post #7
puppycodes wrote: post #3

Absolutely 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.

AI doesn't have a will. AI doesn't make art. I think the real conversation is about harm. No one (nice) wants harm to be the outcome at the expense of others. The problem is identifying the harm and preventing that harm. This legislation is about the thought virus equating digital "things" with physical "things". They are not the same. We are deeply prone to skeuomorphism but we should fight this urge so we can appropriately address real harm and that is sadly being missed entirely by these politicians.

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#19

Post by hakfoo »

twojacobtwo wrote: post #7
puppycodes wrote: post #3

Absolutely 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.

If you don't want to have others distribute and modify your art, never show it to anyone else, put it in a box, and bury it five metres under your house.

Even aside from any technology angle, the human mind is fundamentally very good at copying and modifying information-- it's why we can have a coherent cultural zeitgeist rather than individual siloed units of Capital-A Art. You can aspire to be part of that, and be respected for your contribution to it, but expecting everyone else to hobble their potential in service of your fetish for purity is self-indulgent if not downright sociopathic.

TBH, I feel like AI is eventually going to be slotted in as a tool rather than something magical. I can't draw a straight line or a circle, but we don't feel the need to permanently stamp pictures as "he used a straightedge and compasses!" (or "He used Krita!" these days) The ability to make lots of fairly realistic stuff cheap may change some value propositions (see: portrait painters when photography took off) but eventually we'll get past the initial panic phase.

Re: Copied Act would make removing AI digital watermarks illegal

#20

Post by Nevermark »

a2128 wrote: post #14

I don't know if I'm reading this correctly. If this applies to images, and if these watermarks are something like a comment stored in the file's metadata, wouldn't this effectively make it illegal to make a thumbnail of an image? Or to screenshot an image? Or convert it to a .bmp? > The bill also directs NIST to develop cybersecurity measures to prevent tampering with provenance and watermarking on AI content. So som…

Lots of people use commercial software they didn’t pay for.

But corporations have too much to lose and little to gain by not paying for the software they use, so following the law is legal insurance for them. And so commercial developers get paid by significant users.

Nobody expects proposed laws like this to have much impact on what individuals do with their screenshots and cameras. The hope would be that it curbed mass unpermissioned use.

Post reply on HN