Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators • Hacker News Board

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#141

Post by johnnyanmac » Mon, Aug 19, 2024, 11:36 PM UTC

ronsor wrote: post #97

polotics wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think it is time wasting? Is it because of the wasted time of all the artists having gone to the bother of producing art that can now be approximated at the press of a button?

It's a waste of time because the majority of their claims were poorly constructed, disingenuous, and subsequently thrown out. All this has done is incentivize AI research companies to be even more closed and opaque.

And that will get them more lawsuits until some judge has had enough of their tricks and forces something drastic.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#142

Post by johnnyanmac » Mon, Aug 19, 2024, 11:39 PM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #72

davexunit wrote: post #59

It's so obvious to me that machine learning models are derivative works of their training set. If they weren't, then why would these companies fight so hard to say otherwise? They need that training data to make their product, so they should pay the licensing fees for it! 10 years ago, when I worked on a machine learning model for my employer, it was unthinkable to train on data we did not have the rights to use. But…

> It's so obvious to me that machine learning models are derivative works of their training set. Okay, but narrative creators watch movies and listen to music and read books too. Many do indeed "file the serial numbers off" other people's work and publish something else, that makes them money and not the original creators. Does one instance of "filing the serial numbers off" by one author mean that no authors anywher…

>Does one instance of "filing the serial numbers off" by one author mean that no authors anywhere are allowed to write any books as soon as they've read "a bunch" of other books

So far, pretty much all major actors are doing it. So yes, if everyone is abusing a rule, the ball is taken home.

>I get what you are saying, but it's not so obvious what the right policy is.

The one these companies spent 2 decades prior fighting to strengthen. Yes, I am enjoying the schadenfreude of companies in copyright lingo they used to launch thousands of lawsuits, and now they are on the other end when convenient to them to "steal IP".

copyright needs a major rework, but never interrupt your enemy in the middle of a mistake.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#143

Post by cowboylowrez » Mon, Aug 26, 2024, 11:13 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #137

cowboylowrez wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah me too but I guess with the AI craze its an unpopular view. it seems straightforward to me, can these models exist without training on the copyrighted input, if not they should not be able to train on this data and the existing models should be either wiped, or license the input data. if the argument starts comparing AIs with actual humans viewing works then we may as well give AIs the vote.

> can these models exist without training on the copyrighted input, No artists could exist without training on the copyrighted input. They looked at paintings, sculptures, and the like and stored copies in their brain encoded organically. Therefore, natural intelligence is also an infringement. You use strained, insane logic to try to reach the conclusion you had already decided you wanted to arrive at. You're not a…

didn't know I had any comment replies, sorry for the late ping.

>You use strained, insane logic to try to reach the conclusion you had already decided you wanted to arrive at. You're not a very good thinker.

its also not a big deal because this was not an engaging comment, this is merely insults.

Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators

#144

Post by cowboylowrez » Mon, Aug 26, 2024, 11:36 PM UTC

vlovich123 wrote: post #136

cowboylowrez wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure we get fair use when humans do it. if we give the same right to AI, why not let AI vote in elections too? This is easy, AI is not human. Once we start letting AI vote, whats to stop AI from concealed carry of weapons?

You seemed to have jumped off a cliff. Can’t follow your logic. The copyright issues are between businesses for the most part. No one is suing AI. And the claim isn’t that AI is capable of generating copyrighted works. The claim is that the training of the AI used copyrighted materials which is infringement when it pretty clearly falls under transformative use. And again, fair use applies to people and the businesses…

You're very eager to focus on both my character (moral panic) and your inability to address my point (can't follow your logic). Maybe you can see my logic, maybe you can't. I'm also apparently suicidal lol. I think you should just ask for clarification instead of deliberately painting me as the bad guy.

Anyways, the transformative use has not been decided yet. I am also pretty sure that google books are not simply publishing entire works for free, as far as I can tell when books get published in electronic form in their entirety without the copyright owners permissions, things get dodgy. I don't remember reading a full book on google books unless the licensing was permissive or otherwise available. Is there not some limits on fair use? Why do I keep reading about these "libraries" getting shut down? What about all the sample clearing in the music business, are you somehow implying that doesn't exist? Heck, the "blurred lines" case failed because the guy merely mentioned the infringed work.

Furthermore, I view the AI thing as the AI proponents want to grant AI's "personhood," ie., just call them trained painters, trained authors, trained musicians, whatever, its not like I'm unable to see both sides of the arguments. Let the guy with the most silicon corner the market in these areas lol