151–160 of 426 posts
If I compress an artist's painting into a jpeg and rehost part of it for individual t-shirt designs I am committing a crime. If I compress an artist's painting into a model & rehost what's essentially a highly flexible complete version of their painting for infinite, perpetual use of any kind ... I'm not committing a crime?
That's not how image models work.
Japan also ranks 3rd (behind the USA & India, with larger populations) in ChatGPT usage: https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/ There's also been discussion of their government using ChatGPT to reduce red tape: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-18/japan-gov... It's cool to see Japan and Japanese culture taking techno-optimist stances on AI.
If I compress an artist's painting into a jpeg and rehost part of it for individual t-shirt designs I am committing a crime. If I compress an artist's painting into a model & rehost what's essentially a highly flexible complete version of their painting for infinite, perpetual use of any kind ... I'm not committing a crime?
>compress an artist's painting into a model That's not how image models work.
Yes it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But you will find no copy of the logo in the model data. You wont find a copy of a plaintext in a cyphertext. But you can still extract the plaintext from the cyphertext.
If you search "Superman Logo" you find actual copies of the Superman logo which are served from Google's cache. If you ask a VFX artist to create the "Superman Logo" with Photoshop they'll do an excellent job. The first one isn't copyright violation because it is fair use. The second maybe if it is redistributed but we don't ban the use of photoshop by artists because they can choose to reproduce copyright things wit…
"It must have a copy" - but van Gogh didn't make paintings of hot rods or whatever, and you can't copyright style or technique.
Here's GPT-3.5 reciting the Declaration of Independence: https://chat.openai.com/share/eb30c373-7fec-4280-892d-479567...
Unless you're claiming that GPT-3.5 is deriving the Declaration of Independence (from information about the founding fathers?) I don't see how there's room for debate about whether information has been "copied" into the model.
I have done this test in the past with copyrighted material (harry potter) but they have since added safeguards against it, but my understanding is that the model is still capable of it.
What's surprising here is that Japan is usually crazy gung ho on copyright enforcement ... at least against individuals. So it's kind of disgusting to see this relaxation, when it suits some corporate or national interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Japan "Unlike most other countries, filesharing copyrighted content is not just a civil offense, but a criminal one, with penalties of up to ten years…
If I compress an artist's painting into a jpeg and rehost part of it for individual t-shirt designs I am committing a crime. If I compress an artist's painting into a model & rehost what's essentially a highly flexible complete version of their painting for infinite, perpetual use of any kind ... I'm not committing a crime?
>compress an artist's painting into a model That's not how image models work.
If I compress an artist's painting into a jpeg and rehost part of it for individual t-shirt designs I am committing a crime. If I compress an artist's painting into a model & rehost what's essentially a highly flexible complete version of their painting for infinite, perpetual use of any kind ... I'm not committing a crime?
Load the source code to all versions of unix, with all licenses.
"write me a version of unix"
Since there is no model copyright and the result was written by AI the software is now in the public domain.
Not trying to express an opinion on the legal matter, but as a technical matter it's pretty obvious that LLMs create copies of (some of) their training data. Here's GPT-3.5 reciting the Declaration of Independence: https://chat.openai.com/share/eb30c373-7fec-4280-892d-479567... Unless you're claiming that GPT-3.5 is deriving the Declaration of Independence (from information about the founding fathers?) I don't see ho…
So proving a system can memorize and recite proves nothing.
So if you train an audio model on say, Eminem's voice, then write some songs and have it perform them...Would this output be legal to publish?
What's the difference between that and someone else who just happens to sound like Eminem in terms out output? As long as you don't market yourself as Eminem that should be completely legal.