21–30 of 155 posts
> Using unowned training data (e.g., celebrity faces, copyrighted art) How would one ever know that the GenAI output is not influenced or based on copyrighted content.
Netflix could also use or provide their own TV/movie productions as training data.
They do not want to be disrupted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getty and Adobe offer models that were trained only on images that they have the rights to. Those models might meet Netflix’s standards?
I kind of wonder if that even works. If you take a model trained on Getty and ask it for Indiana Jones or Harry Potter, what does it give you? These things are popular enough that it's likely to be present in any large set of training data, either erroneously or because some specific works incorporated them in a way that was licensed or fair use for those particular works even if it isn't in general. And then when it…
Getting sued occasionally is a cost of doing business in some industries. It’s about risk mitigation rather than risk elimination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kind of wonder if that even works. If you take a model trained on Getty and ask it for Indiana Jones or Harry Potter, what does it give you? These things are popular enough that it's likely to be present in any large set of training data, either erroneously or because some specific works incorporated them in a way that was licensed or fair use for those particular works even if it isn't in general. And then when it…
It comes down to who is liable for the edge cases, I suspect. Adobe will compensate the end user if they get sued for using a Firefly-generated image (probably up to some limit). Getting sued occasionally is a cost of doing business in some industries. It’s about risk mitigation rather than risk elimination.
So if you put obviously copyrighted things in the prompt you’ll still be on your own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getty and Adobe offer models that were trained only on images that they have the rights to. Those models might meet Netflix’s standards?
I kind of wonder if that even works. If you take a model trained on Getty and ask it for Indiana Jones or Harry Potter, what does it give you? These things are popular enough that it's likely to be present in any large set of training data, either erroneously or because some specific works incorporated them in a way that was licensed or fair use for those particular works even if it isn't in general. And then when it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getty and Adobe offer models that were trained only on images that they have the rights to. Those models might meet Netflix’s standards?
I kind of wonder if that even works. If you take a model trained on Getty and ask it for Indiana Jones or Harry Potter, what does it give you? These things are popular enough that it's likely to be present in any large set of training data, either erroneously or because some specific works incorporated them in a way that was licensed or fair use for those particular works even if it isn't in general. And then when it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix could also use or provide their own TV/movie productions as training data.
Lionsgate tried that and found that even their entire archive wasn't nearly enough to produce a useful model: https://www.thewrap.com/lionsgate-runway-ai-deal-ip-model-co... and https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/lionsgate-movie...
Consumers have long wanted a single place to access all content. Netflix was probably the closest that ever got, and even then it had regional difficulties. As competitors rose, they stopped licensing their content to netflix, and netflix is now arguably just another face in the crowd.
Now they want to go and leverage AI to produce more content and bam, stung by the same bee. No one is going to license their content for training, if the results of that training will be used in perpetuity. They will want a permanent cut. Which means they either need to support fair use, or more likely, they will all put up a big wall and suck eggs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The part you quote is part of the list of conditions for an if-statement, so how could it be a lie?
The issue wasn't if they said that thing or not; companies say a lot of things which are fundamentally a lie, things to keep up appearances – which are oftentimes not enforced. It's like companies arguing they believe in fair pay while using Chinese sweatshops or whatever. In this case, for instance, Netflix still has a relation with their partners that they don't want to damage at this moment, and we are not at the…
This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights. That’s likely to be the middle ground going forward for the smarter creative companies, and I’m personally all for it.…
How does anyone prove it though? You can say "does that matter?" but once everybody starts doing it, it becomes a different story.
This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights. That’s likely to be the middle ground going forward for the smarter creative companies, and I’m personally all for it.…
> get that shit outta there because we can’t own something we stole from someone else How does anyone prove it though? You can say "does that matter?" but once everybody starts doing it, it becomes a different story.