211–220 of 927 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make any sense to me. No media is getting copied, unless the drawing is exactly the same as an existing drawing. Shouldn't "copy"right apply to specific, tangible artistic works? I guess I don't understand how the fantasy of "IP" works. What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones but he's carrying a bow and arrow instead of a whip? Is it infringement? What if it's a really bad drawing of Indiana Jones, so ba…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does infringe copyright...you're just unlikely to get in trouble for it. You might get a cease and desist if the owner of the IP finds out and can spare a moment for you.
This doesn't make any sense to me. No media is getting copied, unless the drawing is exactly the same as an existing drawing. Shouldn't "copy"right apply to specific, tangible artistic works? I guess I don't understand how the fantasy of "IP" works. What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones but he's carrying a bow and arrow instead of a whip? Is it infringement? What if it's a really bad drawing of Indiana Jones, so ba…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
What if I want to prompt:
"An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip, make sure it is NOT Indiana Jones."
One way or another, you (and the model) do need to know who Indiana Jones is.
After that, the moral and legal choices of whether to generate the image, and what to do with it, are all yours.
And we might not agree on what that is, but you do get the choice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an IP theft machine. Humans wouldn't be allowed to publish these pictures for profit, but OpenAI is allowed to "generate" them?
I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around the law here because copyright is often very confusing. If I ask an artist to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones and they do it would that be copyright infringement? Even if it's just for my personal use?
I just think it’s stealing, and honestly not that cool once you’ve seen it once or twice, and given the ramifications for humanity.
I know of no other type of theft that results in more of something existing in the world. Stealing deprives someone of something; copying data (from training an AI all the way to pedestrian "YoU wOuLdN'T DoWnLoAd a cAr" early-aughts file-sharing) decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with stifling innovation. I am yet to meet a writer who doesn't even attempt to write for fear that whatever they write will be found to be in violation of copyright (unless they are the type of writer that is always finding excuses not to write). Several people have made successful careers out of fan fiction...
JK Rowling never has to work again in her life because she wrote a couple of books that were exceedingly popular. Because she doesn't have to work, she's not been forced to come up with new stuff. How is that not stifling?
What do you want?
She's not allowed to make money selling books?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or treat AI training as within the coverage of the current fair use regime (which is certainly defensible within the current copyright regime), while prosecuting the use of AI models to create infringing copies and derivative works that do not themselves have permission or a reasonable claim to be within the scope of fair use as a violation (and prosecuted hosted AI firms for contributory infringement where their act…
^ I feel like I almost never see this take, and I don't understand why because frankly, it strikes me at patently obvious! Of course the tool isn't responsible, and the person who uses it is.
On the other hand, suppose I also like playing guitar covers of songs. Does that mean artists should get upset at the guitar company? Does it matter if I do it at home or at a paid gig? If I record it, do I have to give credit to the original creator? What if I write a song with a similar style to an existing song? These are all questions that have (mostly) well defined laws and ethical norms, which usually lean towards what you said - the tool isn't responsible.
Maybe not a perfect analogy. It takes more skill to play guitar than to type "Funny meme Ghibli style pls". Me playing a cover doesn't reduce demand for actual bands. And guitar companies aren't trying to... take over the world?
At the end of the day, the cat is out of the bag, generative AI is here to stay, and I think I agree that we're better off regulating use rather than prohibition. But considering the broader societal impacts, I think AI is more complicated of a "tool" than other kinds of tools for making art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or treat AI training as within the coverage of the current fair use regime (which is certainly defensible within the current copyright regime), while prosecuting the use of AI models to create infringing copies and derivative works that do not themselves have permission or a reasonable claim to be within the scope of fair use as a violation (and prosecuted hosted AI firms for contributory infringement where their act…
^ I feel like I almost never see this take, and I don't understand why because frankly, it strikes me at patently obvious! Of course the tool isn't responsible, and the person who uses it is.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....