281–290 of 710 posts
I’m completely flabbergasted by the number of comments implying copyright concepts such as “fair use” or “derivative work” apply to trained ML models. Copyright is for _people_, as are the entailing rights, responsibilities and exemptions. This has gone far beyond anthropomorphising and we need to like get it together, man!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I disagree. There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations that says that you have a right to eat because you produced a creative work. The way societies work is that the members of the society contribute and benefit in prescribed ways. Societies with lots of excess production may at times choose to allow creative works to be monetized. Societies without much surplus are extremely unlikely to…
> There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations Can you list the principles across human civilizations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no such thing as fair use until you get to court (as a legal defense) Well the point is that it wouldn't go to court, as it would be completely legal. So yes, if nobody sues you, then you are completely in the clear and aren't in trouble. Thats what people mean by fair use. They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit, therefore your actions are safe and legal.…
> as it would be completely legal. Theft is never legal; that's why you can be sued. "Fair use" is a legal defense in the theft of copyrighted works. > They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit That hasn't stopped people from suing anyone ever. If they want to sue you, they'll sue you. > and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe. If you steal a pen from a store,…
That's incorrect. You can be sued for anything. If it is theft or something else or nothing is decided by the courts.
[flagged]
But that’s not even the important part of the argument. A lot of artists work for commission, and are hired for their style. If an AI can be trained without explicit permission from their images, they lose work because a user can just prompt “in the style of”.
There’s no real great solution, outside of law, because the possibility of doing that is already here. But I’ve seen this argument so much and it’s just low effort
This is the DRM problem again. However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now have that idea too. If you share words on paper, then someone with eyes and a brain might memorize them (or much more likely, just grasp and retain the ideas conveyed in the words). If you let someone hear your music, then the ideas (phrasing, style, melody, etc)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And? Even if neural networks learn the same way humans do, this is not an argument against taking measures against one's art being used as training data, since there are different implications if a human learns to paint the same way as another human vs. if an AI learns to paint the same way as a human. If the two were exactly indistinguishable in their effects no one would care about AIs, not even researchers.
And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in schools. Even if you argue that an AI is "human enough" the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies.
No, that right doesn't exist. If you put your work of art out there for people to see, people will see it and learn from it, and be inspired by it. It's unavoidable. How could it possibly work otherwise?
Artist A: You studied my work to produce yours, even when I asked people not to do that!
Artist B: Prove it.
What kind of evidence or argument could Artist A possibly provide to show that Artist B did what they're accusing them of, without being privy to the internal state of their mind. You're not talking about plagiarism; that's comparatively easy to prove. You're asking about merely studying the work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among working human artists your opinion is in the minority. Most professionals are not a fan of this.
Yeah because their wage is inflated. Photographers were mad about digital cameras too. Womp womp.
This is the DRM problem again. However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now have that idea too. If you share words on paper, then someone with eyes and a brain might memorize them (or much more likely, just grasp and retain the ideas conveyed in the words). If you let someone hear your music, then the ideas (phrasing, style, melody, etc)…
> ... you cannot “own” an idea. Let's talk about ownership in a broader sense. In practice, one cannot effectively own (retain possession of) something without some combination of physical capability or coercion (or threat of coercion). Meaning: maintaining ownership of anything (physical or otherwise) often depends on the rule of law.
You can't monopolize an idea.
Copyright law is a prescription, not a description. Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly. The effectiveness of that demand depends on how well it can be enforced.
Playing pretend during the age of the printing press may have been easy enough to coordinate, but it's practically impossible here in the digital age.
If we were to increase enforcement to the point of effectiveness, then what society would be left to participate? Surely not a society I am keen to be a part of.