Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#341

Post by alphan0n »

rescripting wrote: post #228
armchairhacker wrote: post #190

You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. You're not allowed to sell these drawings and photoshops. I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP. Style is even more permissive: you're allowed to sell something in any styl…

If I pay for ChatGPT and ask for copyrighted images, is that selling the generated IP?

You are responsible for the output, just like any other tool.

If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox.

If I coax your novel out of my phones keyboard suggestion engine letter by letter, and publish it, it’s still me infringing on your copyright.

If I make a copy of your clip art in Illustratator, is Adobe responsible? Etc.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#342

Post by codedokode »

prawn wrote: post #236
dragonwriter wrote: post #162

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 see AI training on public material like I would upcoming artists being inspired by the artists before them. Obviously the scale is very different. I don't mind your scenario because an AI firm, if they couldn't stay on top of what their model was creating, could voluntarily reduce the material used to train it.

You imply that AI model is creating new works and not merely rearranging pieces from other works you never saw and therefore might consider novel. AI model is not a model of a creative human currently: a human doesn't need to listen to million songs to create his own.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#343

Post by dcow »

api wrote: post #326
dcow wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do restaurants work, then? You can’t copyright a recipe. Instructions can’t generally be copyrighted, otherwise someone would own the fastest route from A to B and charge every person who used it. The whole idea of intellectual property gets really weird when you try to pinpoint what exactly is being owned. I do not agree with your conjecture that big corps would win by default. Ask why would people need protecti…

A restaurant is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical product. It’s not the same at all.

An artist is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical (canvas, print, mp3, etc) product, no?

What is different about the production of Micky Mouse cartoons? Why is it normal for industries to compete in manufacturing of physical product, but as soon as you can apply copyright, now you exclusively have rights to control anything that produces a similar result?

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#344

Post by CamperBob2 »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #16
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

> It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should rightfully attach. I am paying OpenAI. So they are producing these copyrighted works and giving them to me for their own commercial benefit. Normally that's illegal. But somehow not when you're just doing it en masse.

It's not legal or illegal. That hasn't been decided yet. Nothing like this has ever existed before, and it will take some time for the law to deal with it.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#345

Post by zelphirkalt »

rescripting wrote: post #228
armchairhacker wrote: post #190

You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. You're not allowed to sell these drawings and photoshops. I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP. Style is even more permissive: you're allowed to sell something in any styl…

If I pay for ChatGPT and ask for copyrighted images, is that selling the generated IP?

I would argue yes, since the output is what you are probably after, when buying access to ChatGPT.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#346

Post by api »

dcow wrote: post #343
api wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A restaurant is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical product. It’s not the same at all.

An artist is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical (canvas, print, mp3, etc) product, no? What is different about the production of Micky Mouse cartoons? Why is it normal for industries to compete in manufacturing of physical product, but as soon as you can apply copyright, now you exclusively have rights to control anything that produces a similar result?

Let’s say I write a book or record an album and there is no copyright. How do I get paid?

Musicians I suppose can tour, which is grueling but it’s something. Authors, programmers, actors, game studios, anything that’s not performed live would immediately become non-viable as a career or a business.

Large corporations would make money of course, by offering all you can eat streaming feeds of everything for a monthly fee. The creators get nothing.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#347

Post by echelon »

codedokode wrote: post #331
echelon wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original claim is false, > intellectual property [...] used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. There's nothing about IP which prevents you from creating your own. There are, in fact, a near infinite number of things you can create. More things than there exist stars in our galaxy. The problem with ideas is that they have to be good.…

> The problem with ideas is that they have to be good. No they don't, look at music popular in social networks. > and now creation will be (relatively) easy. More taste makers will be slinging content and we'll wind up in a land of abundance. Even before the generative AI, I think we live in the era where there are more creators than ever in history: everybody today can publish their music or art without any large in…

> I would prefer we have cheaper pianos, samples and microphones instead of worthless music-copying models.

There are lots of ML models that produce instrumentals and vocals that are incredibly useful for practicing musicians.

The popular and well-known Suno and Udio are pop culture toys. They also find use with content creators who don't have time to learn how to make music. (Not everyone can learn and master everything. We have to let some of our creative desires slip or we'd never be able to accomplish anything.)

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#348

Post by julianeon »

kokanee wrote: post #158
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

The idea of open sourcing everything and nullifying patents would benefit corporations like Disney and OpenAI vastly more than it would benefit the people. The first thing that would happen is that BigCorp would eat up every interesting or useful piece of art, technology, and culture that has ever been created and monetize the life out of it. These legal protections are needed by the people. To the Pirate Party's cre…

Maybe now, post-AI.

But if you'd asked this question in 2015 or earlier, everyone would have said Disney -> pro-patent, average people & indie devs -> anti-patent. Microsoft was famously pro-patent, as were a number of nuisance companies that earned the label "patent troll."

Honestly, this idea of "patents to protect the people" would've come across as a corporate lawyer trick pre-2015.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#349

Post by codedokode »

srveale wrote: post #218
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ 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.

I think the tricky bit is that AI companies make money off the collected works of artists, regardless of user behaviour. Suppose I pay for an image generator because I like making funny pictures in Ghibli style, then the AI company makes money because of Ghibli's work. Is that ethical? I can see how an artist would get upset about it. On the other hand, suppose I also like playing guitar covers of songs. Does that me…

> I think the tricky bit is that AI companies make money off the collected works of artists,

There is also a chance that AI companies didn't obtain the training data legally; in that case it would be at least immoral to build a business on stolen content.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#350

Post by alphan0n »

rdtsc wrote: post #127
littlecranky67 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones, he creates a perfect copy and I hang it on my fridge. Where did I (or the artist) violate any copyright (or other) laws? It is the artist that is replaced by the AI, not the copyrighted IP.

> But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones, Sure, assuming the artist has the proper license and franchise rights to make and distribute copies. You can go buy a picture of Indy today that may not be printed by Walt Disney Studios but by some other outfit or artists. Or, you mean if the artist doesn't have a license to produce and distribute Indiana Jones images? Well they'll be in t…

That’s not how copyright law works.

Commissioned work is owned by the commissioner unless otherwise agreed upon by contract.

So long as the work is not distributed, exhibited, performed, etc, as in the example of keeping the artwork on their refrigerator in their home, then no infringement has taken place.

Post reply on HN