You can have a kid, that kid can grow up to be a musician inspired by Taylor Swift, likely with some of their musical output having depended on Taylor's input. That's perfectly legal. But in a possible future, you could produce an AGI that isn't allowed to listen to Taylor Swift, never allowed to be inspired by anything from Taylor's songs?
Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
41–50 of 144 posts
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#42Humans acquire a significant amount of knowledge (or get trained on) by learning from the work of others. If companies can face legal repercussions for training models on materials from elsewhere, a similar argument could be made for individuals.
This argument seems ridiculous to me but it's hard to explain exactly why.
People are people, LLMs are... not people - it seems pretty obvious to me that humans learning from seeing things is a basic fact of nature, and that someone feeding petabytes of copyrighted material into an AI model to fully automate generation of art is obviously copyright infringement.
I can see the argument making more sense if we actually manage to synthesize consciousness, but we don't have anything anywhere near that at the moment.
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#43You can have a kid, that kid can grow up to be a musician inspired by Taylor Swift, likely with some of their musical output having depended on Taylor's input. That's perfectly legal. But in a possible future, you could produce an AGI that isn't allowed to listen to Taylor Swift, never allowed to be inspired by anything from Taylor's songs?
AGI, I would hope, would be governed by different laws - including worker’s rights - so that the economic relationships between all parties is more similar to human relationships than LLMs.
In other words: turning Taylor Swift into a software product should be a different legal situation than raising a digital consciousness.
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#44You can have a kid, that kid can grow up to be a musician inspired by Taylor Swift, likely with some of their musical output having depended on Taylor's input. That's perfectly legal. But in a possible future, you could produce an AGI that isn't allowed to listen to Taylor Swift, never allowed to be inspired by anything from Taylor's songs?
The existence of sentient AGIs would certainly have wide-ranging impacts on the law!
This case is not about sentient AGIs.
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#45Humans acquire a significant amount of knowledge (or get trained on) by learning from the work of others. If companies can face legal repercussions for training models on materials from elsewhere, a similar argument could be made for individuals.
This argument seems ridiculous to me but it's hard to explain exactly why. People are people, LLMs are... not people - it seems pretty obvious to me that humans learning from seeing things is a basic fact of nature, and that someone feeding petabytes of copyrighted material into an AI model to fully automate generation of art is obviously copyright infringement. I can see the argument making more sense if we actually…
That’s not obvious to me. I suppose it depends on your familiarity with copyright law, as opposed to the noun copyright. I typically don't find oft repeated concepts to have any bearing on the legal reality.
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
But things like datasets are massive and structure is important. Do they retain them digitally with the same original structure or do they transform them into some kind of massive PDF?
If the experts are playing hardball then transformations of any and everything into PDFs is an effective tactic.
No. See the various state rules of civil procedure concerning the presumptive and requested form of production of electronically stored information. An example is Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26.1(c)(3).
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#47You can have a kid, that kid can grow up to be a musician inspired by Taylor Swift, likely with some of their musical output having depended on Taylor's input. That's perfectly legal. But in a possible future, you could produce an AGI that isn't allowed to listen to Taylor Swift, never allowed to be inspired by anything from Taylor's songs?
I think it is more nuanced than that.
Imagine you write a book and release it with a non-commercial use license, but a company copies it and uses it for employee training.
Imagine you wrote software and released it with a non-commercial use license, but the company includes it in their for-profit workflow.
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#48IANAL. Is it legal to create derivatives of copyright work and then post them on public online forums? For example, I can certainly write, "Mickey Mouse got food poisoning from his Big Mac." But, if I ask an AI generator to "Make a picture of Mickey Mouse getting food poison at McDonald's", could I post the resulting picture?
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#49So…which is the best art generator I can download and run locally today?
Or are there a few top ones specific to art style(photorealistic, scenery, pixel art, vectors, etc)?
Re: Artists score major win in copyright case against AI art generators
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and that training models doesn't constitute fair use How can it not constitute fair use? They both made no copies of that data (copyright infringement) nor did they commit actual theft by stealing the data from some vault. Everything else is permitted. For that matter, this is equivalent to some human artist studying a piece of art and then starting to create art in that same style too... is that no longer fair use…
Even the fair use argument is putting the cart before the horse. I would think these plaintiffs need to convince a court that the works are derivative first, and iff they are derivative, then the fair use argument can be made (that the reproduction is not a copyright infringement, {because e.g., the result is substantially different from the input}). Asking "is it fair use for a [human/computer] to [study/be trained…
A lot of people also conflate plagiarism with copyright infringement. There are a lot of ways I can plagiarize--or at least create works that obviously draw very heavily from other work without attribution--that may be very frowned on, especially in an academic setting, but are not actually infringing.