491–496 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT is not nearly as good of a product as what was demoed by Microsoft if you want to make that comparison. Not talking about LLMs/underlying model. I don’t think adobe makes their own either. Talking about the interface to it.
Without the underlying model what's the point of the facade?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT is not nearly as good of a product as what was demoed by Microsoft if you want to make that comparison. Not talking about LLMs/underlying model. I don’t think adobe makes their own either. Talking about the interface to it.
What MS demo are you referring to? I like chatgpt way more than new Bing’s GPT interface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that isn't how it works with Adobe or any of the other big stock photo companies. The photographers or creators of the images still own the copyright. Both with rights managed and royalty free they aren't assigning rights to anyone else.
> Both with rights managed and royalty free they aren't assigning rights to anyone else. Have you read the contributor agreement? That seems to contradict what you are saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point is the critical issue to copyright is lack of a human in creating the work. A commissioned work is done by a human, as such it’s irrelevant as a comparison.
It's completely relevant. In both cases, you are describing what image you want created. The fact that you are describing it to a human isn't materially different from the fact that you're describing it to an AI. I mean, heck, this has been the exact argument people have used about why it's OK to train an AI on copyrighted material -- that it's just like a human "learning" from the image. And now comparisons with a h…
Copyright law treats "involved a human" vs. "involved a machine" as fundamentally different just because humans are special-cased, not due to any deeper reason. Just by fiat.
The law gives special consideration to humans "just because". Therefore, if one situation involves a human in a particular role and another situation involves a machine, then there is no useful analogy to be drawn -- as far as the law is concerned. Even if the analogy makes perfect sense to you and me, the law treats humans and machines as fundamentally different, so all bets are off.