Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, so you can have your dad's piano for 20 years after he dies, after that it's public property.
Some people would surprisingly agree with that.
Because they didn't have a father?
An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
871–880 of 927 posts
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#872Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wasn’t talking about LLMs Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was thinking of LLMs mostly. > With the LLM it would be nothing to do with likeness, it would be to do with the copyright in the image I guess I don't see why it wouldn't be about a character's likeness. It's not just a generic stock character, as an idea but it has enough distinctive characteristics, has a particular style hat, uses a whip. Showing that…
Trademarks can’t apply to characters, in themselves, no. A trademark can apply to a particular fixed representation but not the likeness, or ‘essence’ if you like. The essence of Indy is the whip, the hat, the grizzled demeanour, the dry humour, the archaeologist adventurer. You can think of likeness as something that could be captured by hieroglyphics, or emoji - or a game of charades. Think of Betty Boo or Wiley Co…
> Yeah there are trademarks as well and both can apply to characters.
I didn't say this was a trademark case just that there are multiple different aspects possible to the likeness issue.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#873What if gen ai tools were created without training on copyrighted images? I wonder what they would make then.
Adobe claims Firefly is trained only on creative commons and the images they own
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#874Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what you get when you expect AIs to be like humans and be able to reason. We would be pissed if a human artist did that, so we are pissed when AIs do it. A human, even one whose only experience of an Italian plumber is Mario will be able to draw an Italian plumber who is not Mario. That's because he knows that Mario is just a video game character and doesn't even do much plumbing. He knows however how an actua…
> We would be pissed if a human artist did that No, I would not be pissed if a human artist drew an Asian Viking. Do you get pissed when a human artist draws a white Jesus? Why are we justifying internet outrage over an Asian Viking when people have been drawing this middle-eastern Jew as white for centuries? > A human artist can adjust things to the unrealistic setting, but unless presented with a really good reason…
The thing is that if a human draws an Asian Viking, he has to do it with intent. It is neither historically accurate nor matching popular culture. It doesn't have to do with whiteness, drawing an Asian Kenyan warrior, or an Asian Apache would be exactly the same thing.
By drawing an Asian Viking, you are passing a message. Or you may be expressing an art style, as you say. I accept the idea that Gemini style is multi-cultural, realism and conventions be damned, but if we attribute this kind of intent to an AI, we could also say that the liberties it takes with intellectual property and plagiarism is also intentional, because that how we would judge a human artist doing that.
The standard for a neutral human artist would be to draw a Viking as a blond white guy, with or without the horned helm depending if historical realism matters more than popular culture, and an Italian Plumber as not Mario, because a human understands that if want one wanted Mario, he would have said "Mario" and not "an Italian Plumber". Current AIs on the other hand just draw images similar to how they are tagged, with some out-of-context race mixing because reinforcement learning has taught it that it has to make people less white, but unlike people it isn't able to understand when it is relevant (ex: a university professor), and when it is not (ex: a Viking warrior).
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#875Earlier quoted context omitted.
"idea of Indiana Jones and the feelings that character inspires in all of us forever just because a corporation owns the asset" is very different from the almost exact image of Indiana Jones.
And a reason people are getting ticked at the AI companies is the hypocrisy. They're near-universally arguing that it's okay for them to treat copyright in a way that it is illegal for us to, apparently on the basis of, "we've got a billions in investment capital, and applying the law equally will make it hard for us to get a return on that investment".
Hence why people should support open source AI, as otherwise, ironically, even more regulation will mean that only the big tech companies will be able to afford the licenses to content to train their AI.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#876Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine. One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad. Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "rando…
> Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine. I hate how it is common to advance a position to just state a conclusion as if it were a fact. You keep repeating the same thing over and over until it seems like a concensus has been reached instead of an actual argument reasoned from first principle. This is no theft here. Any copyright would be flimsier than software patents. I love Studio Ghibli (including $500/seat f…
> I hate how it is common to advance a position to just state a conclusion as if it were a fact. You keep repeating the same thing over and over until it seems like a concensus has been reached instead of an actual argument reasoned from first principle.
I have interacted with the parent account before and have actually looked at the the amount of times they used words like awful, horrific, etc, and I definitely agree, as one should not have such a strong attachment to such words that they feel the need to continue to use (or rather, abuse) them endlessly.
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#877Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but have you paid attention to the legal system in the states? Large corporations and their execs live by different laws than the rest of us. That’s how it is. Anything is else is, unfortunately, a fiction in this country.
And? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Not everyone is a deontologist, some are moral naturalists and others still are utilitarians.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#878I think the cat is out of the bag when it comes to generative AI, the same way how various LLMs for programming have been trained even on codebases that they had no business using, yet nobody hasn’t and won’t stop them. It’s the same as what’s going to happen with deepfakes and such, as the technology inevitably gets better. > Hayao Miyazaki’s Japanese animation company, Studio Ghibli, produces beautiful and famously…
> the same way how various LLMs for programming have been trained even on codebases that they had no business using, yet nobody hasn’t and won’t stop them
I remember the discourse on HN a few years ago when GitHub Copilot came out, and well, people were missing the fact that the GitHub terms and conditions (T&C) explicitly permits usage of code for analytic purposes (of which training is implicitly part), so it turns out that if one did not want such training, they should not have hosted on GitHub in the first place, because the website T&C was clear as day.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#879Earlier quoted context omitted.
> arises from novelty in others, shifts to the external environment > Everything is simply a blend of prior work. I generally consider these two to be the same thing. If novelty is based on something else, then it's highly derivative and its novelty is very questionable. A quantum random number generator is far more novel than the average human artist. > have an LLM produce content on developments which had yet to ta…
So if your point is an LLM is something like a person kept in a coma inside solitary confinement -- sure? But I don't believe that's where we set the bar for art: we arent employing comatose inmates to do anything. > I generally consider these two to be the same thing. Sure words themselves bend and break under the weight of hype. Novelty is randomness. Everything is a work of art. For a work of art to be non-novel i…
> Sure words themselves bend and break under the weight of hype. Novelty is randomness. Everything is a work of art. For a work of art to be non-novel it can only incorporate randomness.
> Since an LLM cannot do that, we must wreck and ruin our ability to describe this plain and trivial situation. Poke our eyes and skewer our brains.
Change the temperature of a model, and you will have your randomness.
There is no explanation of how a biological brain can have randomness but a silicon process cannot.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#880Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care for this line of argument. It's like saying you can't hold a position that trespassing should be illegal while also holding that commercial businesses should be legally required to have public restrooms. Yes, both of these positions are related to land rights and the former is pro- while the latter is anti-, but it's a perfectly coherent set of positions. OpenAI can absolutely be anti-copyright in the se…
The example you gave with public restroom do not work because of two main concept: They are usually getting paid for it by the government, and operating a company usually holds benefits given by the government. Industry regulations as a concept is generally justified in that industry are getting "something" from society, and thus society can put in requirements in return. A regulation that require restaurants to have…
> The example you gave with public restroom do not work because of two main concept: They are usually getting paid for it by the government, and operating a company usually holds benefits given by the government.
This is not the case in the US yet many places still have public restrooms, due to it benefiting the users themselves regardless of government.