92
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
92 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
34893 readers
908 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
So judges are saying:
If you trained a model on a single copyrighted work, then that would be a copyright violation because it would inevitably produce output similar to that single work.
But if you train it on hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works, that’s no longer a copyright violation, because output won’t closely match any single work.
How is something a crime if you do it once, but not if you do it a million times?
It reminds me of the scheme from Office Space: https://youtu.be/yZjCQ3T5yXo
A basic fundamental of copyright law and fair use is if the result is transformative. People literally do stuff like make collages with copyright works and it's fine in many cases.
Turning pictures into an AI model (and that's being really generous in my phrasing as if the pictures have anything to do with the math) is just about one of the most transformative things you can do with a picture.
This is like copyright 101 and if you're shocked you don't understand what you're talking about in regards to copyright.
Man, its refreshing that Lemmy seems to have people with more nuanced takes on AI than the rest of.the internet
Except it's not really transformative because the end product is not the model itself. The product is a service that writes code or draws pictures. It is literally the exact same as the input and it is intended specifically to avoid having to buy the inputs.
Pictures and things that draw pictures aren't the same thing.
The fact it's a tool that makes art and completes with you has nothing to do with copyright. That would only apply if this was some convoluted scheme to make actual copies of works, which it isn't. People just pirate for that. If I wanted to read this person's books I'd go to pirate Bay, not chat GPT.
It's not illegal for someone to read your books and start writing similar things. That's not copyright theft, that's a genre.
And that's completely irrelevant because "things that draw pictures" is not the work being sold. You're buying pictures.
Seems like a petty technicality to me.
They are selling access to the AI model which draws pictures. Not the original pictures, nor clones of those pictures. A machine to which you can input a prompt that is basically anything and get custom art back as a result.
Also there are companies like stability AI which is providing direct access to the model itself, and I'm sure you're against them as well.
The "transformation" is the petty technicality in my opinion. Would it be transformative if I sold you a database of base64 encoded images? What about if they were encrypted?
Hell, you can hire me to paint based on prompts you give me. That's the exact same service an AI provides, no? I'm going to study copyrighted materials to get better at my service. Surely if pictures -> AI model is transformative, then pictures -> knowledge in my brain is transformative as well. So you give me the prompt "Mickey Mouse" and I draw this. This is "custom art". You think you can use that commercially? And if you realize that you can't, why do you think I should be able to legally sell you this service?
No.
Also no.
There is a long history of examples set by court cases on what does or doesn't count as transformative. Law is very good at handling exceptions like this and it's been handling them for decades.
An encoding is not transformative. It's just the same information sent a different way. Same with encryption.
All perfectly legal and commonly done.
No. Not for you and not with AI generated art either.
Copyright controls your ability to copy and distribute creative works. You can learn to draw Micky mouse, you can even draw Micky mouse, but anyone who tries to sell or distribute that copy can and probably will quickly get sued for it.
If AI companies were predominantly advertising themselves as "we make your pictures of Micky mouse" you'd have a valid point.
But at this point you're basically arguing that it should be impossible to sell a magical machine that can draw anything you ask from it because it could be asked to draw copyright images.
Courts will see that argument, realize it's absurd, and shut it down.
Doesn't matter what it's advertised as. That picture is, you agree, unusable. But the site I linked to above is selling this service and it's telling me I can use the images in any way I want. I'm not stupid enough to use Mickey Mouse commercially, but what happens when the output is extremely similar to a character I've never heard of? I'm going to use it assuming it is an AI-generated character, and the creator is very unlikely to find out unless my work ends up being very famous. The end result is that the copyright of everything not widely recognizable is practically meaningless if we accept this practice.
Straw man. This is not a magical device that can "draw anything", and it doesn't just happen to be able to draw copyrighted images as a side-effect of being able to create every imaginable thing, as you try to make it sound. This is a mundane device whose sole function is to try to copy patterns from its input set, which unfortunately is pirated. If you want to prove me wrong, make your own model without a single image of Micky Mouse or a tag with his name, then try to get it to draw him like I did before. You will fail because this machine's ability to draw him is dependent on being trained on images of him.
There are many ways this could be done ethically, like:
Then the site is wrong to tell you that you can use the images in any way you want.
Or you are wrong for assuming you can intentionally violate copyright and trademark by using the AI tool to generate Micky mouse and then get all offended that "but the site told me I can use the pictures, it's their fault".
Nobody knows yet. For the most part it hasn't happened. Big services like DallE will assume all legal liability for you. Small services? It's on you to make sure the image is clean.
You seem to have forgotten a small detail here.
This is already how it works. Every character has thousands and thousands of fan works, often supported by artists with donations and patreons. The status quo is that none of them get caught and sued until they get big enough, and that anyone who tries to sue these people are assholes abusing copyright law even they're legally correct.
Straw man?
Reading comprehension. This is an argument-by-comparion. It shows how your point is absurd and doesn't work by comparing it against a magical machine that doesn't yet exist. It shows how your idea of how copyright should work here is regressive, harmful, and dangerous by pointing out that you seem to believe that just because something could violate copyright that it should be prevented from existing, being used, or being sold.
You don't own a copyright on a pattern or a brushstroke. You own copyright on works of art.
Are you suggesting it will be impossible to do this? Because this will be quickly proven wrong and there will be a day and a description specific enough to produce Micky mouse from a machine that's never seen it.
The mere fact that it will happen one day is enough. I don't have to literally go invent it today.
It's already being done ethically.
That's what I'm saying.
Why is it intentional? Some characters come up even in very generic prompts. I've been toying around with it and I'm finding it hard to come up with prompts containing "superhero" that don't include superman in the outputs. Even asking explicitly for original characters doesn't work.
And how do you measure that? You have a way for me to check if my prompt for "Queer guy standing on top of a mountain gazing solemnly into the distance" is strikingly similar to some unknown person's deviantart uploads, just like my prompt containing "original superhero" was to superman?
Irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about copyright law here, ie about what rights a creator has on their original work, not whether they decide to exercise them in regards to fan art.
Right, so now that multi-billion dollar companies are taking in the work of everyone under the sun to build services threatening to replace many jobs, are they "big enough" for you? Am I allowed to discuss it now?
It's not an argument by comparison (or it is a terrible one) because you compared it to something that differs (or you avoided mentioning) all the crucial parts of the issue. The discussion around AI exists specifically because of how the data to train them is sourced, because of the specific mechanisms they implement to produce their output, and because of demonstrated cases of producing output that is very clearly a copy of copyrighted work. By leaving the crucial aspects unspecified, your are trying to paint my argument as being that we should ban every device of any nature that could produce output that might under any circumstances happen to infringe on someone's copyright, which is much easier for you to argue against without having to touch on any of the real talking points. This is why this is a strawman argument.
Wrong. In the context of training AI, I'm taking about any observable pattern in the input data, which does include some forms of patterns that are copyright-able, eg the general likeness of a character rather than a specific drawing of them.
My ideas on copyright are very progressive actually. But we're not discussing my ideas, we're discussing existing copyright law and whether the "transformation" argument used by AI companies is bullshit. We're discussing if it's giving them a huge and unearned break from the copyright system that abuses the rest of us for their benefit.
Right, but then you would have to very strictly define Micky Mouse in your prompt. You would be the one providing this information, instead of it being part of the model. That would clearly not be an infringement on the model's part!
But then you would have to also solve the copyright infringement of Superman, Obi-Wan, Pikachu, some random person's deviantart image depicting "Queer guy standing on top of a mountain gazing solemnly into the distance", ... . In the end, the only model that can claim without reasonable objection to have no tendency to illegally copy other peoples' works is a model that is trained only on data with explicit permission.
Have you ever been to the market part of a fan convention? People sell a shitload of copywrited art there, and no one really cared about that. The fact that you wouldnt be able to use a lot of those things commercially doesnt stop people from buying them.
Edit: Also if you sold that database I wouldnt buy it because I dont give a shit about the images the machine was trained on, I give a shit about the art I ask it to make for me, which it consistently does exactly the way I want. Is commissioning humans illegal now?