I think Artist should vote for system where they don’t need to fight for some otherwise unnecessary ‘property rights’. Try ditching the Capitalist religion.
I see your point. But it’s not based on anything. You just claim AI creativity works like human cretivity without backing that up. While I too think this is the case… The interesting question would be: Is that really the case? And why? Without an explanation and reasoning, it’s just an unsubstanciated claim.
And it’s not the whole story of what’s happening in practice. Several companies have been proven to download everything they can get a hold of and train their AIs on it. Pirated book archives, images they didn’t obtain rights to. To the point where watermarks crept in and they had to add steps to their procedure to remove them and hide the fact. And Meta had to admit to pirating books. A proper analogy would be a professor who uses bittorrent and pirating sites to obtain material and hand that to their students to learn from… And that’s not how it works in real life. Schools and universities license the material to distribute it to their students, put it in a library or the students have to buy the books. They don’t rip off school-book authors per default.
And am I allowed to run bittorrent and download the latest Marvel movie (without paying) to watch it and “learn” what it’s about? Download lots of music from P2P networks like I used to in the early 2000s? It’d save me the money I currently spend on a Spotify and Netflix subscription.
It’s you that’s spreading misinformation. Is it possible to train an ai not to infringe copyright? Maybe. But it clearly happens today, with available models.
To add to that, I consider this to be unintentional plagiarism. As someone who is about to finish a Masters degree it is no mystery that two humans can come up with the same thing. This can constitute copyright infringement, but it is far from theft.
Many are spreading misinformation that Generative AI art is akin to copyright infringement. While this is still being disputed legally, the technical answer is no. AI works much like the creative part of our brain, getting ideas from things it has witnessed, and creating works of it’s own based on that.
AI works much like the creative part of our brain, getting ideas from things it has witnessed, and creating works of it’s own based on that.
Only if it ‘sees’ the content in real time when programming itself, like a human being does.
But if a corporation copies that content/data to their servers/hard drives first, then runs training programs on said content/data afterwards, then its copying the content/data first, and violates copyright.
Many are spreading misinformation that Generative AI art is akin to copyright infringement. While this is still being disputed legally, the technical answer is no. AI works much like the creative part of our brain, getting ideas from things it has witnessed, and creating works of it’s own based on that.
Most of our learning is done before we can even enter into a contract, before we are an adult. So no, you didn’t pay for all of your knowledge, schools provided by your neighbors did a ton of that. Most of it was society coming together communally and supporting you with our collective shoulders of knowledge.
I don’t agree there Cosmic. Take music for instance, a lot of artist inspiration comes from what they listened to on the Radio. I know very few artists that have called up all of the bands they listened to on the radio to get permission to make their own work.
If you make your music free to listen to in any way that opens you up to others being inspired by you.
I don’t agree there Cosmic. Take music for instance, a lot of artist inspiration comes from what they listened to on the Radio. I know very few artists that have called up all of the bands they listened to on the radio to get permission to make their own work.
Don’t mean to be argumentative, but I think you chose a poor example to try to prove your point.
Artists get sued all the time for infringement, when they base their song too closely off of another artists song/content.
IANAL, and I’m guessing neither are you, but I don’t think you can just say five seconds after somebody creates content it’s free and in the public domain for anyone else to use. Everything I do understand about the law today goes against that philosophy.
There’s usually a period of time (one which Disney tends to stretch to an absurd factor) before private content becomes public domain.
Finally, don’t get me wrong, I do think content should go into the public domain sooner rather than later.
But I also do know that if big corporations are going to become very very rich off of someone else’s content, that those other people should be rewarded monetarily for that content, so they can share in their success of the sold product that the content was generated from.
I think I see the disconnect here. I don’t feel that the art/work in question has to be in the public domain to be fair game for inspiration. It is the artists choice how they want to distribute their material. I see no need to differentiate between human inspiration and AI inspiration.
If an artist wanted to prevent either humans or AI from being inspired without paying them, they should put their content behind a paywall.
I feel that copyright should apply to copying material, not learning from it to make your own. In reality the law does allow for you to file for infringement just based on the work being similar, regardless of if the person being accused of infringement has ever even witnessed the source material. I see this as just fundamental flaw in the system, that has existed before AI ever came about.
If an artist wanted to prevent either humans or AI from being inspired without paying them, they should put their content behind a paywall.
That’s not how the law (or the Internet) works currently though. They can license its usage, and also there are automatic copyright protections given by the law as well.
Now, what Congress does with the existing laws in the future is fair game, and another thing altogether.
I feel that copyright should apply to copying material, not learning from it to make your own.
An interesting technical legal point to argue would be that if an AI model-making corporation copies the content to their servers hard drives before having their model read/study it from said hard drives, vs. having the model ‘see’ it directly from the source material in real time, like how a human being does it. 🤔
As it is now, the content is copied first, then used later, so per your own definition it would be covered by copyright (assuming its not already explicitly licensed otherwise). Again, IANAL. 🙂
Add comment