That’s not the take (although in a sense I agree training data should influence it especially if it materially reproduce training samples)
Instead the argument is that the individual outputs from ML can only be copyrighted if they carry a human expression (because that’s what the law is specifically meant to cover), if there’s creative height in the inputs to it resulting in an output carrying that expression.
Compare to photography - photographs aren’t protected automatically just because a button is pressed and an image is captured, rather you gain copyright protection as a result of your choice of motive which carries your expression.
Too simple prompts to ML models would under this ruling be considered to be comparable to uncopyrightable lists of facts (like a recipe) and thus the corresponding output is also not protected.
Don’t forget that there can be multiple independent copyright claims. In the example of the painter, both the painter and the commissioner can own copyright to their respective contributions to the result.
You should do that on a server you control so you can set timestamps and all correctly while importing directly to the DB, not just automate posting of it all
The point is that ML can generate works in bulk outpacing humans by a ridiculous rate. And that it explicitly is meant to cover expression, but ML models don’t actually express anything, they just emit statistical averages of the input.
You don’t want a company with obviously way too few human employees to have created all of their works to be able to go look for similar art from others and threaten copyright lawsuits. By forcing humans to be involved in the process of creation you strongly limit the ability of such legal trolls to hurt other creators. Such copyright trolls ALREADY exists prior to ML, but extending copyright to unsupervised ML would superpower their lawsuits. They just have to spam various websites with some samples and then pretend everybody copied them.
This precedence is just what it should be. The reference to photos is completely correct. The creation of a sequence of bits isn’t in itself protected, it’s the selection of inputs in which the creativity lies that then carries over into protection of the output. Photos can be copyrighted because a human express something in their choice of motive. A surveillance camera for example don’t automatically give its operator copyright!
And it still doesn’t prevent you from using ML in the creation of things and claiming copyright, it just requires you to be the one directing the process instead of leaving it unsupervised.
Do I have to explain with math how my high level abstract reply applies?
Most generative ML rely on probabilities. The averages are over multidimensional complex data structures representing patterns extracted from the inputs. Like average faces when you prompt it for a face (try training it on different sets of faces and look at how the output differs, you really do see it retain averages of the patterns in the input such as average skin color and haircuts). I wasn’t talking about linear arithmetic averages.
You still misunderstand my use of “average”. I am once again not talking simple averages over simple arithmetic numbers.
Look at the outputs of models trained on majority white faces vs diverse faces. If you still don’t understand what I mean by averages then I guess this conversation is hopeless
Yes there’s noise in the process.
But that noise is applied in very specific ways, it still fundamentally tries to output what the training algorithm indicated you would expect from it given the prompt, staying in a general neighborhood preserving the syntax / structure / patterns in the input training data related to the keywords in your prompt. Ask for a face without more details and you get a face looking like the average face in the input, usually white in most models, western conventional haircuts, etc, because that’s representative of its inputs, an average over the extracted structure in the inputs. The noise just tweaks some selection of representative features and their exact properties. It is still close enough to average that I feel it is fair to call it average, because it so rarely output extremes (other than when the model just breaks down and produce nonsense).
You misunderstood again. The model isn’t creating the bias when it is trained on biased data. It just gives a representative output of its input. The average of many outputs will resemble the average of its inputs.
If i post to another instance and they remove my comment, does it also disappear from my own local profile view (as if the hosting instance controls display of all comments even remotely)? Or would it have to be removed by my own host to make it disappear from my own local profile view?
I was wondering where some of my comments went. Wouldn’t it be better if it would hide them from the thread view but let them stay in the profile (as long as your local mods doesn’t also remove)?
(And I don’t think those comments broke the rules and recieved no notification, so it seemed very weird that they just vanished)
Everything Made By an AI Is In the Public Domain (doctorow.medium.com)
The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.
I may be a little late with this one (i.imgflip.com)
Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left (lemm.ee)
deleted_by_author
... (programming.dev)
China helping to arm Russia with helicopters, drones and metals (www.telegraph.co.uk)
AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says In Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
Monty rule problem (lemmy.world)
A key feature of NFTs has completely broken / Web3 was supposed to make sure the original artist always got paid. Not so much anymore. (www.theverge.com)
SLRPNK community discussion - August 2023
So there are a few topics that came up lately that I think would be nice to discuss with members of this community....