this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
564 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59374 readers
3767 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:

Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago (16 children)

I posted this in a thread, but Im gonna make it a parent comment for those who support this bill.

Consider youtube poop, Im serious. Every clip in them is sourced from preexisting audio and video, and mixed or distorted in a comedic format. You could make an AI to make youtube poops using those same clips and other "poops" as training data. What it outputs might be of lower quality (less funny), but in a technical sense it would be made in an identical fashion. And, to the chagrin of Disney, Nintendo, and Viacom, these are considered legally distinct entities; because I dont watch Frying Nemo in place of Finding Nemo. So why would it be any different when an AI makes it?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (7 children)

My best guess would be intent, which I think is an important component of fair use. The intent of youtube poop creators could be considered parody and while someone could use AI to create parody, the intent of creating the AI model itself is not parody (at least not for these massive AI models that most people use).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Transformation is in itself fair use is the thing. Ytp doesnt need to be parody or critique or anything else, because its fundamentally no longer the same product as whatever the source was as a direct result of editing

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Still, the AI model itself is not transformative, it is merely incorporating that data into its training set.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But what it outputs IS transformative, which- of course- is the e primary use

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If I include an image of mickey mouse (ripped straight from disney) in my application in a proprietary compression format, then the application decompresses that image and changes the hue (or whatever other kind of modification), then these are technically "transformations" but they're not transformative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The law being violated there is trademark, not copyright

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No it isn't. The image of mickey mouse was literally copied (hence copyright, literally right to copy). Regardless, that's still IP law being violated so I don't know how that helps your case.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

If you arent calling it mickey mouse, it would actually be fine from a copyright perspective. What youd get sued for is the character design itself being too similar, which is a trademark/IP issue

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)