this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
430 points (83.1% liked)

Technology

59390 readers
3724 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
 

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (13 children)

I've had this discussion before, but that's not how copyright exceptions work.

Right or wrong (it hasn't been litigated yet), AI models are being claimed as fair use exceptions to the use of copyrighted material. Similar to other fair uses, the argument goes something like:

"The AI model is simply a digital representation of facts gleamed from the analysis of copyrighted works, and since factual data cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a description of the Mona Lisa vs the painting itself), the model itself is fair use"

I think it'll boil down to whether the models can be easily used as replacements to the works being claimed, and honestly I think that'll fail. That the models are quite good at reconstructing common expressions of copyrighted work is novel to the case law, though, and worthy of investigation.

But as someone who thinks ownership of expressions is bullshit anyway, I tend to think copyright is not the right way to go about penalizing or preventing the harm caused by the technology.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Copyright law is the right tool, but the companies are chasing the wrong side of the equation.

Training should not and I suspect will not be found to be infringement. If old news articles from the NYT can teach a model language in ways that help it review medical literature to come up with novel approaches to cure cancer, there's a whole host of features from public good to transformational use going on.

What they should be throwing resources at is policing usage not training. Make the case that OpenAI is liable for infringing generation. Ensure that there needs to be copyright checking on outputs. In many ways this feels like a repeat of IP criticisms around the time Google acquired YouTube which were solved with an IP tagging system.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Should Photoshop check your image for copyright infringement? Should Adobe be liable for copyright infringing or offensive images users of it's program create?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Did photoshop create a portion of my image? Did adobe add a "generate the picture I asked for, for me, without my input beyond a typed prompt" as a feature?

Because if they did, 100% yeah, theyre liable.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

They actually are not whether you use a prompt to generate the picture or a digitally paint it with a tablet.

The user would be the one committing copyright infringement.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)