The numbers will be a lot closer once someone can figure out how to get people to gacha for movies and music. For now, they’re just going to have to be satisfied with subscription services.
Mateys! We have plundered the shores of tv shows and movies as these corporations flounder in stopping us seed and spread their files without regard for the flag of copyright. We have long plundered the shores of gaming and broke DRM that have been plaguing modern games, and allowing accessibility to games in countries where a...
You’re allowed to train on copyrighted works, it isn’t illegal for anybody. This article by Kit Walsh does a good job of breaking it down. She’s a senior staff attorney at the EFF.
While I am quite excited about the Walton Goggins-infused Amazon Fallout series, the show debuted some promo art for the project ahead of official stills or footage and…it appears to be AI generated.
In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection
Not much changes with this ruling. The whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine.
These models are just a collection of observations in relation to each other. We need to be careful not weaken fair use and hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep developing our own models. Mega corporations already have their own datasets, and the money to buy more. They can also make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off with fewer rights than where they started.
I’m not sure what you mean. FOSS generative image models are already better than the corpo paid for ones, and it isn’t even close. They’re more flexible and have way more features and tools than what you can get out of a discord bot or cloud computing subscription.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think I can see why your side, but correct me if I misunderstood.
I don’t think we need primary ownership here. This site doesn’t have primary ownership in the social media market, yet it benefits users. Having our own spaces and tools is always something worth fighting for. Implying we need “primary ownership” is a straw man and emotional language like “massively”, “ridiculous”, and “left holding the bag” can harm this conversation. This is a false dilemma between two extremes: either individuals have primary ownership, or we have no control.
You also downplay the work of the vibrant community of researchers, developers, activists, and artists who are working on FOSS software and models for anyone to use. It isn’t individuals merely participating, it’s a worldwide network working for the public, often times leading research and development, for free.
One thing I’m certain of is that no that one can put a lid on this. What we can do is make it available, effective, and affordable to the public. Mega-corps will have their own models, no matter the cost. Just like the web, personal computers, and smartphones were made by big corporations or governments, we were the ones who turned them into something that enables social mobility, creativity, communication, and collaboration. It got to the point they tried jumping on ourtrends.
I think you are oversimplifying this issue and ignoring the context and purpose of using their content. Original analysis of data is not illegal, and that’s all these models are, a collection of observations in relation to each other. As long as you can prove that your storage was noncommercial, and no more than necessary to achieve your fair use objectives, you can get by.
Fair use protects reverse engineering, indexing for search engines, and other forms of analysis that create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. Moreover, Fair use is a flexible and context-specific doctrine, and you don’t have to prove in court that you comply with every single pillar of fair use. It depends on the situation and four things: why, what, how much, and how it affects the work. No one thing is more important than the others, and it is possible to have a fair use defense even if you do not meet all the criteria of fair use.
You’re right about copyright forbidding much more than people think, but it also allows much more than people think. Fair use is also not a weak or unreliable defense, but a vital one that protects creativity, innovation, and freedom of expression. It’s not something that you have to prove in court, but something you assert as a right.
What I was responding to here is the idea that of running an automated program on information shared without permission. In that case, the fair use argument becomes very difficult to make, in my opinion. Search engines and other forms of analysis is definitely allowed, but those copies are provided through legitimate means. Downloading articles from behind a paywall and sharing them isn’t the same as indexing publicly available web pages.
When you visit the Google’s chatbot bard’s website in Microsoft Bing. A New Button pops up besides the search bar which lets you compare bard results with Bing chat’s. I have no idea why they implemented this, well maybe to show off the their chatbot is better than bard or something?
Original analysis of public data is not stealing. If it were stealing to do so, it would gut fair use, and hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology. They already have their own datasets, and the money to buy licenses for more. Regular consumers, who could have had access to a corporate-independent tool for creativity and social mobility, would instead be left worse off with fewer rights than where they started.
In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.
So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I’ve read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question “If an AI did it, would it...
In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.
There are no AI works that fit this description though. When most people think of AI works they’re thinking of the former, not the latter. So saying “Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable.” without making the distinction is misinformation designed to spread doubt.
There are AI works every day that fit that description. The art in question in the comic book case was not modified and could be taken from the page and used somewhere else with the exception of the words.
You are arguing in bad faith by implying that my intent is to spread doubt through misinformation. Don’t assume things like that. You have no clue of my intentions.
I’m not trying to “spread doubt”. I’m simply giving the information as is. If you want to have a conversation about the facts, let me know. If you are here to argue in bad faith then I can’t help you.
I’m not accusing you of arguing in bad faith or intentionally spreading information, I’m letting you know that you’re repeating the talking points of those who do.
So you could go take the images out of the comic book and reuse them because they are not copyrighted.
You’re begging the question by assuming such content hasn’t been modified and could be taken in the first place. How would you know the content you’re eyeing is usable without violating any rights or laws?
Copyright law is one big “It depends” making sweeping statements like made and the headline of the article you linked are oversimplifying the issue and presenting a false dichotomy of a much more nuanced issue. The Reuters article I linked presents much less biased coverage that doesn’t gloss over important facts.
The end bit, that AI created works aren’t copyrightable, is already settled. However, any work a human does to tweak or select AI generated content, if it is itself creative, is copyrightable.
AI created works are copyrightable and guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office isn’t law, so it’s also not settled. Guidance reflects only the office’s interpretation based on its experience, it isn’t binding in the courts or other parties. Guidance from the office is not a substitute for legal advice, and it does not create any rights or obligations for anyone.
I just got Oobabooga running for the first time with Llama-2, and have Automatic1111, and ComfyUI running for images. I am curious about ML too but I don’t know where this start with that one yet....
It’s more like reading a book and then charging people to ask you questions about it.
AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. We can already train our own open source models, so we should let people put up barriers that will keep out all but the ultra-wealthy.
LLMs can provide original output, but they can also make errors. You’d have to prove it meets the grounds for plagiarism, and to my knowledge no one’s been able to. It’s all been claims with no substance or merit so far.
You’re making a hasty generalization here, namely by making sweeping claims without evidence or examples. Also, you’re begging the question by assuming that humans are more original than LLMs, again without providing any support or justification.
Take for example this study that found doctors prefered Med-paLM’s output to human doctor’s. If Everything is a remix, there’s no reason LLMs can’t meet the minimum criteria for creativity, especially absent any evidence to the contrary.
Human writing and LLM output can be creative, original, informative, or useful, depending on the context and purpose. It is a tool to be used by humans, we are in control of the input and the output. What we say goes, no one ever has to see LLM output without people making those decisions. Restricting LLMs is restricting the people that use them. Mega-corporations will have their own models, no matter the price. What we say and do here will only affect our ability to catch up and stay competitive.
You also seem to be arguing a slippery slope argument, by implying that if LLMs are allowed to use copyrighted books as data, it will lead to negative consequences for creators and society, without explaining how or why this will happen, or providing any evidence. It’s a one-sided look at the issue that ignores the positive outcomes from LLMs, like increasing accessibility, diversity, and quality of literature and thought. As well as inspiring new forms of expression and creativity.
Finally, you seem to be making a moralistic fallacy. You claim that there is a perfectly reasonable way of doing this ethically, by using content that people have provided. However, you don’t support this claim, or address its challenges. How would you ensure that the content providers are the original authors or have the rights to the content? How would you compensate them for their contribution? Is this a good way to get content that is diverse and representative of different perspectives and cultures? What about bias or manipulation in the data collection and processing?
I don’t think we need any more expansions to copyright, but a better understanding of LLMs’ capabilities and responsibilities. I think we need to be open-minded and critical about the potential and challenges of LLMs, but also be on guard against fallacious arguments or emotional appeals.
Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work (apnews.com)
Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.
Video Game Industry: $221B (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2935413...
Visions of a larger plunder
Mateys! We have plundered the shores of tv shows and movies as these corporations flounder in stopping us seed and spread their files without regard for the flag of copyright. We have long plundered the shores of gaming and broke DRM that have been plaguing modern games, and allowing accessibility to games in countries where a...
Amazon’s First ‘Fallout’ Show Art Is AI Generated (www.forbes.com)
While I am quite excited about the Walton Goggins-infused Amazon Fallout series, the show debuted some promo art for the project ahead of official stills or footage and…it appears to be AI generated.
How do i stop this kind of pop up from ever appearing again? Win10 (feddit.uk)
AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, U.S. Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
Non-enterprise user? Microsoft may store your Bing chats (www.theregister.com)
The New York Times prohibits AI vendors from devouring its content (arstechnica.com) German
Microsoft now has implemented "compare with Bing chat" button when you visit Google Bard in Edge (reddthat.com)
When you visit the Google’s chatbot bard’s website in Microsoft Bing. A New Button pops up besides the search bar which lets you compare bard results with Bing chat’s. I have no idea why they implemented this, well maybe to show off the their chatbot is better than bard or something?
*chef kiss* (infosec.pub)
OpenAI finally admitted they're crawling the web to profit off of GPT. Block it from your sites using robots.txt. (platform.openai.com)
Google says AI systems should be able to mine publishers’ work unless companies opt out, turning copyright law on its head (www.theguardian.com)
In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.
Tekken director busts into seemingly illegitimate stream, threatens to 'SHOW my power' with a lifetime ban, then realises the dude's innocent (www.pcgamer.com)
Katsuhiro Harada is not happy about the game's network test being cracked.
Copyright and why it's broken. - Tom Scott (www.youtube.com)
So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I’ve read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question “If an AI did it, would it...
Sound Off: How many 10+ year redditors have left the site?
I was just browsing a thread on c/nfl looking for new mods. There were multiple 12+ year Redditors there offering to help....
Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and startup form body to regulate AI development (www.theguardian.com)
a body has been formed to regulate ai development
Who here is messing with FOSS AI? What ya playing with?
I just got Oobabooga running for the first time with Llama-2, and have Automatic1111, and ComfyUI running for images. I am curious about ML too but I don’t know where this start with that one yet....
Sony unveils portable Bluetooth speaker system for on-the-go surround sound (www.techspot.com)
Sarah Silverman and other authors are suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement, alleging that they're training their LLMs on books via Library Genesis and Z-Library (www.thedailybeast.com)