9 points

As much as I hate google, they’re not wrong

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Google is long doing the same thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply

No, AI does not create new derivative transformative works. Copyright law is very clear that the thing that is copyrightable is that modicum of creativity, reduced to a tangible medium of expression, that society must encourage and protect.

Derivative works need even more creativity to be protectable than original works because it has to be so newly creative as to be a different work, transformative, even though the original may still be very recognizable.

An AI system does not have creativity. At best, it could mimic someone who is creative, but it could never have creativity on its own. It is generative, not creative.

It’s like that monkey that took a nice picture, but the picture was not copyrightable because the person seeking to enforce the copyright didn’t create the work. It’s creativity that the Constitution seeks to encourage by the copyright clause.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

it has to be so newly creative as to be a different work, even though the original may still be recognizable

Your definition implies Andy Warhol wasn’t creative.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I think they are considered derivative, and are not protected. Not that he wasn’t creative, just that his work wasn’t so creative to be independently copyrightable. I’m a little rusty on my IP law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The AI doesn’t need creativity because the “A” in “AI” stands for “artificial,” not “autonomous.” It’s a tool. Someone is controlling the output by setting the input parameters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

You can make new derivative work without being creative. Just look at all the YouTubers copying each other.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Many of those those reaction videos on YouTube are actually infringing on copyright. Just that the videos they’re reacting to aren’t made by people with deep enough pockets to sue them so they get away with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well said. “Art launderers” is the best ai descriptor I’ve come across so far.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

It seems like it’s only copyright infringement when poor people take rich people’s stuff.

When it’s the other way round, it’s fair use.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

It’s like corporations and the super rich make the rules.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I used to be a very popular and successful collage artist (I’m now an illustrator, I like painting more), and my work has been copied by AI. However, I don’t really care. In fact, I was musing once the idea of licensing everything under the CC-BY license. I don’t mind if AI copies my stuff, because if eventually this democratizes art (as it has already), all the better. Yes, these AI belong to corporations, but if they’re easy to access, or free to use, all the better. I want people to extend what I did, and remix it. I don’t want to be remembered as me, as a singular artist, that somehow I emerged from the void. Because I didn’t. EVERY artist is built on top of their predecessors, and all art is a remix. That’s the truth that other artists don’t wanna hear because it’s all about their ego.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

But what about models built on content licensed under things like CC BY-SA?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Not an issue either, my copied works were fully copyrighted. I wanted them to be cc-by, but I never really relicenced them, too much work for 1500 works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If a model is a derivative work of CC BY-SA works then the model has to be licensed under CC BY-SA as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The issue isn’t ego from any artists I’ve talked to. The issue is that most enjoy DOING their art for a living, and AI threatening their ability to make a living doing the thing they love, by actively taking their work and emulating it.

Add to that, that no one seems to believe AI does a better job than a trained artist, and it also threatens to lower the quality bar at the top end.

Personally I think that if AI is free to use and any work done by AI cannot be covered by copyright (due to being trained on people’s art against their will), then I don’t have an issue with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If society benefits from the democratization of art/books/etc then it’s not a loss, it’s a win for everyone. There were many jobs in the past that were lost because technology made them obsolete. Being a commissioned artist is one of these professions. However, there IS still going to be a SMALL niche for human-made original artworks (not made on ipads). But that’d be a niche. And no one stopping anyone from doing art, be it a profession or not. That’s the beauty of art. If you were to be a plumber, and robots took your job, you’d have trouble to do it as a hobby, since it would require a lot of sinks and pipes to play around, and no one would care. But with art, you can do it on the cheap, and people STILL like your stuff, EVEN if they won’t buy it anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If you can’t live off of doing something, you cannot dedicate very much time to it and not everyone will have a fulfilling life doing what they want on only a hobby basis.

It is not to the benefit of everyone, if most people in that sector lose their jobs they’ve spent all their working life striving to master. Artist still do commissioned work today.

If there is only only going to be a small niche of people able to do it, it will displaced all the rest of the people currently working in that industry. In which case AI is literally stopping people from doing art for a living, if they can get paid to do it.

People who followed their idea for a fulfilling life

I don’t know about you, but I want AI to do the tasks in my life that prevents me from living a fulfilling life. I don’t want it to do the things that I would have made my life fulfilling for me.

I think we might be coming at this from a different angle. You seem to think only about whether art will survive, whereas I’m thinking of the artists.

permalink
report
parent
reply

AI generated content cannot be copyrighted because it is not the product of creativity, but the product of generative computing.

This article is about a lawsuit that sounds in unjust enrichment, not copyright. Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim, not a legal claim, and it’s based on a situation in which one party is enriched at the expense of another, unjustly. If an AI company is taking content without permission, using it to train its model, and then profiting off its model without having paid or secured any license from the original artists, that seems pretty unjust to me.

If you’re at all interested in how the law is going to shake out on this stuff, this is a case to follow.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I wasn’t commenting on the article or it’s contents. Although I do find it interesting and is something I intend to keep an eye on.

I was simply responding to another comment, which also wasn’t directly related to the article.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

i USED to be an artist , not anymore 😢

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Nobody stops you to be an artist. You can still have a job that is still alive today, AND be an artist in your own free time. As I mentioned, I was a very successful collage artist (NYTimes pick for best book cover, lots of commissions, lots of print sales etc). I decided to leave the surrealness of collage behind because I enjoyed children’s illustrations more. Guess what, I don’t make a dime with my illustrations. I’ve spent $15k on art supplies in 5 years and I made $1k back. But that doesn’t stop me from painting nearly EVERY DAY. I share my work online, and whoever likes it, likes it. I don’t expect sales anymore. Be it because it’s not a popular look, or because of AI. It doesn’t matter to me, I still paint daily.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points

Another rent eeeker trying to hold back human progress for personal greed, they’re super common.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Oh no, poor huge corporation that can not steal from private citizens 😢 they should be allowed do whatever they need to maximize their profits!!! Fuck normal people and their rights!!!

/s

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

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


Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.7K

    Posts

  • 154K

    Comments