4 ms·
You've hit on a very confusing and debated topic :) I tried to do some research into this awhile ago. What I found is that you (generally, kind of) are able t
by chrisa 7y ago
You've hit on a very confusing and debated topic :)
I tried to do some research into this awhile ago. What I found is that you (generally, kind of) are able to use copyrighted work to make another work as a "transformative work". For example: you can look at an image of a person and use that as _inspiration_ to draw the same person (as long as you aren't tracing). However! that's still kind of a gray area.
ALSO: how does that apply if you are using the exact pixels of 1,000,000 images to make new ones? I don't think anyone has a definitive answer yet.
My guess is that it will have to be decided in some high profile court case before we get real answers :)
- lonelappde 7y agoThis is a political question not a scientific one. We'll need to train a copyright-evaluating AI based on human judgments.
- sagebird 7y agoYeah, I think that while this seems like a small question right now, it will be incredibly impactful how it is decided for the future. Imagine if Micheal Jackson made one album, but a week later AI’s made thousands of albums that sounded just as good and original (or better!) but were categorized as inspirations. Imagine how that would change the incentives of creation to know it will be consumed by the hive mind in mere moments.
- prepend 7y agoImagine the great benefit to humanity by having all those Michael Jackson quality albums. I don’t think it would change incentives much. Michael Jackson is a brand. Having procedurally generates Michael Jacksonish type music might be nice for elevator companies, but won’t impact his ticket sales that much. There are always lots of similar bands trying to emulate the most popular. Sometimes they success (Creed v. Pearl Jam) but many times the only way I would learn about them is by finding them in the dollar bin. I’m not sure what the present day equivalent is of the dollar CD box.