4 ms·

It's illegal. Prior authorization _should_ be required using someone's copyrighted work . In this case, the AI firm that compiled the profile of this poor soul

It's illegal. Prior authorization _should_ be required using someone's copyrighted work . In this case, the AI firm that compiled the profile of this poor soul probably had not reached out and asked for authorization for use of his image in a vast database which is then productized and sold to law enforcement agencies. Now, things get complicated when you involve firms which, in the process of signing up a user, might force an agreement to sell/market the data in a non-exclusive manner to "trusted partners". Sooooo...is it illegal? Depends on on the lawyer and how long you can fund a lawsuit for, I suppose.

ve55 6y ago
We do not actually have precedence of this being illegal yet. You are not using the image in creation of a work (in which case, you need permission), but using it to train an AI model, which we currently have no legal indication is not allowed, even if the image is copyrighted.
- YawningAngel 6y ago
  Could you explain to me why you don't consider Clearwater's product to be a work in this regard? It seems plausible to me that someone could infringe copyright by incorporating copyrighted works into a machine learning model
  - ve55 6y ago
    I don't have much of an opinion myself on it, I'm just trying to state that so far, this appears to be the status quo. Here is some recent additional information on it compiled by Gwern: https://www.gwern.net/Faces#copyright https://www.gwern.net/Faces#copyright (scroll up just above this link): >Models in general are generally considered “transformative works” and the copyright owners of whatever data the model was trained on have no copyright on the model. (The fact that the datasets or inputs are copyrighted is irrelevant, as training on them is universally considered fair use and transformative, similar to artists or search engines; see the further reading.) The model is copyrighted to whomever created it.

ve55 6y ago

We do not actually have precedence of this being illegal yet. You are not using the image in creation of a work (in which case, you need permission), but using it to train an AI model, which we currently have no legal indication is not allowed, even if the image is copyrighted.

YawningAngel 6y ago
Could you explain to me why you don't consider Clearwater's product to be a work in this regard? It seems plausible to me that someone could infringe copyright by incorporating copyrighted works into a machine learning model
- ve55 6y ago
  I don't have much of an opinion myself on it, I'm just trying to state that so far, this appears to be the status quo. Here is some recent additional information on it compiled by Gwern: https://www.gwern.net/Faces#copyright https://www.gwern.net/Faces#copyright (scroll up just above this link): >Models in general are generally considered “transformative works” and the copyright owners of whatever data the model was trained on have no copyright on the model. (The fact that the datasets or inputs are copyrighted is irrelevant, as training on them is universally considered fair use and transformative, similar to artists or search engines; see the further reading.) The model is copyrighted to whomever created it.