4 ms·

Everything that you, a person with a paintbrush, could paint "in the style of" something else is informed by what your model (your brain) has been exposed to. T

Everything that you, a person with a paintbrush, could paint "in the style of" something else is informed by what your model (your brain) has been exposed to. There's no getting around that, and commissioning you to paint something "in the style of postwar authoritarian England" does not infringe the copyright of V for Vendetta (even if I told you "make it look just like the movie"); it's an original painting. Stylistic inspiration is not an infringement of copyright, in either that case or the "do it on a computer" case here. The Kermit the Frog aspect though is interesting - it applies equally for both the human and machine made works - if an argument could be made that the subject of the work sufficiently resembles the character, maybe there's a trademark issue at hand? But in any scenario, nothing legally novel about the work being created by machine.

bogwog 4y ago
> But in any scenario, nothing legally novel about the work being created by machine. …except for the fact that it was created by a machine. Just like copyright law had to be revised to deal with software and the internet, it will need to be revised to deal with AI.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > …except for the fact that it was created by a machine. We've already had this for years. The photos you take on any modern smart phone are partially the invention of AI (doubly so if you use something like portrait or night mode). It's not just raw CCD output, and yet, the photographer retains the copyright. DALL-E's terms could require users to assign copyright. If not, I don't see any reason it wouldn't go to the person who came up with the prompt and picked one particular generation. If I take a picture of a mountain with a camera, neither the mountain nor the camera hold copyright. DALL-E's just another tool in the toolbox.
  - bogwog 4y ago
    That’s obviously very different. The contributions of the AI processing my phone camera does is not significant, and can be substituted relatively easily with Photoshop or similar software. It’s just a convenience feature. Dall-E is the complete opposite. My contribution is insignificant (a prompt), whereas Dall-Es is 99% of the work. > If I take a picture of a mountain with a camera, neither the mountain nor the camera hold copyright. DALL-E's just another tool in the toolbox. Not sure how this contradicts my point. Nobody “owns” that mountain, so nobody could call your photo of it a derivative work. If you take a photo of a frame of a movie, then who owns the rights to that photo? It’s not a raw frame, it’s a photo of a screen. Does that mean you didn’t just steal someone’s IP? These questions need answers, and copyright laws try to answer them in as fair a way as possible. Dall E raises new questions, and thus we need to update copyright laws with new answers. My personal view is that obtaining licensing for every single work used to train the model is impossible. So instead of simply making this type of AI research illegal, the fairest solution is to put that model into the public domain. There are still financial incentives to perform this research, as the discoveries could be used later to train a commercial model with proper licensing.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > My contribution is insignificant (a prompt), whereas Dall-Es is 99% of the work. I disagree entirely with this. Picking a prompt and potentially going through dozens, hundreds, or thousands of variations and re-generations has artistic value. Just like the photograph of a mountain. Nature did most of the work, but a human selecting an angle, lighting, etc. from the nearly infinite combinations available matters. We've also established in court that monkeys can't hold copyright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...), and they're quite a bit more sentient than DALL-E.

bogwog 4y ago

> But in any scenario, nothing legally novel about the work being created by machine. …except for the fact that it was created by a machine. Just like copyright law had to be revised to deal with software and the internet, it will need to be revised to deal with AI.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> …except for the fact that it was created by a machine. We've already had this for years. The photos you take on any modern smart phone are partially the invention of AI (doubly so if you use something like portrait or night mode). It's not just raw CCD output, and yet, the photographer retains the copyright. DALL-E's terms could require users to assign copyright. If not, I don't see any reason it wouldn't go to the person who came up with the prompt and picked one particular generation. If I take a picture of a mountain with a camera, neither the mountain nor the camera hold copyright. DALL-E's just another tool in the toolbox.
- bogwog 4y ago
  That’s obviously very different. The contributions of the AI processing my phone camera does is not significant, and can be substituted relatively easily with Photoshop or similar software. It’s just a convenience feature. Dall-E is the complete opposite. My contribution is insignificant (a prompt), whereas Dall-Es is 99% of the work. > If I take a picture of a mountain with a camera, neither the mountain nor the camera hold copyright. DALL-E's just another tool in the toolbox. Not sure how this contradicts my point. Nobody “owns” that mountain, so nobody could call your photo of it a derivative work. If you take a photo of a frame of a movie, then who owns the rights to that photo? It’s not a raw frame, it’s a photo of a screen. Does that mean you didn’t just steal someone’s IP? These questions need answers, and copyright laws try to answer them in as fair a way as possible. Dall E raises new questions, and thus we need to update copyright laws with new answers. My personal view is that obtaining licensing for every single work used to train the model is impossible. So instead of simply making this type of AI research illegal, the fairest solution is to put that model into the public domain. There are still financial incentives to perform this research, as the discoveries could be used later to train a commercial model with proper licensing.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > My contribution is insignificant (a prompt), whereas Dall-Es is 99% of the work. I disagree entirely with this. Picking a prompt and potentially going through dozens, hundreds, or thousands of variations and re-generations has artistic value. Just like the photograph of a mountain. Nature did most of the work, but a human selecting an angle, lighting, etc. from the nearly infinite combinations available matters. We've also established in court that monkeys can't hold copyright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...), and they're quite a bit more sentient than DALL-E.