3 ms·

> Training on the data is probably covered under fair use. Generations are of _learned_ representations of the dataset, not the dataset itself. This makes it cl

> Training on the data is probably covered under fair use. Generations are of _learned_ representations of the dataset, not the dataset itself. This makes it closer to outputting original works (probably owned by the person who used the model). "Probably" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. As for "_learned_", that's pretty debatable considering it's reproducing recognizable trademark infringement. > The players involved here are known for being litigious, however. I wouldn't be surprised if OpenAI did in fact pay some hefty fee upfront to get full permission to use these images. I have no idea why anyone would assume the "move fast and break things" disruption mindset that pervades tech companies these days, especially in spaces like ML/"AI", would mean they considered the legality, ethics, or good business sense of their training dataset. As with Copilot, I suspect the DALL-E terms of use puts the onus on the user to avoid using infringing items.

yreg 4y ago
Unlike Copilot, DALL-E et al. don't produce verbatim copies of trained data. Copying ideas and styles has always been a fundamental part of art history, so an artwork right holder might have a hard time successfuly sueing a user for the user's generated image looking similar to the right holder's artwork.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  "Verbatim" is an interesting term since I'm not certain it matters. In this case OP here demonstrated DALL-E generating a trademarked watermark on top of an image. I doubt the courts, looking at that, would believe that that's not close enough to their trademark to infringe. The art world's copyright suits are all over the place in terms of what's sufficient to meet the threshold of "fair use" or "not a copy". It's hard for me as a layperson to see works by Richard Prince[1] as substantially transformative (clearly one work is derived from the other) and even the different courts couldn't agree on this as it was initially found in favor of the plaintiffs but then Prince won his appeal. My approach to this kind of thing is simply this: Does this technology inherently open me up to lawsuits in undecided or highly unreliable legal territory? If yes, steer well clear of using it in any capacity. [1]: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit-59404/ https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/richard-prin...
  - yreg 4y ago
    The case you refer to (Cariou v. Prince) is also a case where part of the artwork is reproduced verbatim :)
ShamelessC 4y ago
> "Probably" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Indeed, that's why I used it. It wasn't long ago that DALLE-2 outputs were the ownership of OpenAI (they changed it so the owner is the user recently). Definitely plenty of room for debate on who the owner should be. > As for "_learned_", that's pretty debatable considering it's reproducing recognizable trademark infringement. I guess. I meant this strictly in the machine learning sense, where "learned" is typically used to describe models trained via stochastic gradient descent. > I have no idea why anyone would assume the "move fast and break things" disruption mindset that pervades tech companies these days, especially in spaces like ML/"AI", would mean they considered the legality, ethics, or good business sense of their training dataset. I agree mostly, except that companies like Alamy have their hooks in everywhere so they can seek rent. I just figured they might be cautious about this if e.g. Microsoft (OpenAI's business partner) had an existing agreement in place for Bing or something.

yreg 4y ago

Unlike Copilot, DALL-E et al. don't produce verbatim copies of trained data. Copying ideas and styles has always been a fundamental part of art history, so an artwork right holder might have a hard time successfuly sueing a user for the user's generated image looking similar to the right holder's artwork.

BeefWellington 4y ago
"Verbatim" is an interesting term since I'm not certain it matters. In this case OP here demonstrated DALL-E generating a trademarked watermark on top of an image. I doubt the courts, looking at that, would believe that that's not close enough to their trademark to infringe. The art world's copyright suits are all over the place in terms of what's sufficient to meet the threshold of "fair use" or "not a copy". It's hard for me as a layperson to see works by Richard Prince[1] as substantially transformative (clearly one work is derived from the other) and even the different courts couldn't agree on this as it was initially found in favor of the plaintiffs but then Prince won his appeal. My approach to this kind of thing is simply this: Does this technology inherently open me up to lawsuits in undecided or highly unreliable legal territory? If yes, steer well clear of using it in any capacity. [1]: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit-59404/ https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/richard-prin...
- yreg 4y ago
  The case you refer to (Cariou v. Prince) is also a case where part of the artwork is reproduced verbatim :)

ShamelessC 4y ago

> "Probably" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Indeed, that's why I used it. It wasn't long ago that DALLE-2 outputs were the ownership of OpenAI (they changed it so the owner is the user recently). Definitely plenty of room for debate on who the owner should be. > As for "_learned_", that's pretty debatable considering it's reproducing recognizable trademark infringement. I guess. I meant this strictly in the machine learning sense, where "learned" is typically used to describe models trained via stochastic gradient descent. > I have no idea why anyone would assume the "move fast and break things" disruption mindset that pervades tech companies these days, especially in spaces like ML/"AI", would mean they considered the legality, ethics, or good business sense of their training dataset. I agree mostly, except that companies like Alamy have their hooks in everywhere so they can seek rent. I just figured they might be cautious about this if e.g. Microsoft (OpenAI's business partner) had an existing agreement in place for Bing or something.