3 ms·

I have been saying for a long time. These big companies with an investment in getting these systems working could collaborate with twitter and instagram to incl

I have been saying for a long time. These big companies with an investment in getting these systems working could collaborate with twitter and instagram to include image license options. They could give users the option to opt-in to data collection. This would help the public feel like they’re giving consent, and it would also lead to the creation of massive, properly licensed open data sets. There’s already some big open image datasets to start with. And of course, they could always work more on sample efficiency.

chrismorgan 4y ago
I’m not particularly familiar with open image data sets, but I doubt that most of them are suitable. Open Images, for example, uses CC-BY images (https://storage.googleapis.com/openimages/web/factsfigures.html https://storage.googleapis.com/openimages/web/factsfigures.h...). Without the fair use exemption, this would suggest that if you used a model trained on that, you would have to comply with the license of every image, which would mean providing attribution for every single item in the set, which is somewhere between infeasible and impractical. The only types of licenses suitable are ones that require nothing like attribution. This is why you’d mostly be limited to public domain materials (though if it went down this way, you’d find terms of service popping up that included a license grant for model training and selling either your data for model training or trained models without any sort of attribution or remuneration).
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Actually, I think they could comply by providing a list of every author in the dataset, though this is following the letter rather than the spirit. They could also do research on ways to get the model to return the top ten influential works for some output, and make a legal argument that this is a best effort given technical challenges with tracing every source. For the first point, I get that by reading the license at this image: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3H8A7368.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3H8A7368.jpg “attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.” So, output has to have the same license and worst case the image is accompanied by a link to a list of every author in the dataset. This is a far cry from the “this research would be useless if copyright was enforced” as some people suggest. Here’s an open dataset I found which does not require attribution: https://www.pexels.com/creative-commons-images/ https://www.pexels.com/creative-commons-images/ And Wikimedia commons, some of which require attribution: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images And it is easy to go take a 4k video camera and start collecting tens of thousands of frames of your own images. My point is that people are throwing up their hands saying oh, respecting the copyright of artists is impossible. But it feels very unfair that these huge companies are walking all over the copyright of small artists, but if we took their code to re use their lawyers would sink us overnight. This upsets a lot of people and it’s a bad look. I don’t actually like copyright but if everyone else has to follow the rules I don’t like giving them a free pass.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
> They could give users the option to opt-in to data collection. This would help the public feel like they’re giving consent Would we get paid? I'd care a lot less about OpenAI profiting from my work if I was getting commission every time my work was hit in the training data.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  I guess this is what those NFT supporters were talking about.

chrismorgan 4y ago

I’m not particularly familiar with open image data sets, but I doubt that most of them are suitable. Open Images, for example, uses CC-BY images (https://storage.googleapis.com/openimages/web/factsfigures.html https://storage.googleapis.com/openimages/web/factsfigures.h...). Without the fair use exemption, this would suggest that if you used a model trained on that, you would have to comply with the license of every image, which would mean providing attribution for every single item in the set, which is somewhere between infeasible and impractical. The only types of licenses suitable are ones that require nothing like attribution. This is why you’d mostly be limited to public domain materials (though if it went down this way, you’d find terms of service popping up that included a license grant for model training and selling either your data for model training or trained models without any sort of attribution or remuneration).

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Actually, I think they could comply by providing a list of every author in the dataset, though this is following the letter rather than the spirit. They could also do research on ways to get the model to return the top ten influential works for some output, and make a legal argument that this is a best effort given technical challenges with tracing every source. For the first point, I get that by reading the license at this image: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3H8A7368.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3H8A7368.jpg “attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.” So, output has to have the same license and worst case the image is accompanied by a link to a list of every author in the dataset. This is a far cry from the “this research would be useless if copyright was enforced” as some people suggest. Here’s an open dataset I found which does not require attribution: https://www.pexels.com/creative-commons-images/ https://www.pexels.com/creative-commons-images/ And Wikimedia commons, some of which require attribution: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images And it is easy to go take a 4k video camera and start collecting tens of thousands of frames of your own images. My point is that people are throwing up their hands saying oh, respecting the copyright of artists is impossible. But it feels very unfair that these huge companies are walking all over the copyright of small artists, but if we took their code to re use their lawyers would sink us overnight. This upsets a lot of people and it’s a bad look. I don’t actually like copyright but if everyone else has to follow the rules I don’t like giving them a free pass.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

> They could give users the option to opt-in to data collection. This would help the public feel like they’re giving consent Would we get paid? I'd care a lot less about OpenAI profiting from my work if I was getting commission every time my work was hit in the training data.

cercatrova 4y ago
I guess this is what those NFT supporters were talking about.