3 ms·

> But legally your friend has no legs to stand on. My friend is just upset. Legally he has every right in the World, he's the author for Christ Sake! Will he

> But legally your friend has no legs to stand on. My friend is just upset. Legally he has every right in the World, he's the author for Christ Sake! Will he try anything? Of course not. Are you okay with this? Well, then you should reconsider your values. > People do "like copies" of works all the time, If those copies are authorized, I don't see the problem. Try to recreate a Star Wars image and sell it on the Internet. See what happens. > Unless your friend thinks the AI is copying snippets of his work into generated images Would you bet your life on the fact that it doesn't? You know why we Europeans came up with the GDPR? Yes, exactly, because processing of the data, automatic or not, must be authorized by the holder of the rights on that data. We are not talking about artistic expression here, I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from, this is not inspiration or art or human expression, this is simply data processing leading to algorithmic replica of other people's works. Without people's work, no model could replicate it. Impressive, still completely dependent on some kind of source material, that they scraped, they haven't produced it by themselves. There will be a day when people like you will realize that appropriation is not right. Books are different, most of the works models are trained on are in the public domain, Shakespeare is public Domain, nobody will ever contest that, but if you think a living author has no right to have a say before someone process their work, you're the one with crazy ideas.

Workaccount2 4y ago
>Would you bet your life on the fact that it doesn't? Yes, because that's not how it works. If your friend is still upset, maybe they should consider the artists they "stole" their learning material from.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Yes, because that's not how it works. I think you don't know how laws and Author rights work The simple fact his work became part of something else he did not authorize is the problem here. And yes, it could spit out something that is very close to the original, so close that fair use could not stand. Fair use is not a right! > If your friend is still upset, maybe they should consider the artists they "stole" their learning material from. He does, don't imply differently, ad hominem are a stupid argument for very stupid people. That's why he spent 30 years of his life learning and in the end he became good enough to meet the artists he "stole" from to thank them of what they did. You seem to lack the ability to understand the difference between being a good person and being a senseless automata...

Workaccount2 4y ago

>Would you bet your life on the fact that it doesn't? Yes, because that's not how it works. If your friend is still upset, maybe they should consider the artists they "stole" their learning material from.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Yes, because that's not how it works. I think you don't know how laws and Author rights work The simple fact his work became part of something else he did not authorize is the problem here. And yes, it could spit out something that is very close to the original, so close that fair use could not stand. Fair use is not a right! > If your friend is still upset, maybe they should consider the artists they "stole" their learning material from. He does, don't imply differently, ad hominem are a stupid argument for very stupid people. That's why he spent 30 years of his life learning and in the end he became good enough to meet the artists he "stole" from to thank them of what they did. You seem to lack the ability to understand the difference between being a good person and being a senseless automata...