3 ms·
Morally it seems to basically be the same to me, but in practice it's different. The AI training is done by big corporations that are traceable and have big poc
by KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
Morally it seems to basically be the same to me, but in practice it's different. The AI training is done by big corporations that are traceable and have big pockets that can be sued whereas "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from.
- autoexec 4y ago> "inspiration" cannot be taken to court even if you feel like you were stolen from. Never doubt the ability of people's greed to force someone else into a court room. Just look at the 'blurred lines' case where someone was inspired by a musical genre to write a song that didn't copy anyone's music but was still ordered to pay millions because he copied the general "feel" or "vibe" of someone else's work. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...) I imagine a lot of AI generated images might copy the "feel" or "vibe" of something in its training data.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y agoOhhh good callout. I also wonder if getty wins this will spur the creation of a new army of artists to manually create facsimiles of existing art expressly for the purpose of AI training.