3 ms·

Art history is literally full of transformation of prior works, technology is clearly transformative (if you understand it), copyright law clearly allows for it

Art history is literally full of transformation of prior works, technology is clearly transformative (if you understand it), copyright law clearly allows for it, and indexing publicly available data is also legal — there’s no reasonable basis for debating the topic being illegal or unethical.

tsbinz 4y ago
And yet, every time GitHub Copilot comes up, people on HN are in arms about their code being used to train a model.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Already responded to comparison to GitHub CoPilot in this thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33079278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33079278
falcolas 4y ago
Legal and ethical are two wholly different concepts. There's quite a few things which are legal and not at all ethical. Today in many states it's perfectly legal to shoot a native american if you're in a wagon circle. Is that ethical? Fair use is also a positive defense, which means that only the courts can really say if something is fair use or not.
- O__________O 4y ago
  First line, from the post you replied to: >> “Art history is literally full of transformation of prior works” There’s no reasonable ethical basis to take issue with. You’re examples and counter points to me add substantive your claims. What am I missing?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    This isn't really transformation though. It's compositing pixel-accurate bits and pieces of multiple pieces of art to make a new piece (as proven by stock photo watermarks being replicated in some pieces). That difference is enough to assert that there is a wholly reasonable ethical basis. Especially when they're obviously not just training it on images with relaxed copyrights.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      A collage of prior works is protected as a transformative work, regardless of if you’re able to recognize the seams between the pieces. Even use of trademarks is not protected in works of art if there is no clearly defined trademark violation; for example, putting fries in a box that looks identical to McDonald fries box and offering them for sell would not be legally justifiable by just saying it is art. Ethically speaking, for the second time, you ignored that within art world, or real world for that matter, making derivative works is completely ethical if done within any related legal constraints; as such, to me, you’re not making a good faith effort, which is actually unethical if intentionally done, so I will not be replying any further.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  > Today in many states it's perfectly legal to shoot a native american if you're in a wagon circle. Could you please clarify this?
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Those laws are illegal and anyone using them as a basis for murder would ultimately be found guilty of it: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/25222/is-it-legal-to-shoot-groups-of-native-americans-in-some-us-states https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/25222/is-it-leg...

tsbinz 4y ago

And yet, every time GitHub Copilot comes up, people on HN are in arms about their code being used to train a model.

O__________O 4y ago
Already responded to comparison to GitHub CoPilot in this thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33079278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33079278

falcolas 4y ago

Legal and ethical are two wholly different concepts. There's quite a few things which are legal and not at all ethical. Today in many states it's perfectly legal to shoot a native american if you're in a wagon circle. Is that ethical? Fair use is also a positive defense, which means that only the courts can really say if something is fair use or not.

O__________O 4y ago
First line, from the post you replied to: >> “Art history is literally full of transformation of prior works” There’s no reasonable ethical basis to take issue with. You’re examples and counter points to me add substantive your claims. What am I missing?
- falcolas 4y ago
  This isn't really transformation though. It's compositing pixel-accurate bits and pieces of multiple pieces of art to make a new piece (as proven by stock photo watermarks being replicated in some pieces). That difference is enough to assert that there is a wholly reasonable ethical basis. Especially when they're obviously not just training it on images with relaxed copyrights.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    A collage of prior works is protected as a transformative work, regardless of if you’re able to recognize the seams between the pieces. Even use of trademarks is not protected in works of art if there is no clearly defined trademark violation; for example, putting fries in a box that looks identical to McDonald fries box and offering them for sell would not be legally justifiable by just saying it is art. Ethically speaking, for the second time, you ignored that within art world, or real world for that matter, making derivative works is completely ethical if done within any related legal constraints; as such, to me, you’re not making a good faith effort, which is actually unethical if intentionally done, so I will not be replying any further.
dotancohen 4y ago
> Today in many states it's perfectly legal to shoot a native american if you're in a wagon circle. Could you please clarify this?
- O__________O 4y ago
  Those laws are illegal and anyone using them as a basis for murder would ultimately be found guilty of it: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/25222/is-it-legal-to-shoot-groups-of-native-americans-in-some-us-states https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/25222/is-it-leg...