7 ms·

> It will also lead to questions about the copyright of the resulting models I'm sure there will be no questions there. The questions about the copyright of m

by avian 4y ago

> It will also lead to questions about the copyright of the resulting models I'm sure there will be no questions there. The questions about the copyright of models like DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. exist solely because it infringes on the rights of thousands of random artists all around the world. There is no one single entity with enough power to clearly oppose it so people making the models can get away with "questionable copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of talk. Try the same with a model trained on a single movie created by a multinational with infinite money and all this will be resolved and defined real quick and strongly worded cease & desist letters sent out by end of work day.

sandworm101 4y ago
The day after movie-to-VR becomes easy to do, movie owners will monitize it, which will end the current free-for-all. Want to walk around The Shire in VR? You better have paid for the Hobbits Online subscription package.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  Sam: This is it. Frodo: What? Sam: If I take one more step, I'll be the farthest away from home I've ever been. Popup: And you can do that for just $29.99 when you buy The Hobbits Shire Expansion DLC!
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > The day after movie-to-VR becomes easy to do, movie owners will monitize it, which will end the current free-for-all. The movie making studios already own those 3d "digital assets" from their films. IDK if there is a real "free-for-all" right now, but the monetisation play has already been planned for.
sfifs 4y ago
> There is no one single entity with enough power to clearly oppose it so people making the models can get away with "questionable copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of talk. Never underestimate the power of a sufficiently motivated rich individual to create legal hell (see Gawker). There are many very rich artists. There just needs to be an obvious large enough irritant which will happen as these generative models start getting used beyond toy amusements. The class action lawsuit against Copilot was filed just as pricing models started. This is going to be an interesting area to watch. Use in commercial projects at your own risk of exposure to liability.
- worldsayshi 4y ago
  The wrong and easy reaction to this is to limit these services to not include copyrighted content. The more right and really really difficult solution would be to give the original copyright holders partial rights to the output. It really feels like the textile factory worker problem all over again. We can't let the big players be the benefactors every time.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > The more right and really really difficult solution would be to give the original copyright holders partial rights to the output. That is impossible (assigning credit to training images from the output is arbitrary, not deterministic) and wouldn't help anyone (imagine Spotify except it pays you even less). > It really feels like the textile factory worker problem all over again. We can't let the big players be the benefactors every time. Industrialization is better for society because it produces more customer surplus. Even Marx thought the Luddites were wrong.
    - worldsayshi 4y ago
      >Industrialization is better for society because it produces more customer surplus. Also my point. >Even Marx thought the Luddites were wrong. Sure they are wrong in that they confuse what the problem is. If workers owned the factory they would be happy to automate the work. But their feeling of being left out has some validity because if they weren't the total value would improve. The real issue is that the revenue brought back through automation doesn't benefit the worker. If it did, the automation would happen sooner because incentives would align better and the total value for society would thus likely improve faster.
Tepix 4y ago
What if you train your AI model with three dozen films about ancient egypt and then generate a new 3d world out using the model? Seems fuzzy. But what if you use only three films? Or two?
me551ah 4y ago
I think it would be the other way around. A lot of movies(and tv shows) have games these days. You can already experience Star Wars in VR with “Star Wars Squadrons” and I’m sure we will start to see a lot more games with VR support in the future, many being based on Movies. MNCs are there to make money and they will just license it.
astrange 4y ago
> people making the models can get away with "questionable copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of talk. Where are they saying that? Nobody thinks it's a gray area, they think it's explicitly legal and they're probably right too. Claiming it's a copyright violation is actually a rather weak case artists are just saying is obvious. Microsoft has licensed DALL-E. They're not venturing into legal gray areas.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  Well, I think it is a grey area. The argument I heard most often goes along the lines of: "people also learn from a lot of examples and other artists, and that is not copyrighted". It is an interesting argument, but AI is not people and the argument could easily be the opposite (not taking sides here). They might think it is legal, but it is far from clear, IMHO. IANAL, but it will be interesting to see if this is enforceable and by whom.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > Microsoft [...] not venturing into legal gray areas. Their history as litigation defendants would suggest your optimism may perhaps be unfounded.
concordDance 4y ago
> The questions about the copyright of models like DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. exist solely because it infringes on the rights of thousands of random artists all around the world How does it infringe? Are your memories of a movie copyright infringement? https://youtu.be/IFe9wiDfb0E https://youtu.be/IFe9wiDfb0E
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Not normally, but if you use those memories to re-create the movie and sell it to someone else then yeah, that's totally copyright infringement.
  - luma 4y ago
    If I am an artist and I go to art school, I'm going to spend years studying the masters to learn their techniques and style. If I then produce an impressionist portrait on canvass, informed and influenced by the years of study of existing works.... am I violating copyright?
    - Ajedi32 4y ago
      If you're creating new works inspired by copyrighted works, no that's not (or should not be) copyright infringement. If you're creating exact reproductions of copyrighted works (e.g. The Gates of Argonath from Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings), just in a different format (3d instead of 2d) then yeah, that probably is.
      - bscphil 4y ago
        Right. Most of the conversations about IP on this site seem to rely on extremely abstract reasoning or idealist thinking about what constitutes "property" or what a "copy" is. My understanding is that judges are not so easily misled. If you are selling a "replica statue of two kings" online that is clearly intended to resemble the Gates of Argonath, you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit. It doesn't matter if you built it from your memory of the LOTR films, used an AI to generate a bunch of similar looking statues and picked the ones most similar to the films, or what have you. In practice any judge will see that you are attempting to make money off of the LOTR IP. (Note: not legal advice.) Note that this doesn't mean that Stable Diffusion (and friends) are copyright infringing just because they're trained on copyrighted material. My brain doesn't infringe the LOTR copyright because of my memories of the films. If I turn my experience of fantasy epics into a new novel with a different storyline than LOTR, that's not copyright infringement. That's creativity. But those same memories can likewise be used to make works that are infringing. The question of infringement isn't in the creative act, it's in the artifact. I think it's plausible (though not certain of course) that IP questions will be settled for AIs in the same way: it's not infringement to train your AI on copyrighted material. It is infringement to use your AI to generate works that a reasonable person would conclude are intended to replicate or imitate copyrighted material.
moron4hire 4y ago
The copyright protected material isn't in the model. This can be figured out easily because, if they did, the models are so much smaller than the input data that it'd be literal unobtanium for compression algorithms. Copyright also has nothing to do with the tool. What a piece depicts and how it is used are much more important than how a piece was created. If I paint a picture by hand of a particular scene from a Disney movie, that's clearly a derived work and may be subject to copyright protection (it depends, there could be a fair use argument in specific situations, so even "it's copyright!" is not a cut-and-dried argument). If I paint a picture of Hercules in the style of Disney, that's trademark violation. But I can paint Hercules in any other style and Disney can't say shit (though they certainly try). This is an age-old argument. Some artists think they should have a monopoly on certain ideas. As a society, we've already said no, you only get to own your expression of your ideas. And as ideas go, "like a trending artist on ArtStation" isn't a particularly strong one.
joshspankit 4y ago
I think it would be almost trivial to build in a “generate 30% different than” (the legal amount of difference before a work is considered different than the original). That could either sidestep the entire legal question, or throw Hollywood in to a blender since so many movies/shows have been made on the back of that difference.

by avian 4y ago

sandworm101 4y ago

The day after movie-to-VR becomes easy to do, movie owners will monitize it, which will end the current free-for-all. Want to walk around The Shire in VR? You better have paid for the Hobbits Online subscription package.

zimpenfish 4y ago
Sam: This is it. Frodo: What? Sam: If I take one more step, I'll be the farthest away from home I've ever been. Popup: And you can do that for just $29.99 when you buy The Hobbits Shire Expansion DLC!
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> The day after movie-to-VR becomes easy to do, movie owners will monitize it, which will end the current free-for-all. The movie making studios already own those 3d "digital assets" from their films. IDK if there is a real "free-for-all" right now, but the monetisation play has already been planned for.

sfifs 4y ago

> There is no one single entity with enough power to clearly oppose it so people making the models can get away with "questionable copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of talk. Never underestimate the power of a sufficiently motivated rich individual to create legal hell (see Gawker). There are many very rich artists. There just needs to be an obvious large enough irritant which will happen as these generative models start getting used beyond toy amusements. The class action lawsuit against Copilot was filed just as pricing models started. This is going to be an interesting area to watch. Use in commercial projects at your own risk of exposure to liability.

worldsayshi 4y ago
The wrong and easy reaction to this is to limit these services to not include copyrighted content. The more right and really really difficult solution would be to give the original copyright holders partial rights to the output. It really feels like the textile factory worker problem all over again. We can't let the big players be the benefactors every time.
- astrange 4y ago
  > The more right and really really difficult solution would be to give the original copyright holders partial rights to the output. That is impossible (assigning credit to training images from the output is arbitrary, not deterministic) and wouldn't help anyone (imagine Spotify except it pays you even less). > It really feels like the textile factory worker problem all over again. We can't let the big players be the benefactors every time. Industrialization is better for society because it produces more customer surplus. Even Marx thought the Luddites were wrong.
  - worldsayshi 4y ago
    >Industrialization is better for society because it produces more customer surplus. Also my point. >Even Marx thought the Luddites were wrong. Sure they are wrong in that they confuse what the problem is. If workers owned the factory they would be happy to automate the work. But their feeling of being left out has some validity because if they weren't the total value would improve. The real issue is that the revenue brought back through automation doesn't benefit the worker. If it did, the automation would happen sooner because incentives would align better and the total value for society would thus likely improve faster.

Tepix 4y ago

What if you train your AI model with three dozen films about ancient egypt and then generate a new 3d world out using the model? Seems fuzzy. But what if you use only three films? Or two?

me551ah 4y ago

I think it would be the other way around. A lot of movies(and tv shows) have games these days. You can already experience Star Wars in VR with “Star Wars Squadrons” and I’m sure we will start to see a lot more games with VR support in the future, many being based on Movies. MNCs are there to make money and they will just license it.

astrange 4y ago

> people making the models can get away with "questionable copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of talk. Where are they saying that? Nobody thinks it's a gray area, they think it's explicitly legal and they're probably right too. Claiming it's a copyright violation is actually a rather weak case artists are just saying is obvious. Microsoft has licensed DALL-E. They're not venturing into legal gray areas.

mejutoco 4y ago
Well, I think it is a grey area. The argument I heard most often goes along the lines of: "people also learn from a lot of examples and other artists, and that is not copyrighted". It is an interesting argument, but AI is not people and the argument could easily be the opposite (not taking sides here). They might think it is legal, but it is far from clear, IMHO. IANAL, but it will be interesting to see if this is enforceable and by whom.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> Microsoft [...] not venturing into legal gray areas. Their history as litigation defendants would suggest your optimism may perhaps be unfounded.

concordDance 4y ago

> The questions about the copyright of models like DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. exist solely because it infringes on the rights of thousands of random artists all around the world How does it infringe? Are your memories of a movie copyright infringement? https://youtu.be/IFe9wiDfb0E https://youtu.be/IFe9wiDfb0E

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Ajedi32 4y ago
Not normally, but if you use those memories to re-create the movie and sell it to someone else then yeah, that's totally copyright infringement.
- luma 4y ago
  If I am an artist and I go to art school, I'm going to spend years studying the masters to learn their techniques and style. If I then produce an impressionist portrait on canvass, informed and influenced by the years of study of existing works.... am I violating copyright?
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    If you're creating new works inspired by copyrighted works, no that's not (or should not be) copyright infringement. If you're creating exact reproductions of copyrighted works (e.g. The Gates of Argonath from Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings), just in a different format (3d instead of 2d) then yeah, that probably is.
    - bscphil 4y ago
      Right. Most of the conversations about IP on this site seem to rely on extremely abstract reasoning or idealist thinking about what constitutes "property" or what a "copy" is. My understanding is that judges are not so easily misled. If you are selling a "replica statue of two kings" online that is clearly intended to resemble the Gates of Argonath, you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit. It doesn't matter if you built it from your memory of the LOTR films, used an AI to generate a bunch of similar looking statues and picked the ones most similar to the films, or what have you. In practice any judge will see that you are attempting to make money off of the LOTR IP. (Note: not legal advice.) Note that this doesn't mean that Stable Diffusion (and friends) are copyright infringing just because they're trained on copyrighted material. My brain doesn't infringe the LOTR copyright because of my memories of the films. If I turn my experience of fantasy epics into a new novel with a different storyline than LOTR, that's not copyright infringement. That's creativity. But those same memories can likewise be used to make works that are infringing. The question of infringement isn't in the creative act, it's in the artifact. I think it's plausible (though not certain of course) that IP questions will be settled for AIs in the same way: it's not infringement to train your AI on copyrighted material. It is infringement to use your AI to generate works that a reasonable person would conclude are intended to replicate or imitate copyrighted material.

moron4hire 4y ago

The copyright protected material isn't in the model. This can be figured out easily because, if they did, the models are so much smaller than the input data that it'd be literal unobtanium for compression algorithms. Copyright also has nothing to do with the tool. What a piece depicts and how it is used are much more important than how a piece was created. If I paint a picture by hand of a particular scene from a Disney movie, that's clearly a derived work and may be subject to copyright protection (it depends, there could be a fair use argument in specific situations, so even "it's copyright!" is not a cut-and-dried argument). If I paint a picture of Hercules in the style of Disney, that's trademark violation. But I can paint Hercules in any other style and Disney can't say shit (though they certainly try). This is an age-old argument. Some artists think they should have a monopoly on certain ideas. As a society, we've already said no, you only get to own your expression of your ideas. And as ideas go, "like a trending artist on ArtStation" isn't a particularly strong one.

joshspankit 4y ago

I think it would be almost trivial to build in a “generate 30% different than” (the legal amount of difference before a work is considered different than the original). That could either sidestep the entire legal question, or throw Hollywood in to a blender since so many movies/shows have been made on the back of that difference.