4 ms·

I'm not sure I buy this line of reasoning about "inputs" rather than "outputs". If there is some prohibition about using an image as an input, regardless of wh

by Imnimo 4y ago

I'm not sure I buy this line of reasoning about "inputs" rather than "outputs". If there is some prohibition about using an image as an input, regardless of whether any vestige of that image exists in an output, doesn't that equally prohibit using an image to train neural network that just says whether an image is a cat or a dog? Or how about a network that just tries to denoise a photo from your camera?

XorNot 4y ago
Ends up worse then that: 8a707ed2cb8e1aa2e54c1b68d78e76b51d05f0a23c8a8b9d2f7f04aca01b3a96 This is the SHA256 of Captain America - The Winter Soldier. Pulled from my Blu-Ray copy of it. It can only be produced (in the current universe) if you have access to the complete data from the Australia Blu-Ray release of that movie. So to create that number, every single frame and pixel of the original movie was included in some way. Is the number itself copyright? After all, every byte of its input definitely was - there's no way to produce it without those bytes.
- owisd 4y ago
  A good rule of thumb is if the derivative work is drawing sales away from the original work. Nobody is buying Captain America - The Winter Soldier to calculate the SHA256 so the movie studio sustains no losses from it being shared, so it shouldn’t count as copyright infringement.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > A good rule of thumb is if the derivative work is drawing sales away from the original work. That's a horrible rule of thumb. The canonical example of a derivative work is adaptation--the film of the book, for example--which frequently increases sales of the original work. Drawing sales away from the original work is one of the factors used in fair use, and frequently ends up being the most important one.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > Is the number itself copyright? For a work to be copyrightable (including derivative works), there needs to be a quantum of creativity. Since there's no creativity in the process of constructing a cryptographic hash, there's nothing copyrightable there.

by Imnimo 4y ago

XorNot 4y ago

Ends up worse then that: 8a707ed2cb8e1aa2e54c1b68d78e76b51d05f0a23c8a8b9d2f7f04aca01b3a96 This is the SHA256 of Captain America - The Winter Soldier. Pulled from my Blu-Ray copy of it. It can only be produced (in the current universe) if you have access to the complete data from the Australia Blu-Ray release of that movie. So to create that number, every single frame and pixel of the original movie was included in some way. Is the number itself copyright? After all, every byte of its input definitely was - there's no way to produce it without those bytes.

owisd 4y ago
A good rule of thumb is if the derivative work is drawing sales away from the original work. Nobody is buying Captain America - The Winter Soldier to calculate the SHA256 so the movie studio sustains no losses from it being shared, so it shouldn’t count as copyright infringement.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > A good rule of thumb is if the derivative work is drawing sales away from the original work. That's a horrible rule of thumb. The canonical example of a derivative work is adaptation--the film of the book, for example--which frequently increases sales of the original work. Drawing sales away from the original work is one of the factors used in fair use, and frequently ends up being the most important one.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jcranmer 4y ago
> Is the number itself copyright? For a work to be copyrightable (including derivative works), there needs to be a quantum of creativity. Since there's no creativity in the process of constructing a cryptographic hash, there's nothing copyrightable there.