3 ms·
It might be a problem to treat it as copyright. Copyright applies to reproduction, distribution, public performance... if I go to a library or bookstore and I r
by elondaits 4y ago
It might be a problem to treat it as copyright. Copyright applies to reproduction, distribution, public performance... if I go to a library or bookstore and I read books and look at their covers, copyright does not apply. Would an android that walks around learning things be subject to copyright? To what extent does it need a body and mobility to be more like a person and less as a scraper?
It might seem stupid, but I worry that if copyright begins applying to "mining" then the next thing is that it applies to humans watching things.
Of course, if an AI re-creates copyrighted content, copyright should apply. Just like it applies when I redraw and sell the Mona Lisa, but not when I store it in my memory. I would pass on the responsibility to users. I don't fear my use of Github Copilot because it's far from infringing any reasonable copyright... then again, I'm assuming the most likely way to infringe copyright with GPT is to use a prompt that almost explicitly requests it.
- chrismorgan 4y agoFunny thing is that recreations are not necessarily covered by copyright law. The clearest example of this is fonts, where (using imprecise terminology but I think it’ll be clear enough) the US only grants copyright protection to font files, but not the shapes—so tracing a commercial font is perfectly legal, even if you happened to end up with an identical result (though good luck proving to a court that that’s what you did).
- rockemsockem 4y agoI mean, today it's pretty easy to prove that if you're setting out to copy one of these fonts. Just film the whole process and upload it to YouTube.