4 ms·
Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time? The software itself is not at i
by chongli 4y ago
Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time?
The software itself is not at issue here. If they had trained the network on public domain images then there’d be no lawsuit. The legal question to settle is whether it’s allowable to train (and use) a model on copyrighted images without permission from the artists.
They may actually be successful at arguing that the outputs are either copies or derived works which would require paying the original artist for licenses.
- jdironman 4y agoThen I think any work of art or media inspired by past sources would fall into this category. It's a very grey line, and I haven't seen anyone or any case law put it into proper terms as of yet.
- deely3 4y agoDoes "inspired" equal to "learned by software neural network"?
- Spivak 4y agoOlivia Rodrigo is a good case study here. Good For You was so heavily inspired by Paramore that Hayley Williams was given songwriter credit despite having no involvement in its making. So humans can already run afoul of copyright this way, the bar for NNs might end up lower.