3 ms·

Well, if you copied a famous piece of art from memory... That'd be a copyright violation.

• mdp2021 4y ago
  I meant that _learning_ is not a copyright violation. I do not see much space for misunderstanding: which relevant box takes instances of input data to output one of them? Edit: Make your point explicit, sniper... You can hide in front of the ### consuetude of "silent disagreement", but it remains violently annoying. The article contains "nuances" like "derivative work", but the poster is objecting to the article calling «neural networks» not «copies», as «compressed lossy copies», and I retorted that so is everything you learn, and holding them in the "corpus" is not considered "retaining a copy". If you have objections to that, either you present them, or there is no contribution in shaking your invisible head.
• Groxx 4y ago
  Yeah, I think this is the crux of the issue that people keep glossing over when claiming it's not a true reproduction. Drawing Coca Cola's logo from memory by hand and slapping it on your product is still copyright infringement, even if it isn't an image Coca Cola has ever produced. In that sense it doesn't matter at all if it's AI or human - the production and subsequent distribution for profit of a copyrighted thing is not allowed, period. The current set of AIs do exactly this all the time. That's a very clear legal problem.
  • sdenton4 4y ago
    well, you get five demerits as the coca cola logo is a trademark, covered by a whole other branch of IP law...
    • Groxx 4y ago
      Eh, fair enough. I think the point still stands though. Just mentally replace it with "a random DeviantArt" and it all still applies.
    • tikhonj 4y ago
      it's covered by both