3 ms·
This post reflects the author's very poor understanding of neural networks, software licenses and copyright law, and borders on misinformation. Please share thi
by yazzku 4y ago
This post reflects the author's very poor understanding of neural networks, software licenses and copyright law, and borders on misinformation. Please share this kind of shit on Twitter instead.
If your AI is spitting derivative works or straight-up verbatim copies of the original, stripped of a license, and given the original license even allows derivative works, then yes, you better lawyer up. This applies to both software, art, or any copyright-protected work. Legality aside, it is also shitty and on the lower end of morals to abuse people's work/art in this way. AI systems that don't fuck with people and their work are perfectly fine. Stop fucking with people and you won't need lawyers.
- spunker540 4y agoI don’t think it’s a big deal if your AI spits out copyrighted images. My scanner, camera phone, photoshop etc can also easily spit out copyrighted images. It’s ok if I just print them out for my wall at home, but if I try to sell them it becomes a problem. So then I guess these new AI models are only problematic if someone tries to sell them (as its essentially selling copyrighted works) but an open source model is probably fair game. Individuals can use it, but if you try to monetize you better not be infringing. Seems like something like YouTube’s content ID solution for detecting copyrighted works could be a “quick” fix here. You can sell access to your model but not to generate copyrighted works
- yazzku 4y ago> but if I try to sell them it becomes a problem What do you think Microsoft is doing with Copilot and everyone's code on Github? They didn't spend millions of dollars and several weeks of training just for the amusement.