4 ms·

As an extension of this, only allow children to look at works they purchased publication rights to, lest their creative output becomes influenced by a different

As an extension of this, only allow children to look at works they purchased publication rights to, lest their creative output becomes influenced by a different person's style.

firstbabylonian 4y ago
AI is not human children.
- adrianN 4y ago
  I can instruct an AI to draw Mickey Mouse and infringe copyright and I can instruct a child to draw Mickey Mouse and infringe copyright.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattwad 4y ago
    The problem is there's no way a user will know whose copyright they are infringing when they ask AI to "paint a landscape." Maybe the AI needs to be able to print out a list of sources to provide attribution. That would be interesting.
    - est31 4y ago
      Artists get inspired by others all the time, and if the results are far enough from each other, then nobody has a problem with that. In fact, pre copyright, the similarities used to be even larger. Art lives from the concept of taking ideas, and improving on them.
    - chii 4y ago
      > they ask AI to "paint a landscape." that's the responsibility of the user said AI to check.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    And when you try and sell that work without attribution or compensation then there is a problem.
    - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
      Exactly. If I produce a work, and then you produce an identical-enough work, you're infringing my copyright. I don't care how you did it, it makes absolutely no difference to me.
threeseed 4y ago
I have no idea what your point is here. These AI companies are making serious amounts of money (OpenAI is valued in tens of billions) on the back of artists who never gave permission for their work to be used in this way. If a child took an artist's work, copied it and made significant amounts of money from selling it then yes they should be within the purview of copyright law.
- bruce343434 4y ago
  AI doesn't copy one to one. It mixes, like humans.
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    And sometimes it mixes just from one. See github copilot.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Anthropomorphism isn't an argument.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      I wouldn't bet for or against that without legal advice, and even then it might vary by jurisdiction. Legal fictions are a thing, but I'm no lawyer, and I know better than to assume my interpretation of any legal issue is any better than a Hollywood script writer's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
- chii 4y ago
  > who never gave permission for their work to be used in this way. the copyright aren't all encompassing. There's only an enumerated set of rights granted, and "this way" (aka, training an AI model) is not one of those restricted activities (like distribution or broadcast). Unless the model can be argued to be a derivative work of the training data set (which i don't believe it is, since the process of training is sufficiently transformative imho), the original copyright holders of the training data do not need to be asked permission.
bamboozled 4y ago
There is absolutely no comparison here, because children don't charge you to look at their artwork, if you ask nicely, they will probably give it to you for free. Companies using other peoples work without permission to train AI, will charge. Your suggestion would be accurate if we lived in a world where we all shared, and there was no money, and copyright didn't exist, but we don't.
- adrianN 4y ago
  It is my understanding that it makes no legal difference (at least in my country) whether I charge for my work or not when it infringes somebody's copyright. Simply sharing it is sufficient to get into trouble.
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    I don't know from which weird country you're from, but in mine profiting from it changes things a lot.
    - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
      It sounds like your country is the weird one. Try burning the complete works of Disney onto stacks of DVDs, then go down to your high street and hand them out. See how long you get away with that for.
      - b112 4y ago
        I think the big difference is distribution vs consumption. Where I live, there are additional clauses in law, for mass reproduction and selling. But republishing any work as your own, probably falls into that category. And it isn't about profit, but commercial use; thus pasting onto a blog to improve your business (rankings, hit count) is a business use case.
      - LtWorf 4y ago
        Unless I do like millions of them, literally nothing would happen.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
The most original authors are those who never learned how to read.

As an extension of this, only allow children to look at works they purchased publication rights to, lest their creative output becomes influenced by a different person's style.

firstbabylonian 4y ago

AI is not human children.

adrianN 4y ago
I can instruct an AI to draw Mickey Mouse and infringe copyright and I can instruct a child to draw Mickey Mouse and infringe copyright.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mattwad 4y ago
  The problem is there's no way a user will know whose copyright they are infringing when they ask AI to "paint a landscape." Maybe the AI needs to be able to print out a list of sources to provide attribution. That would be interesting.
  - est31 4y ago
    Artists get inspired by others all the time, and if the results are far enough from each other, then nobody has a problem with that. In fact, pre copyright, the similarities used to be even larger. Art lives from the concept of taking ideas, and improving on them.
  - chii 4y ago
    > they ask AI to "paint a landscape." that's the responsibility of the user said AI to check.
- threeseed 4y ago
  And when you try and sell that work without attribution or compensation then there is a problem.
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    Exactly. If I produce a work, and then you produce an identical-enough work, you're infringing my copyright. I don't care how you did it, it makes absolutely no difference to me.

threeseed 4y ago

I have no idea what your point is here. These AI companies are making serious amounts of money (OpenAI is valued in tens of billions) on the back of artists who never gave permission for their work to be used in this way. If a child took an artist's work, copied it and made significant amounts of money from selling it then yes they should be within the purview of copyright law.

bruce343434 4y ago
AI doesn't copy one to one. It mixes, like humans.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  And sometimes it mixes just from one. See github copilot.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Anthropomorphism isn't an argument.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I wouldn't bet for or against that without legal advice, and even then it might vary by jurisdiction. Legal fictions are a thing, but I'm no lawyer, and I know better than to assume my interpretation of any legal issue is any better than a Hollywood script writer's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
chii 4y ago
> who never gave permission for their work to be used in this way. the copyright aren't all encompassing. There's only an enumerated set of rights granted, and "this way" (aka, training an AI model) is not one of those restricted activities (like distribution or broadcast). Unless the model can be argued to be a derivative work of the training data set (which i don't believe it is, since the process of training is sufficiently transformative imho), the original copyright holders of the training data do not need to be asked permission.

bamboozled 4y ago

There is absolutely no comparison here, because children don't charge you to look at their artwork, if you ask nicely, they will probably give it to you for free. Companies using other peoples work without permission to train AI, will charge. Your suggestion would be accurate if we lived in a world where we all shared, and there was no money, and copyright didn't exist, but we don't.

adrianN 4y ago
It is my understanding that it makes no legal difference (at least in my country) whether I charge for my work or not when it infringes somebody's copyright. Simply sharing it is sufficient to get into trouble.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  I don't know from which weird country you're from, but in mine profiting from it changes things a lot.
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    It sounds like your country is the weird one. Try burning the complete works of Disney onto stacks of DVDs, then go down to your high street and hand them out. See how long you get away with that for.
    - b112 4y ago
      I think the big difference is distribution vs consumption. Where I live, there are additional clauses in law, for mass reproduction and selling. But republishing any work as your own, probably falls into that category. And it isn't about profit, but commercial use; thus pasting onto a blog to improve your business (rankings, hit count) is a business use case.
    - LtWorf 4y ago
      Unless I do like millions of them, literally nothing would happen.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

The most original authors are those who never learned how to read.