3 ms·

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? I pay the books directly (cash, credit) or indirectly (school books via taxes). I do

by atmosx 4y ago

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? I pay the books directly (cash, credit) or indirectly (school books via taxes). I do pay the louvre to observe the painting. I also pay to listen music in ads (YouTube) or via subscription (YT Music and Spotify).

oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
But the datasets these tools are using are available to view for free. The AI isn't stealing physical books or paintings, it's viewing the same data that you or I can by sending an HTTP request, for free.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Could an AI view you for free in a street or even through a window? Does that imply it can use that view data to create advertising using your modified likeness, for example? Just because you can view something for free doesn't mean you can use it anyway you want.
  - CBarkleyU 4y ago
    > Just because you can view something or free doesn't mean you can use it anyway you want. This whole thread really makes me want to pull my hair out. Difference between illegaly creating a (even temporary) copy of a copyrighted work (e.g. streaming a movie) vs. creating a derivative work of said copyrighted work: Two completely different things, with completely different legal outcomes. If OpenAI in any shape or form creates a temporary copy (<--- by copyright definition of what a copy is!) than this needs to be adressed with the former. If OpenAI creates a work that is considered to be a derivative work (<---- by copyright definition of what a derivative work is!) than that needs to be adressed with the latter. The crux of this whole thing is: Human minds cannot make a copy of a copyrighted work by definition of copyright laws (in Germany, I presume the same can be said for pretty much all western copyright laws), while anything that a computer does can be construed as making a copy.
    - chii 4y ago
      > anything that a computer does can be construed as making a copy. but that's not the point of contention. The training data set has been granted the right to be distributed (by virtue of it being available for viewing already - it's not hidden or secret). The proof is that a human can already view it manually. Let's call this 'public'. The question is, whether using this public training dataset constitutes creating a derivative work. Is the ML model sufficiently transformative, that the ML model is itself a new work and thus does not fall under the copyright of the original dataset?
      - CBarkleyU 4y ago
        >but that's not the point of contention. The training data set has been granted the right to be distributed (by virtue of it being available for viewing already - it's not hidden or secret). The proof is that a human can already view it manually. Let's call this 'public'. This is wrong. My paintings are publicly available (especially going by your definition [which I'm confused by the origin of?]). Taking a photograph of my paintings is still a copyright violation. I hope we can ignore all the legal kerfuffle about personal use, as it has no bearing on our discussion. Again -- all of this boils down back to what I've said before: Bare human consumption does not constitute as making a copy, nearly everything else does. Your second point -- a copyrighted work automatically granting someone else any rights (especially distrubtionial rights) by just being available to be consumed -- is even more wrong. I'm not going to go further into that, as you can very easily prove yourself wrong by googling it. >The question is, whether using this public training dataset constitutes creating a derivative work I'm not well versed in the US copyright laws, but I would assume (strongly so) that this would not be the case. I -- again, for US copyright law -- assume that for something to be considered a derivative work, it needs to include (or be present in other ways) copyrightable (!) parts of the original work(s). In other words, the original work needs to "shine through" the derivative work, in one way or the other. The delta of parameter changes of a ML model would (imo) not constitute such a thing. Problems with derivative works will come into play when considering the things ML models produce.
        taylorius 4y ago
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    I think that's an entirely different scenario. For one, I'm not displaying myself in my front window with the explicit intent of people viewing me. If you replace the AI in your example with a human taking a photograph, I would be equally appalled at the misuse of my image, and I'm very confident I'd have legal recourse to stop it.
  - welshwelsh 4y ago
    Yes, of course. It could even create advertising using my unmodified likeness, and that wouldn't be a problem. A person's appearance in public is public domain, you don't need permission to use it.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      Definitely not simply the case in every jurisdiction.
_Algernon_ 4y ago
Rephrasing of the question: If you put you eyes on a single pirated work in your lifetime, all future potential creations are potentially inspired by that experience. Is every future creation of a human who has put their eyes on a pirated work copyright infringement?

by atmosx 4y ago

oneeyedpigeon 4y ago

But the datasets these tools are using are available to view for free. The AI isn't stealing physical books or paintings, it's viewing the same data that you or I can by sending an HTTP request, for free.

RandomLensman 4y ago
Could an AI view you for free in a street or even through a window? Does that imply it can use that view data to create advertising using your modified likeness, for example? Just because you can view something for free doesn't mean you can use it anyway you want.
- CBarkleyU 4y ago
  > Just because you can view something or free doesn't mean you can use it anyway you want. This whole thread really makes me want to pull my hair out. Difference between illegaly creating a (even temporary) copy of a copyrighted work (e.g. streaming a movie) vs. creating a derivative work of said copyrighted work: Two completely different things, with completely different legal outcomes. If OpenAI in any shape or form creates a temporary copy (<--- by copyright definition of what a copy is!) than this needs to be adressed with the former. If OpenAI creates a work that is considered to be a derivative work (<---- by copyright definition of what a derivative work is!) than that needs to be adressed with the latter. The crux of this whole thing is: Human minds cannot make a copy of a copyrighted work by definition of copyright laws (in Germany, I presume the same can be said for pretty much all western copyright laws), while anything that a computer does can be construed as making a copy.
  - chii 4y ago
    > anything that a computer does can be construed as making a copy. but that's not the point of contention. The training data set has been granted the right to be distributed (by virtue of it being available for viewing already - it's not hidden or secret). The proof is that a human can already view it manually. Let's call this 'public'. The question is, whether using this public training dataset constitutes creating a derivative work. Is the ML model sufficiently transformative, that the ML model is itself a new work and thus does not fall under the copyright of the original dataset?
    - CBarkleyU 4y ago
      >but that's not the point of contention. The training data set has been granted the right to be distributed (by virtue of it being available for viewing already - it's not hidden or secret). The proof is that a human can already view it manually. Let's call this 'public'. This is wrong. My paintings are publicly available (especially going by your definition [which I'm confused by the origin of?]). Taking a photograph of my paintings is still a copyright violation. I hope we can ignore all the legal kerfuffle about personal use, as it has no bearing on our discussion. Again -- all of this boils down back to what I've said before: Bare human consumption does not constitute as making a copy, nearly everything else does. Your second point -- a copyrighted work automatically granting someone else any rights (especially distrubtionial rights) by just being available to be consumed -- is even more wrong. I'm not going to go further into that, as you can very easily prove yourself wrong by googling it. >The question is, whether using this public training dataset constitutes creating a derivative work I'm not well versed in the US copyright laws, but I would assume (strongly so) that this would not be the case. I -- again, for US copyright law -- assume that for something to be considered a derivative work, it needs to include (or be present in other ways) copyrightable (!) parts of the original work(s). In other words, the original work needs to "shine through" the derivative work, in one way or the other. The delta of parameter changes of a ML model would (imo) not constitute such a thing. Problems with derivative works will come into play when considering the things ML models produce.
      - taylorius 4y ago
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  I think that's an entirely different scenario. For one, I'm not displaying myself in my front window with the explicit intent of people viewing me. If you replace the AI in your example with a human taking a photograph, I would be equally appalled at the misuse of my image, and I'm very confident I'd have legal recourse to stop it.
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  Yes, of course. It could even create advertising using my unmodified likeness, and that wouldn't be a problem. A person's appearance in public is public domain, you don't need permission to use it.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    Definitely not simply the case in every jurisdiction.

_Algernon_ 4y ago

Rephrasing of the question: If you put you eyes on a single pirated work in your lifetime, all future potential creations are potentially inspired by that experience. Is every future creation of a human who has put their eyes on a pirated work copyright infringement?