3 ms·

>Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and

>Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. When you buy a book, you’re not paying a licensing fee. You’re exchanging for goods. You’re granted very few rights to own a copy of the work. But they’re almost all to do with distribution. None of those rights is the right to read it. >You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. By this interpretation, all the artists upset by stable diffusion have given tacit permission for their works to be used as they are published in the public. Even though those works are posted to websites, the artist has not granted any rights to the viewer of the work. > only natural humans have that ability according to the law The law is not explicit about this, and we have case law that describes non-human entities as having rights associated historically with personhood. This is definitely not clear, nor is it obvious.

clnq 4y ago
When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It's not just assumed, it's celebrated when a work of art gathers fans who produce their own, inspired content. Not sure why it needs to be over-complicated or different for silicone neural nets. But I think it will get very over-complicated, if not politicised, in the following years.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Trademark and copyright already restrict what humans can do with others work. If too similar then it could prompt legal action.
  - clnq 4y ago
    The same could be applied to AI-generated work.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  > When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It is implied that if you are using the work by youself, or via a tool you made youself, it's fine. However works that you redistribute, by copying it yourself or indirectly by tools, said silicone neural nets being one example, instead require a "wide redistribution license agreement", and those are implicitly limited by default unless the work is put in a sorta public domain license.
giaour 4y ago
> When you buy a book, you’re not paying a licensing fee. You’re exchanging for goods. You’re granted very few rights to own a copy of the work. But they’re almost all to do with distribution. None of those rights is the right to read it. You are absolutely buying a license to read the material when you purchase a book. That's why books cost more than the paper they're printed on and why pirated books are illegal. The "distribution" rights you refer to stem from the "first sale" doctrine[0], which acknowledges that the first sale (e.g., you buying a new copy of a book) of a physical object embodying a copyrighted work grants limited distribution rights. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

clnq 4y ago

When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It's not just assumed, it's celebrated when a work of art gathers fans who produce their own, inspired content. Not sure why it needs to be over-complicated or different for silicone neural nets. But I think it will get very over-complicated, if not politicised, in the following years.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Trademark and copyright already restrict what humans can do with others work. If too similar then it could prompt legal action.
- clnq 4y ago
  The same could be applied to AI-generated work.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It is implied that if you are using the work by youself, or via a tool you made youself, it's fine. However works that you redistribute, by copying it yourself or indirectly by tools, said silicone neural nets being one example, instead require a "wide redistribution license agreement", and those are implicitly limited by default unless the work is put in a sorta public domain license.

giaour 4y ago

> When you buy a book, you’re not paying a licensing fee. You’re exchanging for goods. You’re granted very few rights to own a copy of the work. But they’re almost all to do with distribution. None of those rights is the right to read it. You are absolutely buying a license to read the material when you purchase a book. That's why books cost more than the paper they're printed on and why pirated books are illegal. The "distribution" rights you refer to stem from the "first sale" doctrine[0], which acknowledges that the first sale (e.g., you buying a new copy of a book) of a physical object embodying a copyrighted work grants limited distribution rights. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine