3 ms·
If an AI can’t legally be the author of a patent, can an AI legally be the author of a work - and by extension can it violate copyright? If a machine can copy
by mr_toad 4y ago
If an AI can’t legally be the author of a patent, can an AI legally be the author of a work - and by extension can it violate copyright?
If a machine can copy images, is the machine, the manufacturer or the user liable?
It seems to me that courts have leaned in favour of the argument that AI is just a tool, and the person using the tool (rather than the manufacturer) is liable.
- blamazon 4y agoFor what it's worth, the argument made by another notable stable diffusion lawsuit [1] is that diffusion is basically a form of compression no different than an MP3 or a JPEG. They've clearly put a lot of effort into materials to explain how diffusion works, in order to attempt to convince a courtroom of that. I think they've got a decent shot at it, personally, but who knows. I can see it, but it is hard for me to look at the insane stuff these things generate and try to think "that's just a compression of existing works and not something new." These will certainly be interesting precedents either way. [1]: https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/ https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/
- klyrs 4y agoIt's not just a compression of existing works. But when it can retrieve near-verbatim copies of existing works with a textual description of them? It is a compression of existing works and that's the problem.
- mr_toad 4y ago> diffusion is basically a form of compression no different than an MP3 or a JPEG Well that’s going to be contested. AI are similar to compression algorithms, not compressed data. Compressed data would record the difference between the AI prediction and the data you’re trying to compress. You need both to reproduce the original image.