4 ms·

> it's not a totally different ball game without really providing any explanation of why. Because of I buy a book from a store, you now no longer control that

> it's not a totally different ball game without really providing any explanation of why. Because of I buy a book from a store, you now no longer control that book. I can read it. I can use it for just about any purpose I want to. If you put a image up online free to download, it's much the same situation. I can download and use that image however I see fit. I can't share that book to others. I can't post that image online (in theory, in practice this is very common). Copyright protects distribution, not use, because protecting use would be hideously draconian. To protect use means that the government can enter your home and validate how you use the stuff you've acquired. It says that you not only control your works, but all things even remotely derived from it. Derived works <> preventing machine learning model translation. A derived work is typically something like adding a chapter or translating. This would kill video game genres. This would kill novel genres. This would kill most of the internet and the ability to download images at all. Open this door and the entire system of copyright will turn into an absolute monster. Every large copyright holder will use the precedent and they will argue with validity that they have the right to control your use of their material as well. Adding that the model is violating copyright by responding images is perfectly valid, but this isn't what Getty and others seems to be aiming for. The want the right to charge to use to train, which is a gross extension of copyright that has never existed. The answer here should be three fold. Light a fire under stable diffusion to get their model to never overfit and clone or close to clone images. Ensure people who distribute images that are clones made with the models can be hit with copyright. Protect the ability to train models on publicly available content. Protect people's right to distribute their content while not annihilating AI in the process. People making these arguments don't care about copyright, in almost all cases they care about either making money (getty) or annihilating AI (artists)

BeefWellington 4y ago
> Copyright protects distribution, not use, because protecting use would be hideously draconian. To protect use means that the government can enter your home and validate how you use the stuff you've acquired. It says that you not only control your works, but all things even remotely derived from it. The implication here is that training ML models on your source material and then having it regurgitate that source material verbatim is not distribution. > Derived works <> preventing machine learning model translation. A derived work is typically something like adding a chapter or translating. The output of the model can be a derived work though. > This would kill video game genres. > This would kill novel genres. > This would kill most of the internet and the ability to download images at all. How? This is hyperbole. You're arguing that the ML model doesn't do "distribution" and are attacking "use" when that's not the real point. > Open this door and the entire system of copyright will turn into an absolute monster. Every large copyright holder will use the precedent and they will argue with validity that they have the right to control your use of their material as well. The DMCA already exists. I agree it's bad but we're taking law here not morality. > Ensure people who distribute images that are clones made with the models can be hit with copyright. How do you in good faith argue that ChatGPT for example is not doing the distribution? OpenAI are responsible for generating and showing you the output based on some instructions they have provided.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Really most of your post here is answered by the later fifth or so of the post you're responding to. I would reread that part. Models output very similar work to training data at times, even identical in some cases, but the vast majority of it is different enough to not be derived work. The DCMA act effects public uses of art like YouTube. This sort of copyright where you can regulate how it's used does not exist in any form currently.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    US copyright law gives authors control to prevent others from utilizing their works outside of the contexts that are considered fair use. Your characterization is facially incorrect.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      Such as? Every example to date I've seen regards the copying or distribution of a product, not its use once it's in someone's hands.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        Those are things that require it being in someone's hands, so I'm really by your post.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Because we are talking about uses not involving copy or distribution of a work. The use of the images to train an AI - such uses have never been protected.
        freejazz 4y ago
        Not the extent it involves copying or distributing, which it arguably does both of .
freejazz 4y ago
>I can use it for just about any purpose I want to. You can't make copies and sell them. You can't copy it into your own work. You can't create derivative works, etc. You can't use it in a movie. You can't use it to write lyrics. I could go on.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  All of these involve the reproduction of the thing. Training an AI model isn't responding the art. I can also*do* all of those things, I just can't sell it. That's what copyright is. Copy right. Not "use for training an AI model" right. It's not similar to using it in a movie or a "derivative work" either. Those almost always actually contain the work. The only valid argument here are times than an AI model does reproduce the original, otherwise copyright has no domain of the use of images for training, unless you illegally downloaded the images, which you didn't if you used LAION, since it's all just public image links.

BeefWellington 4y ago

> Copyright protects distribution, not use, because protecting use would be hideously draconian. To protect use means that the government can enter your home and validate how you use the stuff you've acquired. It says that you not only control your works, but all things even remotely derived from it. The implication here is that training ML models on your source material and then having it regurgitate that source material verbatim is not distribution. > Derived works <> preventing machine learning model translation. A derived work is typically something like adding a chapter or translating. The output of the model can be a derived work though. > This would kill video game genres. > This would kill novel genres. > This would kill most of the internet and the ability to download images at all. How? This is hyperbole. You're arguing that the ML model doesn't do "distribution" and are attacking "use" when that's not the real point. > Open this door and the entire system of copyright will turn into an absolute monster. Every large copyright holder will use the precedent and they will argue with validity that they have the right to control your use of their material as well. The DMCA already exists. I agree it's bad but we're taking law here not morality. > Ensure people who distribute images that are clones made with the models can be hit with copyright. How do you in good faith argue that ChatGPT for example is not doing the distribution? OpenAI are responsible for generating and showing you the output based on some instructions they have provided.

bioemerl 4y ago
Really most of your post here is answered by the later fifth or so of the post you're responding to. I would reread that part. Models output very similar work to training data at times, even identical in some cases, but the vast majority of it is different enough to not be derived work. The DCMA act effects public uses of art like YouTube. This sort of copyright where you can regulate how it's used does not exist in any form currently.
- freejazz 4y ago
  US copyright law gives authors control to prevent others from utilizing their works outside of the contexts that are considered fair use. Your characterization is facially incorrect.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Such as? Every example to date I've seen regards the copying or distribution of a product, not its use once it's in someone's hands.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Those are things that require it being in someone's hands, so I'm really by your post.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        Because we are talking about uses not involving copy or distribution of a work. The use of the images to train an AI - such uses have never been protected.
        freejazz 4y ago
        Not the extent it involves copying or distributing, which it arguably does both of .

freejazz 4y ago

>I can use it for just about any purpose I want to. You can't make copies and sell them. You can't copy it into your own work. You can't create derivative works, etc. You can't use it in a movie. You can't use it to write lyrics. I could go on.

bioemerl 4y ago
All of these involve the reproduction of the thing. Training an AI model isn't responding the art. I can also*do* all of those things, I just can't sell it. That's what copyright is. Copy right. Not "use for training an AI model" right. It's not similar to using it in a movie or a "derivative work" either. Those almost always actually contain the work. The only valid argument here are times than an AI model does reproduce the original, otherwise copyright has no domain of the use of images for training, unless you illegally downloaded the images, which you didn't if you used LAION, since it's all just public image links.