4 ms·

And I am sure that you use your computer for work, to make money, and yet you based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like [The computer buy

by stale2002 4y ago

And I am sure that you use your computer for work, to make money, and yet you based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like [The computer buyer/you] doesn’t have to pay a cent to the [computer creator] for all the money you make using that computer. Does that sound fair to you? See how stupid that sounds?

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
It sounds stupid because it's a completely different thing. A tool maker does not have a claim on the work made with a tool, except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement. Creative copyright explicitly does give creators a claim on derivative work made using their creative output. That includes patents. If you use a computer protected by patents to create new items which specifically ignore those patents, see how far that gets you. I expect you find this inconvenient, but it's how it works.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Creative copyright explicitly does give creators a claim on derivative work made using their creative output. No actually, not for this situation. They don't if they sold the right to do that, which they did. > except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement Oh ok. So then, if in situation 1, and situation 2, there is the same exact prior agreement on the specific topic of if you are allowed to make derivative works, then the situations are exactly same. Which is the situation. So yes, the situations are the same, because of the same prior agreement. Thats why the situation is stupid. The creator sold the rights to make derivative works away. Just like if someone sold you a computer. And then people used the computer, and also used the sold rights to make derivatives works for the art, because both the computer and the right to make derivative works were equally sold. > which specifically ignore those patents Ok now imagine someone sells the rights to use the patent in any way that they want, and then you come along and say "Well, can you considered that if the person didn't sell the patent, that this would be illegal?" That wouldn't make any sense to say that.
- unreal37 4y ago
  I don't know if there is a concept in copyright that prevents someone from viewing your work. Like, if you created a lovely piece of art, hung it on the outside of your house, and I was walking on the sidewalk and viewed it. I would not owe you money and you would have no claim of copyright against me. Copyright covers copying. Not viewing. So an AI views your art, classifies it, does whatever magic it does to turn your art into a matrix of numbers. The model doesn't contain a copy of your art. Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can't see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can’t see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy. Memory involves making a copy, and copies anywhere except in the human brain are within the scope of copyright (but may fall into exceptions like Fair Use.)
    - darreninthenet 4y ago
      And this is where it becomes tricky as holding a copy in memory so software can "use" it being against copyright also prevents it being displayed on Adobe's website, or Adobe shrinking it to fit on advertising collage for Adobe Stock images etc, all of which the artist would say is fine as otherwise their work cannot be advertised for them to make money through Adobe's service. Supposing the AI said "here's the picture you asked for, btw it's influenced most by these four artists and here's links to their works on Adobe Stock"... is that better (or worse)?

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

It sounds stupid because it's a completely different thing. A tool maker does not have a claim on the work made with a tool, except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement. Creative copyright explicitly does give creators a claim on derivative work made using their creative output. That includes patents. If you use a computer protected by patents to create new items which specifically ignore those patents, see how far that gets you. I expect you find this inconvenient, but it's how it works.

stale2002 4y ago
> Creative copyright explicitly does give creators a claim on derivative work made using their creative output. No actually, not for this situation. They don't if they sold the right to do that, which they did. > except by (exceptionally rare) prior agreement Oh ok. So then, if in situation 1, and situation 2, there is the same exact prior agreement on the specific topic of if you are allowed to make derivative works, then the situations are exactly same. Which is the situation. So yes, the situations are the same, because of the same prior agreement. Thats why the situation is stupid. The creator sold the rights to make derivative works away. Just like if someone sold you a computer. And then people used the computer, and also used the sold rights to make derivatives works for the art, because both the computer and the right to make derivative works were equally sold. > which specifically ignore those patents Ok now imagine someone sells the rights to use the patent in any way that they want, and then you come along and say "Well, can you considered that if the person didn't sell the patent, that this would be illegal?" That wouldn't make any sense to say that.
unreal37 4y ago
I don't know if there is a concept in copyright that prevents someone from viewing your work. Like, if you created a lovely piece of art, hung it on the outside of your house, and I was walking on the sidewalk and viewed it. I would not owe you money and you would have no claim of copyright against me. Copyright covers copying. Not viewing. So an AI views your art, classifies it, does whatever magic it does to turn your art into a matrix of numbers. The model doesn't contain a copy of your art. Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can't see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Of course, a court needs to decide this. But I can’t see how allowing an AI model to view a picture constitutes making an illegal copy. Memory involves making a copy, and copies anywhere except in the human brain are within the scope of copyright (but may fall into exceptions like Fair Use.)
  - darreninthenet 4y ago
    And this is where it becomes tricky as holding a copy in memory so software can "use" it being against copyright also prevents it being displayed on Adobe's website, or Adobe shrinking it to fit on advertising collage for Adobe Stock images etc, all of which the artist would say is fine as otherwise their work cannot be advertised for them to make money through Adobe's service. Supposing the AI said "here's the picture you asked for, btw it's influenced most by these four artists and here's links to their works on Adobe Stock"... is that better (or worse)?