3 ms·

> complained that they were violating their copyright. LAION was not. Actually, thats not clear cut. Copyright isn't a binary thing, its a license with a bunch

> complained that they were violating their copyright. LAION was not. Actually, thats not clear cut. Copyright isn't a binary thing, its a license with a bunch of terms that could be anything. Just because its on the internet, it doesn't mean you can do what you want with it. the chances of you getting caught and told off are very slim, but it doesn't mean its right or indeed legal. > it's what should be an acceptable response to having to deal with bullshit legal threats from ignorant people. again, its not bullshit. The person created those pictures, and has the right to distribute them as they see fit. Now, if you want to allow people to use your pictures in anyway, then you can. There is nothing stopping you. However its down to the individual to choose.

srslack 4y ago
>Actually, thats not clear cut. It is almost perfectly clear cut. LAION is linking to the images, not redistributing them or storing them. A link. In a text file. To photos. Served from a web server. Presumably, the artist's web server or portfolio site hosted by a company they do business with. >The person created those pictures, and has the right to distribute them as they see fit. Yeah, they do have the right to distribute them as they see fit. So, if they don't want them linked to, they can put them behind a paywall. It's a bullshit legal threat. The artist has a complete knuckle dragging understanding of copyright and the web.
- sharemywin 4y ago
  or move the image to another location so the link doesn't work anymore.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  > So, if they don't want them linked to Again its not clear cut. the license could be something like: "you are able to view these images as part of this website, anything else is prohibited" or "direct linking to these images is not allowed, these images are licensed only fir use as part of this website" or something along those lines. Now, enforcing that is pretty hard. I'm also willing to bet that he didn't make any such license. But to say its a clear cut legal slam dunk isn't correct.
brookst 4y ago
You own the copyright to your comment here (congrats!) That does not prevent me from including a URI to the comment in a list, along with metadata like "comments that misunderstand copyright law". The photographer posted photos on a website with the express intent of distributing them there. Neither he, nor you, nor I can retroactively decide we don't like the way someone linked to our publicly-posted content. He literally sued someone for including a URI in list. That deserves the smack own he got.
- rrobukef 4y ago
  Google lost a lawsuit for including a (defamatory) URI in a list: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 Yes, copyright is different, however you can lose trials for "promoting copyright infringement", e.g. The Pirate Bay, Gary Bowser. There's a decent shot at arguing the LAION list promotes copyright infringement ((after AI got smacked down a bit more)).
  - srslack 4y ago
    You're assuming that using images or text to train AI is copyright infringement. The difference is also that The Pirate Bay was assisting copyright infringement of non-publicly available works. You have to purchase games, movies, software, and Pirate Bay gave you a directory of other people to commit copyright infringement with. They were assisting. Gary Bowser literally resold complete copies of copyrighted works.
  - brookst 4y ago
    For either your Google or TPB references to make any sense, you have to be asserting that the photographer was engaged in illegal (defamatory or copyright-violating) behavior by posting on his own website, and that as the party breaking the law as well as the party being wronged, he has a claim against the list that included his own posting of his own content. It's very... odd. I can't imagine that anyone serious would argue a set of URIs for legally-published content could be legal until hit hits some critical mass (or, worse, until the wrong person downloads it) and then it becomes illegal. It's nonsensical. If you don't want your content indexed and listed, don't publish it. If you want it seen by people by mostly ignored by well-behaved crawlers, use noindex. It is insane to just publish world-readable stuff, expect to profit from Google/etc indexing it, but being claiming harm and liability for its inclusion in a list.

srslack 4y ago

>Actually, thats not clear cut. It is almost perfectly clear cut. LAION is linking to the images, not redistributing them or storing them. A link. In a text file. To photos. Served from a web server. Presumably, the artist's web server or portfolio site hosted by a company they do business with. >The person created those pictures, and has the right to distribute them as they see fit. Yeah, they do have the right to distribute them as they see fit. So, if they don't want them linked to, they can put them behind a paywall. It's a bullshit legal threat. The artist has a complete knuckle dragging understanding of copyright and the web.

sharemywin 4y ago
or move the image to another location so the link doesn't work anymore.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
KaiserPro 4y ago
> So, if they don't want them linked to Again its not clear cut. the license could be something like: "you are able to view these images as part of this website, anything else is prohibited" or "direct linking to these images is not allowed, these images are licensed only fir use as part of this website" or something along those lines. Now, enforcing that is pretty hard. I'm also willing to bet that he didn't make any such license. But to say its a clear cut legal slam dunk isn't correct.

brookst 4y ago

You own the copyright to your comment here (congrats!) That does not prevent me from including a URI to the comment in a list, along with metadata like "comments that misunderstand copyright law". The photographer posted photos on a website with the express intent of distributing them there. Neither he, nor you, nor I can retroactively decide we don't like the way someone linked to our publicly-posted content. He literally sued someone for including a URI in list. That deserves the smack own he got.

rrobukef 4y ago
Google lost a lawsuit for including a (defamatory) URI in a list: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 Yes, copyright is different, however you can lose trials for "promoting copyright infringement", e.g. The Pirate Bay, Gary Bowser. There's a decent shot at arguing the LAION list promotes copyright infringement ((after AI got smacked down a bit more)).
- srslack 4y ago
  You're assuming that using images or text to train AI is copyright infringement. The difference is also that The Pirate Bay was assisting copyright infringement of non-publicly available works. You have to purchase games, movies, software, and Pirate Bay gave you a directory of other people to commit copyright infringement with. They were assisting. Gary Bowser literally resold complete copies of copyrighted works.
- brookst 4y ago
  For either your Google or TPB references to make any sense, you have to be asserting that the photographer was engaged in illegal (defamatory or copyright-violating) behavior by posting on his own website, and that as the party breaking the law as well as the party being wronged, he has a claim against the list that included his own posting of his own content. It's very... odd. I can't imagine that anyone serious would argue a set of URIs for legally-published content could be legal until hit hits some critical mass (or, worse, until the wrong person downloads it) and then it becomes illegal. It's nonsensical. If you don't want your content indexed and listed, don't publish it. If you want it seen by people by mostly ignored by well-behaved crawlers, use noindex. It is insane to just publish world-readable stuff, expect to profit from Google/etc indexing it, but being claiming harm and liability for its inclusion in a list.