4 ms·

If the image is available publicly, without restriction, then what license is needed? If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image, then p

If the image is available publicly, without restriction, then what license is needed? If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image, then put a password in front of it. Or add no-index to robots.txt. This is like driving around with a sign on your car and complaining that people are looking at it and imagining the image in ways you don’t like. If you don’t want people to see the image, don’t put it on a sign and drive around.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
viraptor 4y ago
That's not how copyright works though. Whether you post an image publicly or not, it's covered by the standard copyright protection in most countries. It's not "without restriction" unless the author explicitly grants you such license. There's a bit of nuance in this case, but in general, yes, you need a licence.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  That is how copyright works. If you put something in public, people are allowed to look at it. And learn from it. They just can’t distribute copies of it.
  - polotics 4y ago
    People are allowed to learn from it, but as far as law exists now, AI's are not explicitly allowed to learn from it are they? As I understand it, a copyright has to be explicitly granted.
    - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
      reference?
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      Laws don’t grant rights. They take them away. You generally are allowed to do something if it doesn’t violate a law. “Copyright” is not the right to copy, but rather a protection against other people copying and distributing your work. There is no law that says you cannot train AI models on copyrighted data.
      - polotics 4y ago
        You don't train a model with data, as the verb "train" is used to describe something that humans and animals do (as per dictionary definition of the word). The other thing that you can do with data is copy or destroy it. Therefore, there is a law that says you cannot "train" (really, copy) data that is under copyright.
        fauxpause_ 4y ago
        Train is an accurate word. Copy is not. Training is literally adjusting weights of network such that data that flows through it can look more like the original. But it doesn’t preserve the original. Also, It is legal to make copies of copyrighted materials so long as you don’t distribute them.
        polotics 4y ago
        Train is not accurate because this word applies to learning performed by humans or animals. An AI is neither. Taking data and putting it into any form of storage, ie weights in a model, is called copying. Producing an output out of the gathered data is then a step in distribution. Copyright laws ensure authors get protection against unwanted copy and distribution. Also you do not have to preserve the original for copyright to apply: any extract is only allowed under well defined fair use rules. A GAN's purpose is definitely not parody, commentary, ...
        fauxpause_ 4y ago
        > Train is not accurate because this word applies to learning performed by humans or animals. An AI is neither. That is not a definition that people use, nor the legal system > Taking data and putting it into any form of storage, ie weights in a model, is called copying. Producing an output out of the gathered data is then a step in distribution. It isn’t though. If I train on Batman and I produce Spider-Man, the Batman copyright holder cannot sue me. It would be dumb to suggest otherwise.
- prepend 4y ago
  I can’t make copies or distribute or sell publicly available copyrighted works. But I can definite look at them and study them and make notes and sketch them, etc. That’s definitely how copyright works. I don’t think training on these has been tested, but I expect it will be allowed, otherwise how can a web browser receive, cache, and render a copyrighted photo? I think the closest is there were some lawsuits about google caching websites that contain copyrighted material. I assume they worked out in Google’s favor as google (and others) cache web sites even though they contain copyrighted material. The exception I remember is there are some specific rulings and laws governing how news is treated.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    That's not the point I was disagreeing with. What you're actually allowed to do in terms of training is likely going to be soon refined by courts. I was just raising the point that posting those images online or not, with protection or without, doesn't change what you can legally do with them. "If the image is available publicly, without restriction" — is irrelevant.
pessimizer 4y ago
> If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image Why quickly skip past the most unjustifiable part? Because you're about to use a human metaphor (like "see") for an algorithm. My algorithm is "copy." So instead of driving, it's like selling a book with a sign on the book that says "copyright 2017, all rights reserved" and saying that people can't copy it. If you don't want people to copy it, don't write and distribute the book. I actually believe this, but I don't know how somebody believes in one algo and not the other and remains consistent.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  The algorithm used to train models like SD (that use the LAION dataset), do not actually make a copy though, in any reasonable sense of the word. [1] LAION doesn't do the SD training themselves though. This just provide links with annotations. [1] Exception: The Ephemeral copy that is made when actually downloading the image. This is permitted by EU law. AFAIK after the image has been analyzed for certain properties like "red" or "traffic light" or "bus" or "vertical line" .. .etc... it is then discarded.
  - polotics 4y ago
    An ephemeral copy is a copy! no matter how ephemeral, if you lift the pixels from system A to system B, you are copying.
    - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
      In the USA there was a circuit split on this in 2020 at least [1]. In the European union this form of copying is explicitly excepted in general under Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(1) see [2]. Specifically in Germany (where LAION is established) it is permitted under Section 44a of the UrhG [3] . One could also argue based on Section 44b of same. [1] https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53-5_Gillotte.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53... with thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:en:HTML https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX... [3] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

viraptor 4y ago

That's not how copyright works though. Whether you post an image publicly or not, it's covered by the standard copyright protection in most countries. It's not "without restriction" unless the author explicitly grants you such license. There's a bit of nuance in this case, but in general, yes, you need a licence.

fauxpause_ 4y ago
That is how copyright works. If you put something in public, people are allowed to look at it. And learn from it. They just can’t distribute copies of it.
- polotics 4y ago
  People are allowed to learn from it, but as far as law exists now, AI's are not explicitly allowed to learn from it are they? As I understand it, a copyright has to be explicitly granted.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    reference?
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    Laws don’t grant rights. They take them away. You generally are allowed to do something if it doesn’t violate a law. “Copyright” is not the right to copy, but rather a protection against other people copying and distributing your work. There is no law that says you cannot train AI models on copyrighted data.
    - polotics 4y ago
      You don't train a model with data, as the verb "train" is used to describe something that humans and animals do (as per dictionary definition of the word). The other thing that you can do with data is copy or destroy it. Therefore, there is a law that says you cannot "train" (really, copy) data that is under copyright.
      - fauxpause_ 4y ago
        Train is an accurate word. Copy is not. Training is literally adjusting weights of network such that data that flows through it can look more like the original. But it doesn’t preserve the original. Also, It is legal to make copies of copyrighted materials so long as you don’t distribute them.
        polotics 4y ago
        Train is not accurate because this word applies to learning performed by humans or animals. An AI is neither. Taking data and putting it into any form of storage, ie weights in a model, is called copying. Producing an output out of the gathered data is then a step in distribution. Copyright laws ensure authors get protection against unwanted copy and distribution. Also you do not have to preserve the original for copyright to apply: any extract is only allowed under well defined fair use rules. A GAN's purpose is definitely not parody, commentary, ...
        fauxpause_ 4y ago
        > Train is not accurate because this word applies to learning performed by humans or animals. An AI is neither. That is not a definition that people use, nor the legal system > Taking data and putting it into any form of storage, ie weights in a model, is called copying. Producing an output out of the gathered data is then a step in distribution. It isn’t though. If I train on Batman and I produce Spider-Man, the Batman copyright holder cannot sue me. It would be dumb to suggest otherwise.
prepend 4y ago
I can’t make copies or distribute or sell publicly available copyrighted works. But I can definite look at them and study them and make notes and sketch them, etc. That’s definitely how copyright works. I don’t think training on these has been tested, but I expect it will be allowed, otherwise how can a web browser receive, cache, and render a copyrighted photo? I think the closest is there were some lawsuits about google caching websites that contain copyrighted material. I assume they worked out in Google’s favor as google (and others) cache web sites even though they contain copyrighted material. The exception I remember is there are some specific rulings and laws governing how news is treated.
- viraptor 4y ago
  That's not the point I was disagreeing with. What you're actually allowed to do in terms of training is likely going to be soon refined by courts. I was just raising the point that posting those images online or not, with protection or without, doesn't change what you can legally do with them. "If the image is available publicly, without restriction" — is irrelevant.

pessimizer 4y ago

> If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image Why quickly skip past the most unjustifiable part? Because you're about to use a human metaphor (like "see") for an algorithm. My algorithm is "copy." So instead of driving, it's like selling a book with a sign on the book that says "copyright 2017, all rights reserved" and saying that people can't copy it. If you don't want people to copy it, don't write and distribute the book. I actually believe this, but I don't know how somebody believes in one algo and not the other and remains consistent.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
The algorithm used to train models like SD (that use the LAION dataset), do not actually make a copy though, in any reasonable sense of the word. [1] LAION doesn't do the SD training themselves though. This just provide links with annotations. [1] Exception: The Ephemeral copy that is made when actually downloading the image. This is permitted by EU law. AFAIK after the image has been analyzed for certain properties like "red" or "traffic light" or "bus" or "vertical line" .. .etc... it is then discarded.
- polotics 4y ago
  An ephemeral copy is a copy! no matter how ephemeral, if you lift the pixels from system A to system B, you are copying.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    In the USA there was a circuit split on this in 2020 at least [1]. In the European union this form of copying is explicitly excepted in general under Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(1) see [2]. Specifically in Germany (where LAION is established) it is permitted under Section 44a of the UrhG [3] . One could also argue based on Section 44b of same. [1] https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53-5_Gillotte.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53... with thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:en:HTML https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX... [3] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...