3 ms·

Then the law can/should be fixed.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
It may need a bit of clarification nod. <Training> by any definition you care to give it does not rise to the level of copyright violation (In the case of training eg stable diffusion, on average only a couple of bits worth of "notes" are stored per image. If that's a copyright violation then pretty much anything would be). The main issue -believe it or not- is actually the part where images get temporarily downloaded. As stated: explicitly legal in the EU. May need some work in the US.
- anileated 3y ago
  > <Training> by any definition you care to give it does not rise to the level of copyright violation (In the case of training eg stable diffusion, on average only a couple of bits worth of "notes" are stored per image. If that's a copyright violation then pretty much anything would be). You are talking about two different words, again. Human learning is not a copyright violation. Machine learning is. Machine is not human. > The main issue -believe it or not- is actually the part where images get temporarily downloaded. No, the main issue is using a tool to sell derivative works automatically generated from copyrighted original works. If images/text is not stored it wouldn’t change a thing.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    If it is not about the transient copies, then what other step in the machine learning process could possibly rise to the level of a copyright violation? What is your reasoning? Do you have a source? If images/text being stored or not is not part of the argument, then what IS the argument that AI works are derivative? Is it only certain works? All works? Is it automatic? Does it require human intent? How do you get from A to B here?
    - anileated 3y ago
      A work created this way is derivative. If it was through human mind then could be called plagiarism or tribute, but through an automatic tool ran for profit it’s a clear violation if the work was not licensed to allow derivative works. And of course there is human intent, what are you even talking about? This is law. Law is sort of centered around human actions and intent plays a big role. In this case, operators fully intended to scrape copyrighted works, feed it to this tool and operate it for profit (because money smells good).
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        You did not answer my question. Define "derivative". Then explain why an arbitrary generated image would be a derivative according to your definition. This is not an adversarial question in and of itself. I'm just asking you to define your terms first.

It may need a bit of clarification nod. <Training> by any definition you care to give it does not rise to the level of copyright violation (In the case of training eg stable diffusion, on average only a couple of bits worth of "notes" are stored per image. If that's a copyright violation then pretty much anything would be). The main issue -believe it or not- is actually the part where images get temporarily downloaded. As stated: explicitly legal in the EU. May need some work in the US.

anileated 3y ago
> <Training> by any definition you care to give it does not rise to the level of copyright violation (In the case of training eg stable diffusion, on average only a couple of bits worth of "notes" are stored per image. If that's a copyright violation then pretty much anything would be). You are talking about two different words, again. Human learning is not a copyright violation. Machine learning is. Machine is not human. > The main issue -believe it or not- is actually the part where images get temporarily downloaded. No, the main issue is using a tool to sell derivative works automatically generated from copyrighted original works. If images/text is not stored it wouldn’t change a thing.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  If it is not about the transient copies, then what other step in the machine learning process could possibly rise to the level of a copyright violation? What is your reasoning? Do you have a source? If images/text being stored or not is not part of the argument, then what IS the argument that AI works are derivative? Is it only certain works? All works? Is it automatic? Does it require human intent? How do you get from A to B here?
  - anileated 3y ago
    A work created this way is derivative. If it was through human mind then could be called plagiarism or tribute, but through an automatic tool ran for profit it’s a clear violation if the work was not licensed to allow derivative works. And of course there is human intent, what are you even talking about? This is law. Law is sort of centered around human actions and intent plays a big role. In this case, operators fully intended to scrape copyrighted works, feed it to this tool and operate it for profit (because money smells good).
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      You did not answer my question. Define "derivative". Then explain why an arbitrary generated image would be a derivative according to your definition. This is not an adversarial question in and of itself. I'm just asking you to define your terms first.