6 ms·

Is this because of the accuracy of the results, or is it the rights to the content that is the problem? Barring any AI court case setting a precedent, We're st

by Lerc 3y ago

Is this because of the accuracy of the results, or is it the rights to the content that is the problem? Barring any AI court case setting a precedent, We're still at 'AI generated works are public domain' aren't we? There's probably going to be some big money arguing for the right to own content generated by their AI. I can't really see that being in the public interest though.

caturopath 3y ago
> We're still at I didn't hear we were ever there?
- wernercd 3y ago
  Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."
  - jeffparsons 3y ago
    > Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted Is that last bit from the Copyright Office, or is it the author's interpretation? Because I could just as easily imagine the battle being over who or what was the actual creator of the content (i.e. is it a derivative work), rather than whether the thing the machine created is eligible for copyright. To remove the AI from the equation for a second, imagine that I took four images of living artists' work, placed them in a 2x2 grid, and called that a new artwork. There are two seperate questions to consider: (1) have I infringed upon the original authors' copyrights, and (2) is the new thing I have created eligible for copyright. The stance that there is "no copyright protection for works created by non-humans" only addresses the second question, not the first question of how it interacts with existing copyrights.
    - visarga 3y ago
      If you make art combining generative AI with manual work, you get copyright over the exact portions of a work you made yourself. You have to indicate which parts. The parts generated by AI are not copyrightable.
      - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        You missed the question.
        wernercd 3y ago
        Further reading seems to indicate human control is pivotal in the equation. A human can be granted copyright for created works but the creative part must be human and not machine. Just like you don't grant copyright on a PDF to Adobe Photoshop... you grant it to the human who guided the program. Photoshop is a tool and the human is the creator. https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco... > "For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology – not the human user. > "Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist – they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output." > "The USCO will consider content created using AI if a human author has crafted something beyond the machine's direct output. A digital artwork that was formed from a prompt, and then edited further using Photoshop, for example, is more likely to be accepted by the office. The initial image created using AI would not be copyrightable, but the final product produced by the artist might be."
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? So the prompt - the actual intent behind the use of the tool - is irrelevant? Then where is the line? If I use a painting program that runs a Math.random() on a brush and I use this brush to draw something then is that also created by a non-human? If I program a robot arm to draw a picture then is that picture also created by a non-human? What if I use a printer?
    - jstummbillig 3y ago
      > Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? From what I gather, they just don't consider it a creation in a way that pertains to copyright laws. Like a rock on the beach.
    - wccrawford 3y ago
      I read it that a program/computer/robot cannot hold copyright. If someone uses AI to generate art, the AI doesn't hold the copyright. (Notice it doesn't say anything about the user.) Likewise, if Photoshop is used to create art, Photoshop doesn't hold the copyright. It's a tool, not a conscious being with rights.
      - Aerroon 3y ago
        That does make sense!
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      The program for the robot you could copyright. The picture you could not. Let's be realistic here: there is no oracle indicating something was generated by AI. Most graphic artists have been using partially machine generated work from tools like Photoshop for a decade or more. They just don't mention it.
  - caturopath 3y ago
    Thanks for following up. This article is pretty dissatisfying to me. https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf is the letter that lays out why they don't think Midjourney is a paintbrush rather than a monkey. I can't tell that this is a long-standing interpretation, rather than a recent ruling, conceivably a blip.
tsimionescu 3y ago
> AI generated works are public domain That's not the status quo. The biggest concern is that AI can sometimes generate code from the training set verbatim, in which case that code has the copyright of the original training set - which might be GPL or proprietary or whatever else.
- SkyPuncher 3y ago
  I’m sure there are other ways do to this, but simply asking OpenAI to repeat a letter 100 times will eventually get you back to content that looks like it’s training set.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > The biggest concern is that AI can sometimes generate code from the training set verbatim Not just verbatim: AI-generated code is arguably a derivative work of code in the training set even if it doesn't generate verbatim copies of training data, in the same way that any code can be a derivative work even if it doesn't contain bitwise-identical lines. If you take a piece of Python code, and translate it to C code, without a single line being copied verbatim, the resulting C code is still almost certainly a derivative work of the Python code.
  - soultrees 3y ago
    Everything you do or know is a derivative of your own training set. True original thoughts without context don’t exist, well at least in any way we can find out as every human is the product of their own training set. Just out curiosity, what makes the code you write, more original than an LLMs who’s training set is way bigger than yours and likely will more variance in how to achieve same goal. I’m not trying to be facetious but rather stoke the philosophical idea of the reality that humans aren’t as special and unique as we think we are.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      While I would say GPT is creative, the law doesn't have to agree with me. Also, there's the possibility that all things creative are the human form of peacocks' tails, and if that's the case then the cost and difficulty matters more than the outcome, and any discussion based on capitalist incentives is fundamentally flawed. https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-copyright/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-c... (I wrote this 52 days before ChatGPT came out, the reference to GPT-3 is based on the stuff OpenAI released before the chat interface).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
> Barring any AI court case setting a precedent, We're still at 'AI generated works are public domain' aren't we? Barring a court case, we’re more in an uncertain place. I think it’s more likely for courts to hold that many model uses aren’t transformative enough to get a fair use exemption. But until a court says either way, it most definitely does NOT just default to public domain.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  You’re conflating two issues. 1. Does the output infringe an existing copyright? 2. Is the output copyrightable?
csdreamer7 3y ago
> We're still at 'AI generated works are public domain' aren't we? As far as the US Copyright Office is concerned. I do not believe other countries have weighed in yet. Also, when your training data is based on copyleft source code, and in some cases is a direct ripoff of it, will that license be applied to it?

by Lerc 3y ago

caturopath 3y ago

> We're still at I didn't hear we were ever there?

wernercd 3y ago
Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."
- jeffparsons 3y ago
  > Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted Is that last bit from the Copyright Office, or is it the author's interpretation? Because I could just as easily imagine the battle being over who or what was the actual creator of the content (i.e. is it a derivative work), rather than whether the thing the machine created is eligible for copyright. To remove the AI from the equation for a second, imagine that I took four images of living artists' work, placed them in a 2x2 grid, and called that a new artwork. There are two seperate questions to consider: (1) have I infringed upon the original authors' copyrights, and (2) is the new thing I have created eligible for copyright. The stance that there is "no copyright protection for works created by non-humans" only addresses the second question, not the first question of how it interacts with existing copyrights.
  - visarga 3y ago
    If you make art combining generative AI with manual work, you get copyright over the exact portions of a work you made yourself. You have to indicate which parts. The parts generated by AI are not copyrightable.
    - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      You missed the question.
      - wernercd 3y ago
        Further reading seems to indicate human control is pivotal in the equation. A human can be granted copyright for created works but the creative part must be human and not machine. Just like you don't grant copyright on a PDF to Adobe Photoshop... you grant it to the human who guided the program. Photoshop is a tool and the human is the creator. https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco... > "For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology – not the human user. > "Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist – they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output." > "The USCO will consider content created using AI if a human author has crafted something beyond the machine's direct output. A digital artwork that was formed from a prompt, and then edited further using Photoshop, for example, is more likely to be accepted by the office. The initial image created using AI would not be copyrightable, but the final product produced by the artist might be."
- Aerroon 3y ago
  Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? So the prompt - the actual intent behind the use of the tool - is irrelevant? Then where is the line? If I use a painting program that runs a Math.random() on a brush and I use this brush to draw something then is that also created by a non-human? If I program a robot arm to draw a picture then is that picture also created by a non-human? What if I use a printer?
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    > Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? From what I gather, they just don't consider it a creation in a way that pertains to copyright laws. Like a rock on the beach.
  - wccrawford 3y ago
    I read it that a program/computer/robot cannot hold copyright. If someone uses AI to generate art, the AI doesn't hold the copyright. (Notice it doesn't say anything about the user.) Likewise, if Photoshop is used to create art, Photoshop doesn't hold the copyright. It's a tool, not a conscious being with rights.
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      That does make sense!
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    The program for the robot you could copyright. The picture you could not. Let's be realistic here: there is no oracle indicating something was generated by AI. Most graphic artists have been using partially machine generated work from tools like Photoshop for a decade or more. They just don't mention it.
- caturopath 3y ago
  Thanks for following up. This article is pretty dissatisfying to me. https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf is the letter that lays out why they don't think Midjourney is a paintbrush rather than a monkey. I can't tell that this is a long-standing interpretation, rather than a recent ruling, conceivably a blip.

tsimionescu 3y ago

> AI generated works are public domain That's not the status quo. The biggest concern is that AI can sometimes generate code from the training set verbatim, in which case that code has the copyright of the original training set - which might be GPL or proprietary or whatever else.

SkyPuncher 3y ago
I’m sure there are other ways do to this, but simply asking OpenAI to repeat a letter 100 times will eventually get you back to content that looks like it’s training set.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> The biggest concern is that AI can sometimes generate code from the training set verbatim Not just verbatim: AI-generated code is arguably a derivative work of code in the training set even if it doesn't generate verbatim copies of training data, in the same way that any code can be a derivative work even if it doesn't contain bitwise-identical lines. If you take a piece of Python code, and translate it to C code, without a single line being copied verbatim, the resulting C code is still almost certainly a derivative work of the Python code.
- soultrees 3y ago
  Everything you do or know is a derivative of your own training set. True original thoughts without context don’t exist, well at least in any way we can find out as every human is the product of their own training set. Just out curiosity, what makes the code you write, more original than an LLMs who’s training set is way bigger than yours and likely will more variance in how to achieve same goal. I’m not trying to be facetious but rather stoke the philosophical idea of the reality that humans aren’t as special and unique as we think we are.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    While I would say GPT is creative, the law doesn't have to agree with me. Also, there's the possibility that all things creative are the human form of peacocks' tails, and if that's the case then the cost and difficulty matters more than the outcome, and any discussion based on capitalist incentives is fundamentally flawed. https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-copyright/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-c... (I wrote this 52 days before ChatGPT came out, the reference to GPT-3 is based on the stuff OpenAI released before the chat interface).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago

> Barring any AI court case setting a precedent, We're still at 'AI generated works are public domain' aren't we? Barring a court case, we’re more in an uncertain place. I think it’s more likely for courts to hold that many model uses aren’t transformative enough to get a fair use exemption. But until a court says either way, it most definitely does NOT just default to public domain.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
You’re conflating two issues. 1. Does the output infringe an existing copyright? 2. Is the output copyrightable?

csdreamer7 3y ago

> We're still at 'AI generated works are public domain' aren't we? As far as the US Copyright Office is concerned. I do not believe other countries have weighed in yet. Also, when your training data is based on copyleft source code, and in some cases is a direct ripoff of it, will that license be applied to it?