3 ms·
Replace it with any subject. The point stands - it isn't at all clear how the courts will treat this. Take your example: I'm a self-taught artist, and I lear
by marcus0x62 3y ago
Replace it with any subject. The point stands - it isn't at all clear how the courts will treat this.
Take your example: I'm a self-taught artist, and I learned everything I know about art by studying cartoons made by Disney. Maybe I paid for these cartoons, maybe I didn't. I then make a website where I draw my own cartoons, which, since I've never seen any other art, look a lot like Disney's. Unless I'm straight-up copying their characters, they would have no claim against me.
- danans 3y ago> I then make a website where I draw my own cartoons, which, since I've never seen any other art, look a lot like Disney's. Unless I'm straight-up copying their characters, they would have no claim against me. The law pertains ultimately to the actions of humans. We don't allow non-human animals or machines access to legal system. Even in the specious only-Disney-inspired-artist scenario presented (courts don't use unrealistic hypotheticals like that), there would have to be consideration given to the fact that you somehow never got any access to other art, so you were severely disadvantaged. But most of all, you the disadvantaged Disneyesque-drawing artist not a generative AI, so you should have more legal latitude to create works inspired than others work than the person who creates the LLM has. The LLM creator instead has just created a very good style plagiarism machine, one that lacks the ability to be inspired, much less attribute the styles that it plagiarizes.
- marcus0x62 3y agoCan you point me to some case law that supports your claim?