4 ms·

I think it's difficult to argue that people have that right today. As a person, I can read creative works and then synthesize something similar. For example, i

I think it's difficult to argue that people have that right today. As a person, I can read creative works and then synthesize something similar. For example, if I were a graphic artist, you could commission me to create art "in the style of $ARTIST" and I would be able to legally do so as long as I wasn't copying the source art exactly. You can prompt Midjourney to do something similar, and it will happily comply. There are obvious ethical questions here, but I'm not sure that would result in a court finding for the copyright holder. We could choose to create new rights which prevent AI from ingesting copyrighted material, but it seems like it would need to be a new law, rather than rights conveyed under existing law.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
> As a person, I can read creative works and then synthesize something similar. Sure, and you'll be sued for copyright infringement if it's too similar. If you've created something new that transforms the original sufficiently and doesn't impinge on the original artists ability to derive benefits from their work, as well as several other restrictions, then you're ok. A mechanical transformation is an entirely different ballgame. Firstly you'd have to convince a judge that the machine was being creative. Given that the code can't do anything without being fed other people's works, you're then arguing that you're not appropriating other people's work just because you're doing it at scale. Machines using other's creativity (at scale) doesn't mean it has its own creativity. Machines are not human and human creativity isn't a fully understood phenomenon. It's a legal minefield.
- nkohari 3y ago
  I hear you, but at the same time there's nothing in the current copyright law which differentiates fair use afforded to a person from fair use afforded to a machine. There's definitely an argument that we should have laws which govern machines, but we don't today. That's why I said it would likely need to be a new law that specifically does so.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

> As a person, I can read creative works and then synthesize something similar. Sure, and you'll be sued for copyright infringement if it's too similar. If you've created something new that transforms the original sufficiently and doesn't impinge on the original artists ability to derive benefits from their work, as well as several other restrictions, then you're ok. A mechanical transformation is an entirely different ballgame. Firstly you'd have to convince a judge that the machine was being creative. Given that the code can't do anything without being fed other people's works, you're then arguing that you're not appropriating other people's work just because you're doing it at scale. Machines using other's creativity (at scale) doesn't mean it has its own creativity. Machines are not human and human creativity isn't a fully understood phenomenon. It's a legal minefield.

nkohari 3y ago
I hear you, but at the same time there's nothing in the current copyright law which differentiates fair use afforded to a person from fair use afforded to a machine. There's definitely an argument that we should have laws which govern machines, but we don't today. That's why I said it would likely need to be a new law that specifically does so.