4 ms·

I think the Warhol decision is an entirely different kettle of fish. Just take a look at the pieces in question: the Warhol portraits don't really look that dif

I think the Warhol decision is an entirely different kettle of fish. Just take a look at the pieces in question: the Warhol portraits don't really look that different compared to the original photographs. The benefit that generative AI has is that, when claiming copyright infringement, you need to specify individual works that were infringed. It's not enough to say "this work is an amalgam of these other ten thousand works, and we can't really tell you how." I could imagine if generative AI gives an identical, word-for-word match for an individual piece of source material it could be in trouble, but that's also the easiest type of thing to prevent from an AI company perspective. The fact is that existing copyright law just can't really encompass the kinds of societal concerns we have around generative AI.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
No one has to claim individual copyright infringement for it to be copyright infringement. At any rate you can force the infringer to disclose what works they use as input. Copyright law doesn't encompass novel uses, but courts can and will deal with it.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > No one has to claim copyright infringement for it to be copyright infringement. That's a little bit like "If a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it..." I mean, sure, "theoretically" any number of things can be infringement. But it's obviously a gray area, so it only really matters when somebody brings a suit and a work is found to be legally infringing.
  - belorn 3y ago
    The pirate bay case demonstrated that you don't need to prove a specific instance of infringement, only that occurrence of infringement "somewhere/somehow" was more believable than the alternative theory that no such infringement has happened. It may be enough to demonstrate that infringement is trivial, and then point to user statistics to demonstrate that infringement is more believable than that infringement has never happened.
- bdowling 3y ago
  Until someone files a lawsuit and a judge and jury decide the infringement question, it’s all speculative. Some cases are pretty obvious, but even literal copying isn’t always copyright infringement (e.g., if the material is arguably not eligible for copyright protection).

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

No one has to claim individual copyright infringement for it to be copyright infringement. At any rate you can force the infringer to disclose what works they use as input. Copyright law doesn't encompass novel uses, but courts can and will deal with it.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> No one has to claim copyright infringement for it to be copyright infringement. That's a little bit like "If a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it..." I mean, sure, "theoretically" any number of things can be infringement. But it's obviously a gray area, so it only really matters when somebody brings a suit and a work is found to be legally infringing.
- belorn 3y ago
  The pirate bay case demonstrated that you don't need to prove a specific instance of infringement, only that occurrence of infringement "somewhere/somehow" was more believable than the alternative theory that no such infringement has happened. It may be enough to demonstrate that infringement is trivial, and then point to user statistics to demonstrate that infringement is more believable than that infringement has never happened.
bdowling 3y ago
Until someone files a lawsuit and a judge and jury decide the infringement question, it’s all speculative. Some cases are pretty obvious, but even literal copying isn’t always copyright infringement (e.g., if the material is arguably not eligible for copyright protection).