5 ms·

> Because most text/images used by AI company to create, test then pretrain/train their tools are creative common /unlicensed (I trained/fine-tuned an OCR in 20

> Because most text/images used by AI company to create, test then pretrain/train their tools are creative common /unlicensed (I trained/fine-tuned an OCR in 2016), and thus, copyrighting the output of any model would be stealing from the general public. "Most"? If any of the training inputs are copyrighted and the AI company does not own or license the work, nor applies all licenses correctly, then the AI company should be liable for copyright infringement. There's really no other way forward as a society, otherwise creatives' work can always just be stolen at will by laundering it through an AI model. There would be no incentive for the next HR Geiger or Moebius to work hard on a distinctive aesthetic when anyone with a computer could make art just like theirs. If all of an AI input is public domain, I'm not sure I agree with you but I think your argument has some merit.

orwin 3y ago
The copyright infringement isdue is orthogonal to my point. Let's say you have all the IP of a LORA. Nice. Now, the model you're using will output something similar to your copyrighted work, but this will be barely .001 percent of what the model used. Most (if not all) other images it used will be cc, unlicensed (most images on the internet) or copyrighted but unidentifiable. In this case, even if the output resemble the copyrighted work used for the Lora, the rights should be owned by the public. My opinion is that it should be copyleft (because you can't possibly attribute all the work used for the generated image, so the only fair use is copyleft use).
- rendall 3y ago
  > Most (if not all) other images it used will be cc, unlicensed (most images on the internet) or copyrighted but unidentifiable You keep saying "most". I get that you believe copyright infringement is orthogonal to your point, but it's really not. If you can argue your point by saying "all, 100%" free and clear - public domain or otherwise permitted by the owners - then I can consider your point. Otherwise, no, the model does not produce copyleft or public domain work. It's copyright infringement and IP theft. "Unlicensed" does not mean it is not under copyright, by the way. CC usually means there are restrictions or requirements for use. Attribution, for instance. But if the model were trained only on public domain work, I'm still not completely convinced. Perhaps. I do find Jason M. Allen's argument more compelling than Tamara Pester's
  - orwin 3y ago
    The alternative being what? You can't use images produced by the model? I don't see a middle ground here, and I fail to imagine see any real-world instance where it's logical that ai-generated images fall under copyright. It's either public domain or no public use (which, tbh, I think is fair too)
    - doctorpangloss 3y ago
      > I don't see a middle ground here, and I fail to imagine see any real-world instance where it's logical that ai-generated images fall under copyright. Here's a point of view on the difference between painters and everyone else: everyone else lives in the world and deals with its realities, but bonafide painters try to paint the world the way they wish it worked. Some even live the world the way they wish it worked, even when it doesn't make sense (like in terms of an objective reality), as long as they're alive they can do their thing and they can prove that something is possible, even if impracticable. This isn't a bad thing. If logical means, "the way orwin wants the world to work," then sure. You're doing the painter thing in the tech world. You said you want the copyright to be this way and the way things to work to be that way. If you want, you can write a license on a model that maybe you trained on all public domain data, and that the license says all the things it makes are also public domain, and maybe people go along and respect that license. This can all coexist with other stuff, it can be real. It just doesn't mean it makes sense. Just because something happens doesn't mean it makes sense. Another way I've heard this put is, feelings that are more strongly felt are not more valid. That said, in my world, I know people try to pitch "give me a $25,000 grant to write a license," instead of engaging with the core creative part of the RFP, and they don't get the grant. There is little appetite for the painter's way of doing things in the tech world. That's a bad thing but it's also true.
      - orwin 3y ago
        Ok, that doesn't address my point though: Do we agree that in the _real_ world, it is impossible to determine which image have been used to generate the model (not talking about just the LORA part here). So the solution i see is: - we ban AI-generated image from public use because of IP: basically, the use of any image not in the public domain, even CC0, will cause that - Most non-public-domain images on the internet you can use to train stuff are CC and CC0 (which is kinda public domain if i remember my wikipedia days). My point is: the majority of the images used to create the model (again, not the LORA part) are public domain or free to use as long as they are attributed. It's impossible to attribute according to what CC is demanding. The list would be impossible to find. So either we get back to the first sentence, and sue AI-generated images to oblivion, or the image are public domain/CC0. Also, the legal point: the creator of the art isn't a human, so it isn't copyrightable. A curator do not have the copyright of the image/painting he found at a garage sale, even if he put a lot of effort to restore it.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
> There's really no other way forward as a society, otherwise creatives' work can always just be stolen at will by laundering it through an AI model. There would be no incentive for the next HR Geiger or Moebius to work hard on a distinctive aesthetic when anyone with a computer could make art just like theirs. The games market has been dealing with this for a while and things work out. We get original, meaningful games that are easily pirated, and original, meaningful game mechanics copied by giant, powerful corporations. Nonetheless those people thrive. So I don't know. This is a kind of doomerism that isn't going to play out, it's reacting to a lack of creativity among monetization for illustrators and a lack of opportunities that have always existed, rather than anything specific about the mechanics of laundering this or AI models that.

orwin 3y ago

The copyright infringement isdue is orthogonal to my point. Let's say you have all the IP of a LORA. Nice. Now, the model you're using will output something similar to your copyrighted work, but this will be barely .001 percent of what the model used. Most (if not all) other images it used will be cc, unlicensed (most images on the internet) or copyrighted but unidentifiable. In this case, even if the output resemble the copyrighted work used for the Lora, the rights should be owned by the public. My opinion is that it should be copyleft (because you can't possibly attribute all the work used for the generated image, so the only fair use is copyleft use).

rendall 3y ago
> Most (if not all) other images it used will be cc, unlicensed (most images on the internet) or copyrighted but unidentifiable You keep saying "most". I get that you believe copyright infringement is orthogonal to your point, but it's really not. If you can argue your point by saying "all, 100%" free and clear - public domain or otherwise permitted by the owners - then I can consider your point. Otherwise, no, the model does not produce copyleft or public domain work. It's copyright infringement and IP theft. "Unlicensed" does not mean it is not under copyright, by the way. CC usually means there are restrictions or requirements for use. Attribution, for instance. But if the model were trained only on public domain work, I'm still not completely convinced. Perhaps. I do find Jason M. Allen's argument more compelling than Tamara Pester's
- orwin 3y ago
  The alternative being what? You can't use images produced by the model? I don't see a middle ground here, and I fail to imagine see any real-world instance where it's logical that ai-generated images fall under copyright. It's either public domain or no public use (which, tbh, I think is fair too)
  - doctorpangloss 3y ago
    > I don't see a middle ground here, and I fail to imagine see any real-world instance where it's logical that ai-generated images fall under copyright. Here's a point of view on the difference between painters and everyone else: everyone else lives in the world and deals with its realities, but bonafide painters try to paint the world the way they wish it worked. Some even live the world the way they wish it worked, even when it doesn't make sense (like in terms of an objective reality), as long as they're alive they can do their thing and they can prove that something is possible, even if impracticable. This isn't a bad thing. If logical means, "the way orwin wants the world to work," then sure. You're doing the painter thing in the tech world. You said you want the copyright to be this way and the way things to work to be that way. If you want, you can write a license on a model that maybe you trained on all public domain data, and that the license says all the things it makes are also public domain, and maybe people go along and respect that license. This can all coexist with other stuff, it can be real. It just doesn't mean it makes sense. Just because something happens doesn't mean it makes sense. Another way I've heard this put is, feelings that are more strongly felt are not more valid. That said, in my world, I know people try to pitch "give me a $25,000 grant to write a license," instead of engaging with the core creative part of the RFP, and they don't get the grant. There is little appetite for the painter's way of doing things in the tech world. That's a bad thing but it's also true.
    - orwin 3y ago
      Ok, that doesn't address my point though: Do we agree that in the _real_ world, it is impossible to determine which image have been used to generate the model (not talking about just the LORA part here). So the solution i see is: - we ban AI-generated image from public use because of IP: basically, the use of any image not in the public domain, even CC0, will cause that - Most non-public-domain images on the internet you can use to train stuff are CC and CC0 (which is kinda public domain if i remember my wikipedia days). My point is: the majority of the images used to create the model (again, not the LORA part) are public domain or free to use as long as they are attributed. It's impossible to attribute according to what CC is demanding. The list would be impossible to find. So either we get back to the first sentence, and sue AI-generated images to oblivion, or the image are public domain/CC0. Also, the legal point: the creator of the art isn't a human, so it isn't copyrightable. A curator do not have the copyright of the image/painting he found at a garage sale, even if he put a lot of effort to restore it.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

> There's really no other way forward as a society, otherwise creatives' work can always just be stolen at will by laundering it through an AI model. There would be no incentive for the next HR Geiger or Moebius to work hard on a distinctive aesthetic when anyone with a computer could make art just like theirs. The games market has been dealing with this for a while and things work out. We get original, meaningful games that are easily pirated, and original, meaningful game mechanics copied by giant, powerful corporations. Nonetheless those people thrive. So I don't know. This is a kind of doomerism that isn't going to play out, it's reacting to a lack of creativity among monetization for illustrators and a lack of opportunities that have always existed, rather than anything specific about the mechanics of laundering this or AI models that.