5 ms·

Legally this is likely a non-issue. It depends on if they successfully make the case that their AI learns like a human, and thus any outputs that aren't direct

by judge2020 3y ago

Legally this is likely a non-issue. It depends on if they successfully make the case that their AI learns like a human, and thus any outputs that aren't direct copies of existing art are new creations. This even applies if the AI copies an artists art style (in the same vein as a human looking at one artists art over a weekend and then being commissioned to paint something in the same style, which is completely legal since you can't copyright an art style; although Adobe would love that[0]). 0: https://twitter.com/UltraTerm/status/1679294173793628161 https://twitter.com/UltraTerm/status/1679294173793628161

MattRix 3y ago
This kind of argument is always absurd to me because it doesn’t matter if it learns like a human or not, it’s still not a human. (I would also argue that it learns and generates images in ways that are non-human, just based on speed and scale alone)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pixl97 3y ago
  Corporations are people too... in a particular legal perspective.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Corporations are not literally people in a legal sense. Corporations have some of the same rights as people in certain legal transactions because treating them as entities rather than each individual within a corporation separately is more convenient, and because to do otherwise would in some cases infringe upon the rights of the individual humans who make up the corporation (for example, corporations have a right to free speech because the individuals within that corporation have a right to free speech, and it would be impossible to deny free speech to corporations without also denying it to individuals.) But systems of law are still capable of recognizing the distinction between the personhood of corporations and of people, just as they can recognize the difference between humans and AI even if AIs can be demonstrated to "learn" the way humans do. As always, context and nuance matter. Laws aren't written or decided upon based on pure logic or calculus but on what human beings want and consider to be in their self-interest.
- educaysean 3y ago
  How would you turn that into legislation though? I can simply draw a few pieces of art in the style of Naoki Urasawa, train a model on it, and claim that the outputs of the model are non-infringing. An artistic style is either copyrightable or not - I don't think a blurry middle ground helps anyone.
wwarner 3y ago
So the law says that a painter can't steal copyrighted images, but a programmer can. Maybe the law has some catching up to do.
- tsukikage 3y ago
  That's the exact opposite of the argument being made. If you wouldn't be able to sue a painter over producing an image, why should you be allowed to sue a programmer over producing that image?

MattRix 3y ago

This kind of argument is always absurd to me because it doesn’t matter if it learns like a human or not, it’s still not a human. (I would also argue that it learns and generates images in ways that are non-human, just based on speed and scale alone)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pixl97 3y ago
Corporations are people too... in a particular legal perspective.
- krapp 3y ago
  Corporations are not literally people in a legal sense. Corporations have some of the same rights as people in certain legal transactions because treating them as entities rather than each individual within a corporation separately is more convenient, and because to do otherwise would in some cases infringe upon the rights of the individual humans who make up the corporation (for example, corporations have a right to free speech because the individuals within that corporation have a right to free speech, and it would be impossible to deny free speech to corporations without also denying it to individuals.) But systems of law are still capable of recognizing the distinction between the personhood of corporations and of people, just as they can recognize the difference between humans and AI even if AIs can be demonstrated to "learn" the way humans do. As always, context and nuance matter. Laws aren't written or decided upon based on pure logic or calculus but on what human beings want and consider to be in their self-interest.
educaysean 3y ago
How would you turn that into legislation though? I can simply draw a few pieces of art in the style of Naoki Urasawa, train a model on it, and claim that the outputs of the model are non-infringing. An artistic style is either copyrightable or not - I don't think a blurry middle ground helps anyone.

wwarner 3y ago

So the law says that a painter can't steal copyrighted images, but a programmer can. Maybe the law has some catching up to do.

tsukikage 3y ago
That's the exact opposite of the argument being made. If you wouldn't be able to sue a painter over producing an image, why should you be allowed to sue a programmer over producing that image?