9 ms·

> selling this work would be copyright infringement. There’s no ambiguity there. >Generating it would not. Are you sure about that? My understanding is that u

> selling this work would be copyright infringement. There’s no ambiguity there. >Generating it would not. Are you sure about that? My understanding is that under US copyright law the copyright owner has the exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work." Which is to say, a derivative work - which this would certainly be - would legally still be infringing even if it were not distributed.

jncfhnb 3y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 It’s fair use though. You would have an extremely difficult time arguing that a piece of generated art for just yourself passes muster on: > the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Because the effect of the use on potential market is just 1 sale and it’s not even clear that there’s a diminishing impact on the actual rights holder for that guy.
- musicale 3y ago
  I concur that fair use could be an effective defense against infringement claims; the section you are referring mentions distribution/copying specifically, but it refers to other sections which apply to adaptation. Regardless, the law itself seems clear that the right to adaptation is exclusive independent of distribution. The fair use arguments are interesting, considering: - AI businesses are commercial enterprises - Many works (perhaps including an author's entire published output) were digested in their entirety to create LLMs - If anyone can generate their own version of GoT/SoI&F with an AI system, does it diminish the market for the original? (On the other hand, it's too bad HBO didn't have one at the time.)
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    It seems extremely unlikely that a company could successfully argue people writing fanfics for just themselves with the aid of an AI is sufficient to cause any harm to a business. The scale is minuscule. It’s likely not a substitute either.

jncfhnb 3y ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 It’s fair use though. You would have an extremely difficult time arguing that a piece of generated art for just yourself passes muster on: > the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Because the effect of the use on potential market is just 1 sale and it’s not even clear that there’s a diminishing impact on the actual rights holder for that guy.

musicale 3y ago
I concur that fair use could be an effective defense against infringement claims; the section you are referring mentions distribution/copying specifically, but it refers to other sections which apply to adaptation. Regardless, the law itself seems clear that the right to adaptation is exclusive independent of distribution. The fair use arguments are interesting, considering: - AI businesses are commercial enterprises - Many works (perhaps including an author's entire published output) were digested in their entirety to create LLMs - If anyone can generate their own version of GoT/SoI&F with an AI system, does it diminish the market for the original? (On the other hand, it's too bad HBO didn't have one at the time.)
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  It seems extremely unlikely that a company could successfully argue people writing fanfics for just themselves with the aid of an AI is sufficient to cause any harm to a business. The scale is minuscule. It’s likely not a substitute either.