4 ms·

Makes me wonder where is the line on copyright? if the bot is refusing but the human is tricking it in creative ways to make something infringing then it seems

Makes me wonder where is the line on copyright? if the bot is refusing but the human is tricking it in creative ways to make something infringing then it seems like the violation is being committed by the user.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
The line is a million light years from where OpenAI has positioned this. Drawing a Batman logo can never be copyright infringement, the art belongs to the artist (or in this case, there is none because there was no artist). It would be like Hacker News prohibiting me from doing an ASCII art Batman logo in a comment on copyright grounds.
- __loam 3y ago
  It is pretty funny that openai arguably is based on enormous amounts of copyright infringement (depending on if scraping training data is fair use or not), but they're kind of being prudes about something as clearly benign as this.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Nothing funny. It's similar to how YouTube was built on massive copyright infringement, on a scale unmatched by anything except perhaps LLMs now, and then turned around to become the Fully Automated Fanatic Copyright Enforcer we know it today. It's not hypocrisy - it's this, or getting sued out of existence. They pulled a fast one and got away with it, because MAFIAA figured it's more profitable to extract money from YouTube at legal gunpoint, instead of killing it and losing a distribution channel they can't maintain themselves. Here, OpenAI is trying to get ahead of the whole generative AI copyright kerfuffle, hoping to avoid getting sued if they demonstrate they're eager to work in the interest of copyright holders.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  Very much like how YouTube goes well beyond what is required by copyright law.
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Youtube policy is actually pretty lenient compared to most IP rights law. "Fair Use"/"Fair Dealing" actually has a pretty well-litigated definition in most jurisdictions. YouTubers just dislike the definition. If YouTube exposed you to the full force of most jurisdiction's IP law, you would be getting C+Ds and summonses from scary people in suits who work for Viacom. "Fair use" isn't a magic incantation to ward off evil lawyers, it's a defence with definitions and restrictions used during a dispute. The copyright strikes are a pretty good compromise to shelter individual creators from the outside world that's used to Big Company 1 dealing with Big Company 2.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > YouTubers just dislike the definition. That's not it at all. The problem is that they use opaque algorithms with false positives to issue strikes. Or content companies illegitimately add public domain materials to their libraries, which causes strikes against anyone lawfully using those materials. > If YouTube exposed you to the full force of most jurisdiction's IP law, you would be getting C+Ds and summonses from scary people in suits who work for Viacom. They can still send you those things if you infringe their copyrights regardless of what YouTube does. They generally don't because random individuals generally don't have enough money to justify their legal expenses and it's incredibly bad PR.
      - graypegg 3y ago
        The opaque algorithms and trigger-happy strikes are to appease copyright holders, which leads into... The reason they don't litigate individuals is low ROI on litigating a small YouTube channel. That is true. However, Youtube without these tools in place would be sued out of existence. Copyright holders wouldn't ever come after 1 video, they would go after the platform hosting their IP without compensation. With every legal right to do so! Youtube cuts a good deal for them where they get god-tools, and in exchange, YouTube can continue to exist. Never said it was a good set up, but this idea that YouTube has another "easy choice" is pervasive.
graypegg 3y ago
Trick question, no one actually infringed anything! You're welcome to draw the bat symbol all day if you want. You can even download the official emblem, scribble out the TM symbol and (c) Warner Brothers text, put your own name and chuckle to yourself. The infringement only happens when you then try to claim it's your own work publicly. Which has the convenient benefit that a human normally has to be an accomplice to that.
- jprete 3y ago
  The copyright infringement happens at the moment of production of the image, unless the use counts as fair use. It doesn't matter whether or not you claim ownership or authorship. Home copies are protected primarily by the total impracticality of enforcement, and secondarily by claiming you're doing it to practice making art.
- elicksaur 3y ago
  In this scenario, the rights you’re leaving out are the rights to reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works. They’re exclusive. You’ll find reputable t-shirt printers will refuse to print designs they know to be copyrighted. No one would be claiming the printer or you came up with some copyrighted design, it’s the copying that’s an infringement (“copy”-right!). Now, these printers also typically have you assert that you hold the copyright to the work, but my understanding is that just limits their total financial exposure by contracting with you; them producing the work would still be infringing. Here, you aren’t even giving the bot a work to reproduce. It holds the work in its storage and will reproduce it for you when asked. That’s pretty cut and dry copyright infringement by whoever controls the bot.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Pretty sure that is not how copyright works.... attribution rights are important but it is not the be all and end all of copyright.
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Laws obviously vary a lot, but most places that follow a similar definition of intellectual property rights to EU/NA do not forbid merely being in the presence of a work. Knowing of the details of an intellectual property isn't infringement. You wouldn't be able to monetize it if you were compelled to never let your book printer ever see your story to reproduce it for you, let alone the reading public. The purpose of copyrights as a concept, is to allow artists to profit from a work that's otherwise easily to duplicate. Laws tend to be written with that in mind. This is normally codified as an exception called "private study" or similar. You can ask the AI all day long to draw the batman symbol. But if you try to market that as "Chiroptera Guy", then you've taken the step that opens up litigation options for the holders of the original IP.
_ea1k 3y ago
If the photo industry is any indication, it won't really matter where the legal line is. They'll put in enforcement mechanisms wherever the industry feels like they should be. Nothing stops companies from going beyond what the law requires.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

The line is a million light years from where OpenAI has positioned this. Drawing a Batman logo can never be copyright infringement, the art belongs to the artist (or in this case, there is none because there was no artist). It would be like Hacker News prohibiting me from doing an ASCII art Batman logo in a comment on copyright grounds.

__loam 3y ago
It is pretty funny that openai arguably is based on enormous amounts of copyright infringement (depending on if scraping training data is fair use or not), but they're kind of being prudes about something as clearly benign as this.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Nothing funny. It's similar to how YouTube was built on massive copyright infringement, on a scale unmatched by anything except perhaps LLMs now, and then turned around to become the Fully Automated Fanatic Copyright Enforcer we know it today. It's not hypocrisy - it's this, or getting sued out of existence. They pulled a fast one and got away with it, because MAFIAA figured it's more profitable to extract money from YouTube at legal gunpoint, instead of killing it and losing a distribution channel they can't maintain themselves. Here, OpenAI is trying to get ahead of the whole generative AI copyright kerfuffle, hoping to avoid getting sued if they demonstrate they're eager to work in the interest of copyright holders.
teaearlgraycold 3y ago
Very much like how YouTube goes well beyond what is required by copyright law.
- graypegg 3y ago
  Youtube policy is actually pretty lenient compared to most IP rights law. "Fair Use"/"Fair Dealing" actually has a pretty well-litigated definition in most jurisdictions. YouTubers just dislike the definition. If YouTube exposed you to the full force of most jurisdiction's IP law, you would be getting C+Ds and summonses from scary people in suits who work for Viacom. "Fair use" isn't a magic incantation to ward off evil lawyers, it's a defence with definitions and restrictions used during a dispute. The copyright strikes are a pretty good compromise to shelter individual creators from the outside world that's used to Big Company 1 dealing with Big Company 2.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > YouTubers just dislike the definition. That's not it at all. The problem is that they use opaque algorithms with false positives to issue strikes. Or content companies illegitimately add public domain materials to their libraries, which causes strikes against anyone lawfully using those materials. > If YouTube exposed you to the full force of most jurisdiction's IP law, you would be getting C+Ds and summonses from scary people in suits who work for Viacom. They can still send you those things if you infringe their copyrights regardless of what YouTube does. They generally don't because random individuals generally don't have enough money to justify their legal expenses and it's incredibly bad PR.
    - graypegg 3y ago
      The opaque algorithms and trigger-happy strikes are to appease copyright holders, which leads into... The reason they don't litigate individuals is low ROI on litigating a small YouTube channel. That is true. However, Youtube without these tools in place would be sued out of existence. Copyright holders wouldn't ever come after 1 video, they would go after the platform hosting their IP without compensation. With every legal right to do so! Youtube cuts a good deal for them where they get god-tools, and in exchange, YouTube can continue to exist. Never said it was a good set up, but this idea that YouTube has another "easy choice" is pervasive.

graypegg 3y ago

Trick question, no one actually infringed anything! You're welcome to draw the bat symbol all day if you want. You can even download the official emblem, scribble out the TM symbol and (c) Warner Brothers text, put your own name and chuckle to yourself. The infringement only happens when you then try to claim it's your own work publicly. Which has the convenient benefit that a human normally has to be an accomplice to that.

jprete 3y ago
The copyright infringement happens at the moment of production of the image, unless the use counts as fair use. It doesn't matter whether or not you claim ownership or authorship. Home copies are protected primarily by the total impracticality of enforcement, and secondarily by claiming you're doing it to practice making art.
elicksaur 3y ago
In this scenario, the rights you’re leaving out are the rights to reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works. They’re exclusive. You’ll find reputable t-shirt printers will refuse to print designs they know to be copyrighted. No one would be claiming the printer or you came up with some copyrighted design, it’s the copying that’s an infringement (“copy”-right!). Now, these printers also typically have you assert that you hold the copyright to the work, but my understanding is that just limits their total financial exposure by contracting with you; them producing the work would still be infringing. Here, you aren’t even giving the bot a work to reproduce. It holds the work in its storage and will reproduce it for you when asked. That’s pretty cut and dry copyright infringement by whoever controls the bot.
bawolff 3y ago
Pretty sure that is not how copyright works.... attribution rights are important but it is not the be all and end all of copyright.
- graypegg 3y ago
  Laws obviously vary a lot, but most places that follow a similar definition of intellectual property rights to EU/NA do not forbid merely being in the presence of a work. Knowing of the details of an intellectual property isn't infringement. You wouldn't be able to monetize it if you were compelled to never let your book printer ever see your story to reproduce it for you, let alone the reading public. The purpose of copyrights as a concept, is to allow artists to profit from a work that's otherwise easily to duplicate. Laws tend to be written with that in mind. This is normally codified as an exception called "private study" or similar. You can ask the AI all day long to draw the batman symbol. But if you try to market that as "Chiroptera Guy", then you've taken the step that opens up litigation options for the holders of the original IP.

_ea1k 3y ago

If the photo industry is any indication, it won't really matter where the legal line is. They'll put in enforcement mechanisms wherever the industry feels like they should be. Nothing stops companies from going beyond what the law requires.