3 ms·

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 arti

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.
      - monocasa 3y ago
        YouTube is protected under the dmca safe harbor provisions. All they're required to do under US law is respond to DMCA requests. Content ID goes far above their legal requirements.
        graypegg 3y ago
        That has to be litigated to find out. Cases like Napster [0] and Grokster [1] set precedence for this sort of thing. They also used the DMCA in their defence, and they were still found culpable. These were decisions that were scoped by the method of delivery, so if YouTube was going to stop giving everyone a great deal, they'd be betting they have a solid case as to why their technology is legally distinct from those examples, and many others. (And conversely, like instances where the safe harbor clause has been used in a successful defence) That's a weird bet to take when the benefit is... people stop complaining about YouTube Content ID, and find something else to complain about? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....

__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.
    - monocasa 3y ago
      YouTube is protected under the dmca safe harbor provisions. All they're required to do under US law is respond to DMCA requests. Content ID goes far above their legal requirements.
      - graypegg 3y ago
        That has to be litigated to find out. Cases like Napster [0] and Grokster [1] set precedence for this sort of thing. They also used the DMCA in their defence, and they were still found culpable. These were decisions that were scoped by the method of delivery, so if YouTube was going to stop giving everyone a great deal, they'd be betting they have a solid case as to why their technology is legally distinct from those examples, and many others. (And conversely, like instances where the safe harbor clause has been used in a successful defence) That's a weird bet to take when the benefit is... people stop complaining about YouTube Content ID, and find something else to complain about? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....