6 ms·

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, scribb

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.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    > "The infringement only happens when you then try to claim it's your own work publicly." Is a very different statement from > do not forbid merely being in the presence of a work.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    But at the end of the day, copyright is ultimately about reproduction of a work. Asking the ML model to reproduce a copywritten work isn't just "knowing" about the work, but potentially an alternative to buying a properly licensed reproduction of the work in question.
    - kamikaz1k 3y ago
      The post you responded to doesn't agree with your definition of what copyright is for. The post claims that its about allowing the author to profit from it. Mere reproduction doesn't stop them, till you try to sell at some scale. It's the equivalent of asking your friend to draw you something. Now, you're free to disagree. But if you're just stating a different definition, you're not engaging in a rebuttal, just an ignor-al.
      - monocasa 3y ago

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.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > "The infringement only happens when you then try to claim it's your own work publicly." Is a very different statement from > do not forbid merely being in the presence of a work.
- monocasa 3y ago
  But at the end of the day, copyright is ultimately about reproduction of a work. Asking the ML model to reproduce a copywritten work isn't just "knowing" about the work, but potentially an alternative to buying a properly licensed reproduction of the work in question.
  - kamikaz1k 3y ago
    The post you responded to doesn't agree with your definition of what copyright is for. The post claims that its about allowing the author to profit from it. Mere reproduction doesn't stop them, till you try to sell at some scale. It's the equivalent of asking your friend to draw you something. Now, you're free to disagree. But if you're just stating a different definition, you're not engaging in a rebuttal, just an ignor-al.
    - monocasa 3y ago