4 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut 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 agoThe 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 agoI'm correcting them by stating the legal definition rather than the definition they made up. Copyright is ownership of the right to make copies of a work. Asking your friend to reproduce a copywritten work is also copyright infringement.
- kamikaz1k 3y agoalright The world moves on though, I guess.
- monocasa 3y agoI mean, there's a couple centuries of case law, explicit US code, and international treaties codifying what I said. It's not exactly something the world will move on from without explicit legislation and statecraft.
- Tadpole9181 3y agoYour definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories.
- monocasa 3y ago> Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. ...it's an entirely legal term. It has no definition outside of its legal one if you're trying to figure out how litigation would work. > The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories. There's a different argument made in that case if it hits the courts than the original poster's argument: de minimis. Basically that the claimed damage is too trivial to waste the court's time. It's not clear that automation at just about any scale will allow for a de minimis defense.