3 ms·
What you propose is just a different small set of monopolistic players. Copyright has always been a trade off between the creator and society. It should be enf
by theonlybutlet 3y ago
What you propose is just a different small set of monopolistic players.
Copyright has always been a trade off between the creator and society.
It should be enforced the exact same way as it currently is. Fair use is fair use.
By your same logic, what is the difference between an AI or a very productive human? Where do you draw the line?
- panta 3y agoFair use by a machine is a concept which has hardly been studied by legislators. Personally I'd draw the line at the human/machine boundary.
- theonlybutlet 3y agoFair enough, if that's is so, there's even less of a case to be made. The person inputting variables (i.e a prompt) into the model that prints out non-fair use outputs would be at fault. The end work would be the actual object subject to litigation. It's just a tool then. The current system still stands then. Arguing a trained model is infringing would then be like arguing the manufacturers of my monitor were infringing as it contained the very same RGB.as the artist.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Fair use by a machine is a concept which has hardly been studied by legislators. I mean, that's true in the sense that "fair use by a pencil is a concept which hardly been studied by legislators" is true. Use (fair or not) isn't by the tool, its by the person using the tool.