3 ms·

If you use a snippet from Stack Overflow that came from a book, is the original publisher entitled to some of your salary?

exabrial 3y ago
This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent. If someone posts something to StackOverflow, they're intending to help both the original person and anyone that comes along later with the same question with their coding problem, and that's the extent of it. An artist making a painting or song has not consented to training algorithms on their copyrighted work. In fact, neither has the StackOverflow person. Boggles my mind this concept is so absent from the minds of SV folk.
- depereo 3y ago
  For a bunch of rent-seekers who issue licenses to use their prior work, they really struggle with the various licences that other people's work can be issued with.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent. This is what you don't understand: the concept of fair use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use If the courts hold this type of thing to be fair use (which I'm about 90% sure they will), "consent" won't enter into it. At all.
  - rvz 3y ago
    There is nothing "fair use" around this: [0] or this [1] which both cases are done without permission and are commercial uses. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright... [1] https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/scarlett-johansson-legal-action-ai-app-ad-likeness-1235773489/ https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/scarlett-johansson-leg...
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      Your first reference is an opinion of the lawyers for a concerned party, i.e., meaningless. Lawyers make nonsensical claims all the time. It's one of the things they get paid for. The situation described in your second reference is already unlawful, regardless of how the image was produced. You're not allowed to make commercial use of images of Scarlett Johansson even if you scratch them on a cave wall with a broken deer antler.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Their position (and also mine, even though I have otherwise lots of disagreement with most SV folk in other areas) is that for those ML purposes, no consent need be sought or granted. If the work is publicly accessible, it's usable for AI. This is legally supported by fair use (to be determined by the courts, keep an eye out on the Andersen v. Stability lawsuit)
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  The notion of consent you're pushing does not have a legal basis and is also deeply silly.

exabrial 3y ago

This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent. If someone posts something to StackOverflow, they're intending to help both the original person and anyone that comes along later with the same question with their coding problem, and that's the extent of it. An artist making a painting or song has not consented to training algorithms on their copyrighted work. In fact, neither has the StackOverflow person. Boggles my mind this concept is so absent from the minds of SV folk.

depereo 3y ago
For a bunch of rent-seekers who issue licenses to use their prior work, they really struggle with the various licences that other people's work can be issued with.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent. This is what you don't understand: the concept of fair use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use If the courts hold this type of thing to be fair use (which I'm about 90% sure they will), "consent" won't enter into it. At all.
- rvz 3y ago
  There is nothing "fair use" around this: [0] or this [1] which both cases are done without permission and are commercial uses. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright... [1] https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/scarlett-johansson-legal-action-ai-app-ad-likeness-1235773489/ https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/scarlett-johansson-leg...
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    Your first reference is an opinion of the lawyers for a concerned party, i.e., meaningless. Lawyers make nonsensical claims all the time. It's one of the things they get paid for. The situation described in your second reference is already unlawful, regardless of how the image was produced. You're not allowed to make commercial use of images of Scarlett Johansson even if you scratch them on a cave wall with a broken deer antler.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Their position (and also mine, even though I have otherwise lots of disagreement with most SV folk in other areas) is that for those ML purposes, no consent need be sought or granted. If the work is publicly accessible, it's usable for AI. This is legally supported by fair use (to be determined by the courts, keep an eye out on the Andersen v. Stability lawsuit)
gaganyaan 3y ago
The notion of consent you're pushing does not have a legal basis and is also deeply silly.