5 ms·

Current headline: "Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators" Tail end of the article: >However, the judge allowed Andersen’s complaint tha

Current headline: "Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators" Tail end of the article: >However, the judge allowed Andersen’s complaint that her 16 copyrighted works were used without her authorization to move forward. I'm not loving this headline. (edit: stamped comment w/ the current headline to be safe)

for1nner 3y ago
That's a pretty low bar though, no? Everyone just updates their T&Cs and laughs their way to the bank with free training data - the real meat of the claims was what was dismissed.
catapart 3y ago
Yeah; headline leaves out the pretty salient bit that the plaintiffs can amend their claims to be more accurate, which will only make the case more logistically sound. Headline makes it seem like the case is over, when it's not.
- for1nner 3y ago
  I don't really see a way they can make their claims "more accurate" unless these models decide to open-source - and why would they ever do that?
  - catapart 3y ago
    It's hard to remember exactly what my problem with it was, but if you look up the original filing and read what the artists claim is being done with their images, you can clearly seem some invalid assertions on their part. That's why I even took an interest in the case, in the first place. I like Anderson and I think what she's aiming for is a good goal, but when I read the case I was like "oh shit, this is doomed to fail." Again, I don't remember what the exact description was, but I remember it jumping out as obviously wrong (a layman's interpretation of a neural network). Feel free to go over that and it should be pretty obvious how the claims could be amended. Barring that, just wait for the filing because I'm sure the plaintiff lawyers will be jumping all over this.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      The IP lawyers I've talked to about this at length—and who don't have a particular axe to grind—are pretty skeptical in general outside of a specific output being a derivative work of a specific copyrighted work. The argument against generative AI seems (IANAL) to rest on there being some sort of collective copyright (across many different creators and even including works that are not actually copyrighted at all) which somehow carries over to an output that, had a human created it would probably be seen as an original work. I get the emotional appeal to companies are using my stuff without paying me or even crediting me. But, as I understand it, works are normally considered derivative of specific works—not some large corpus.
      - belorn 3y ago
        Collective copyright-like arguments do look strange but they were the core argument in the pirate bay trial. The founders were found guilty of assisting in infringement of copyright where the specific case of infringement and the specific copyrighted work is both unknown and deemed unnecessary to define. The argument as it went went like this. Is the theory that no infringement has occurred believable, or can it be said as a forgone conclusion that over the course of the operation that some specific copyrighted work has been infringed on at some point in time and that the operator knowingly were aware that such cases was likely to have happened. It is true that many lawyers and legal experts thought that the pirate founders were immune to such claims since usually one need to produce specific cases of specific copyrighted works in order to find someone guilty of assisting. The case however illustrated that such requirements are not always needed, and the Swedish supreme court did not feel it necessary to analyze it further.
        ghaff 3y ago
        >The argument as it went went like this. Is the theory that no infringement has occurred believable, or can it be said as a forgone conclusion that over the course of the operation that some specific copyrighted work has been infringed on at some point in time and that the operator knowingly were aware that such cases was likely to have happened. Though in this case, I assume that a great many lawyers would argue that it's hardly a foregone conclusion in this case.

for1nner 3y ago

That's a pretty low bar though, no? Everyone just updates their T&Cs and laughs their way to the bank with free training data - the real meat of the claims was what was dismissed.

catapart 3y ago

Yeah; headline leaves out the pretty salient bit that the plaintiffs can amend their claims to be more accurate, which will only make the case more logistically sound. Headline makes it seem like the case is over, when it's not.

for1nner 3y ago
I don't really see a way they can make their claims "more accurate" unless these models decide to open-source - and why would they ever do that?
- catapart 3y ago
  It's hard to remember exactly what my problem with it was, but if you look up the original filing and read what the artists claim is being done with their images, you can clearly seem some invalid assertions on their part. That's why I even took an interest in the case, in the first place. I like Anderson and I think what she's aiming for is a good goal, but when I read the case I was like "oh shit, this is doomed to fail." Again, I don't remember what the exact description was, but I remember it jumping out as obviously wrong (a layman's interpretation of a neural network). Feel free to go over that and it should be pretty obvious how the claims could be amended. Barring that, just wait for the filing because I'm sure the plaintiff lawyers will be jumping all over this.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    The IP lawyers I've talked to about this at length—and who don't have a particular axe to grind—are pretty skeptical in general outside of a specific output being a derivative work of a specific copyrighted work. The argument against generative AI seems (IANAL) to rest on there being some sort of collective copyright (across many different creators and even including works that are not actually copyrighted at all) which somehow carries over to an output that, had a human created it would probably be seen as an original work. I get the emotional appeal to companies are using my stuff without paying me or even crediting me. But, as I understand it, works are normally considered derivative of specific works—not some large corpus.
    - belorn 3y ago
      Collective copyright-like arguments do look strange but they were the core argument in the pirate bay trial. The founders were found guilty of assisting in infringement of copyright where the specific case of infringement and the specific copyrighted work is both unknown and deemed unnecessary to define. The argument as it went went like this. Is the theory that no infringement has occurred believable, or can it be said as a forgone conclusion that over the course of the operation that some specific copyrighted work has been infringed on at some point in time and that the operator knowingly were aware that such cases was likely to have happened. It is true that many lawyers and legal experts thought that the pirate founders were immune to such claims since usually one need to produce specific cases of specific copyrighted works in order to find someone guilty of assisting. The case however illustrated that such requirements are not always needed, and the Swedish supreme court did not feel it necessary to analyze it further.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        >The argument as it went went like this. Is the theory that no infringement has occurred believable, or can it be said as a forgone conclusion that over the course of the operation that some specific copyrighted work has been infringed on at some point in time and that the operator knowingly were aware that such cases was likely to have happened. Though in this case, I assume that a great many lawyers would argue that it's hardly a foregone conclusion in this case.