3 ms·

You can argue that artists given an implicit license for people to copy art into their own brains while viewing it. The same way websites give an implicit licen

You can argue that artists given an implicit license for people to copy art into their own brains while viewing it. The same way websites give an implicit license for a browser to copy the page to display it. That does not necessarily mean they given an implicit license for someone else to copy the work as part of AI training. Separate to that is the issue of producing new works that are too similar to existing works you've seen. If you do that as a human then you're liable for copyright infringement.

brookst 3y ago
I think you’re proposing two big expansions to copyright: 1) that it covers what an observer can do, and 2) that everything is illegal unless explicitly made legal. I don’t think I want to live in that world.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  I'm proposing nothing, as far as I know that is how it is now. A browser viewing a web page is making a copy of the web page which is governed by copyright. Except by making a web page you give people the right to make that copy. Lots of interesting lawsuits around that regarding bots, scrapping, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
  - brookst 3y ago
    Copyright has always been about the reproduction of works. Copyright lawsuits about scraping, etc, are about the use of scraped data. That’s why EULAs, which are not copyright, are often used to try to further restrict rights. None of that covers the idea that observing a copyrighted work is a violation of copyright only made acceptable by an implicit license. As the link you posted notes, that’s not what an implicit license is.
  - BestGuess 3y ago
    See this kind of thing here is what I think is a problem and has been a problem forever. We have two opposite laws on this, 1. Copying is theft (contents of a CD [software], movies, stuff on a website sometimes, etc) 2. Copying is not theft (VHS copies of broadcasts, cassettes, etc) Problem is "implied license" (eula-roofie) where we've, without any good reason I think, decided that, (a) Copying is theft when someone unilaterally declares what you buy to be different from the medium (CD vs what's on it [software, movie, etc]) (a)(2) except when it's a really old medium like a book which you're allowed to quote, and use in derivation, but don't you dare "quote a movie" by copying portions off that DVD or blu-ray because that's different. Shut up is why. (b) Copying is theft when someone unilaterally declares their putting something up to view, which necessarily requires copying to view (sent over internet), can't be copied for derivative fair use (b)(2) except when it's over another old medium like public broadcast because... fuck you? I haven't a clue myself how this makes any sense and I suspect it is because "it doesn't". (c) Copying is theft if you take the copy sent you over the internet and do anything with it somebody unilaterally declares they don't want you to be able to do (c)(2) except if it's an old medium, like a book, where you can borrow it and quote from it and do all the fair use stuff, or borrow a picture, or a painting, or... All the fair use and copying and other sensible stuff without this weird "implied license" stuff doesn't exist for formats we've had before to the extent it does now. These formats, in principle, are still just "you get a copy of a thing on some medium", and yet we have two completely different laws based on this pure fiction of an "implied license" that declares you can't copy even portions of one on some format because... because. I am trying, desperately, to explain there is fundamentally and in principle no difference. The root of all of our problems and why the law doesn't make any sense is the pure fiction that there IS a difference. And I feel like a goddamn madman yelling in the streets trying to explain something that feels so dog gon obvious to me but seems like is obvious to nobody else.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> You can argue that artists given an implicit license for people to copy art into their own brains while viewing it. You can, but it would be more correct to argue that memories in a human brain are not copies under the law at all, and so need no license (or fair use analysis) in the first place. This has different results than an implicit license argument, especially when there is an explicit denial of license or an explicit license which is also explicitly bounded to exclude any rights not explicitly licensed.

brookst 3y ago

I think you’re proposing two big expansions to copyright: 1) that it covers what an observer can do, and 2) that everything is illegal unless explicitly made legal. I don’t think I want to live in that world.

marcinzm 3y ago
I'm proposing nothing, as far as I know that is how it is now. A browser viewing a web page is making a copy of the web page which is governed by copyright. Except by making a web page you give people the right to make that copy. Lots of interesting lawsuits around that regarding bots, scrapping, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
- brookst 3y ago
  Copyright has always been about the reproduction of works. Copyright lawsuits about scraping, etc, are about the use of scraped data. That’s why EULAs, which are not copyright, are often used to try to further restrict rights. None of that covers the idea that observing a copyrighted work is a violation of copyright only made acceptable by an implicit license. As the link you posted notes, that’s not what an implicit license is.
- BestGuess 3y ago
  See this kind of thing here is what I think is a problem and has been a problem forever. We have two opposite laws on this, 1. Copying is theft (contents of a CD [software], movies, stuff on a website sometimes, etc) 2. Copying is not theft (VHS copies of broadcasts, cassettes, etc) Problem is "implied license" (eula-roofie) where we've, without any good reason I think, decided that, (a) Copying is theft when someone unilaterally declares what you buy to be different from the medium (CD vs what's on it [software, movie, etc]) (a)(2) except when it's a really old medium like a book which you're allowed to quote, and use in derivation, but don't you dare "quote a movie" by copying portions off that DVD or blu-ray because that's different. Shut up is why. (b) Copying is theft when someone unilaterally declares their putting something up to view, which necessarily requires copying to view (sent over internet), can't be copied for derivative fair use (b)(2) except when it's over another old medium like public broadcast because... fuck you? I haven't a clue myself how this makes any sense and I suspect it is because "it doesn't". (c) Copying is theft if you take the copy sent you over the internet and do anything with it somebody unilaterally declares they don't want you to be able to do (c)(2) except if it's an old medium, like a book, where you can borrow it and quote from it and do all the fair use stuff, or borrow a picture, or a painting, or... All the fair use and copying and other sensible stuff without this weird "implied license" stuff doesn't exist for formats we've had before to the extent it does now. These formats, in principle, are still just "you get a copy of a thing on some medium", and yet we have two completely different laws based on this pure fiction of an "implied license" that declares you can't copy even portions of one on some format because... because. I am trying, desperately, to explain there is fundamentally and in principle no difference. The root of all of our problems and why the law doesn't make any sense is the pure fiction that there IS a difference. And I feel like a goddamn madman yelling in the streets trying to explain something that feels so dog gon obvious to me but seems like is obvious to nobody else.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> You can argue that artists given an implicit license for people to copy art into their own brains while viewing it. You can, but it would be more correct to argue that memories in a human brain are not copies under the law at all, and so need no license (or fair use analysis) in the first place. This has different results than an implicit license argument, especially when there is an explicit denial of license or an explicit license which is also explicitly bounded to exclude any rights not explicitly licensed.