6 ms·

So I have given this some thought, and the legal issue is not fair use unless the new work is really clearly derivative. The concern is that the system was tra

So I have given this some thought, and the legal issue is not fair use unless the new work is really clearly derivative. The concern is that the system was trained on content that was not purchased or licensed. The systems effectively need a license to CONSUME / LEARN FROM the content. The human equivalent would be purchasing a single copy of a work, or checking it out of a library. In one case the consumer purchased a license for a copy of the work, in the other the library did. In the case of the generative AI companies, I think there is a good amount of content that has been consumed that was neither in the public domain or properly licensed. So what is the legal remedy?

slyall 3y ago
The problem is humans ingest a lot of unlicensed content. For example reading a webpage or looking at a billboard or flipping though a book in a bookstore. Not even counting watching something that was torrented. Or watched in the wrong country via a VPN. Or a Meme that doesn't pay the original photographer. The majority of what AI's consume is from publicly available web pages. Putting a "license" requirement on reading those is problematic.
- 4death4 3y ago
  When do most humans ingest unlicensed content? Most content is licensed. E.g. if you rent a movie, that is a license to watch it. If a creator posts something to Reddit, then that’s a license to view. Etc.
  - slyall 3y ago
    If the creator posts original content to reddit then perhaps. However if some random other person posts it then probably not. A screenshot or photograph taken from somewhere else would not be licensed, eg most memes. If I watch a movie and it shows an artwork in the background of a scene is that licensed (there are been lawsuits along these lines)? If I hear music being played loudly by someone else is that licensed? What exactly am I licensed to do with a magazine I find by the side of the road? Or a random webpage I just read? Lots of edge cases. Copyright Law made a lot more sense when they only people creating and publishing content were a few companies. Not the entire population
    - 4death4 3y ago
      Is most of the media you consume potentially unlicensed background artwork, overheard music, and magazines found on the side of the road? (You actually are licensed to consume the later two). And for memes, I would say most meme creators create memes knowing they may be cross posted, which is kind of an implicit license to consume. So, while some edge cases may technically exist, I wouldn’t call them meaningful in any way whatsoever.
      - slyall 3y ago
        I mean memes that use a photograph (eg a screenshot from a movie) as background with some text over it. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/who-owns-memes https://www.natlawreview.com/article/who-owns-memes But if what you have asserted is true then me reading anything that I casually come across on the Internet is okay then it is okay for a web-crawler to do the same and feed that data to an AI.
        4death4 3y ago
        Did you read your own link? > Generally, posting and sharing memes online as a form of expression is not actionable and is usually protected under the First Amendment and the doctrines of fair use.
        slyall 3y ago
        Just a followup I think you (4death4) are missing the original comment that I am replying to. In that the Poster asserts that "I think there is a good amount of content that has been consumed that was neither in the public domain or properly licensed". I am saying this is probably the same for humans using the Internet. They don't have an explicit license to read or learn from much of what they read on the Internet. You are asserting that most of the edge cases are fair use or similar. The problem is that OP is asserting that an explicit license is required for an AI to learn from content. My main point is that it is a contradiction to believe that it is legal for humans to read and learn from anything and illegal for machines to do they same. Either it is legal or illegal for both.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
> So I have given this some thought, and the legal issue is not fair use unless the new work is really clearly derivative. Fair use is a defense to all possible claims of copyright infringement, not just the violation of the exclusive right to create derivative works.

slyall 3y ago

The problem is humans ingest a lot of unlicensed content. For example reading a webpage or looking at a billboard or flipping though a book in a bookstore. Not even counting watching something that was torrented. Or watched in the wrong country via a VPN. Or a Meme that doesn't pay the original photographer. The majority of what AI's consume is from publicly available web pages. Putting a "license" requirement on reading those is problematic.

4death4 3y ago
When do most humans ingest unlicensed content? Most content is licensed. E.g. if you rent a movie, that is a license to watch it. If a creator posts something to Reddit, then that’s a license to view. Etc.
- slyall 3y ago
  If the creator posts original content to reddit then perhaps. However if some random other person posts it then probably not. A screenshot or photograph taken from somewhere else would not be licensed, eg most memes. If I watch a movie and it shows an artwork in the background of a scene is that licensed (there are been lawsuits along these lines)? If I hear music being played loudly by someone else is that licensed? What exactly am I licensed to do with a magazine I find by the side of the road? Or a random webpage I just read? Lots of edge cases. Copyright Law made a lot more sense when they only people creating and publishing content were a few companies. Not the entire population
  - 4death4 3y ago
    Is most of the media you consume potentially unlicensed background artwork, overheard music, and magazines found on the side of the road? (You actually are licensed to consume the later two). And for memes, I would say most meme creators create memes knowing they may be cross posted, which is kind of an implicit license to consume. So, while some edge cases may technically exist, I wouldn’t call them meaningful in any way whatsoever.
    - slyall 3y ago
      I mean memes that use a photograph (eg a screenshot from a movie) as background with some text over it. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/who-owns-memes https://www.natlawreview.com/article/who-owns-memes But if what you have asserted is true then me reading anything that I casually come across on the Internet is okay then it is okay for a web-crawler to do the same and feed that data to an AI.
      - 4death4 3y ago
        Did you read your own link? > Generally, posting and sharing memes online as a form of expression is not actionable and is usually protected under the First Amendment and the doctrines of fair use.
      - slyall 3y ago
        Just a followup I think you (4death4) are missing the original comment that I am replying to. In that the Poster asserts that "I think there is a good amount of content that has been consumed that was neither in the public domain or properly licensed". I am saying this is probably the same for humans using the Internet. They don't have an explicit license to read or learn from much of what they read on the Internet. You are asserting that most of the edge cases are fair use or similar. The problem is that OP is asserting that an explicit license is required for an AI to learn from content. My main point is that it is a contradiction to believe that it is legal for humans to read and learn from anything and illegal for machines to do they same. Either it is legal or illegal for both.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

> So I have given this some thought, and the legal issue is not fair use unless the new work is really clearly derivative. Fair use is a defense to all possible claims of copyright infringement, not just the violation of the exclusive right to create derivative works.