4 ms·

Generative AI Will Be a Boon for Public Domain Unless Copyright Blocks It

23 points by SeenNotHeard 3y ago

Tanoc 3y ago
I seriously question how they believe this, because it doesn't help bring things into public domain when all the training data itself is copyrighted and possibly pulled from trademarked brands. Which is a problem public facing offerings from OpenAI, Google, and Facebook refuse to solve both due to legacy baggage, complexity, and the potential lost profits. Unless you can absolutely 100% prove that all training data was captured and input by yourself at every stage courts will not entertain the idea. If anything this hurts smaller artists or groups while helping larger corporations and organizations because only the large corporations will have the resources to gather that unique wholly-owned training data. The article and comments section also don't seem to understand that corporations will and do use such tools to find the very legal edge in order to consolidate power even more than they already have. There's the first part of that consolidation that if a tool can easily reproduce signature elements it makes it harder to defend against copyright and trademark infringement in court because the copyright and trademark can be diluted. That is a double-edged sword, but the sword is swinging in your direction and not the corporation's. The public will work faster than the court ever can to dilute that copyright or trademark as shown with things like memes using copyrighted images, meaning by the time the case is actually heard it might already be lost. A corporation will always have the resources to disseminate things better than an individual can, allowing them to dilute the copyright or trademark quickly so they can profit off of their own widely distributed derivative version that they can copyright and trademark. An infamous example is the 1960s Loufrani smiley face, where the public diluted the copyright and trademark enough that Wal-Mart attempted to associate it with their brand and trademark it. Wal-Mart only barely lost that court case to Franklin Loufrani. The second part of that consolidation is that it's enabling the eradication of an entire line of work and removing even more financial power from individuals. By using AI that's abusing copyright to fight corporations abusing copyright you're removing an entire group of thumbnail, insert, layout, and title artists that are already being hurt by corporations and are already extremely versed in getting around the broken copyright laws. Those who use AI keep said artists from being involved and paid, making it harder to influence industry standards and for everyone else driving up the cost of getting the work done while reducing the income of the people hired to do the work. You cannot compete with free and lightning fast.
- NemoNobody 3y ago
  I'm confused how your thought process is working here - your saying corps have the ability to actually do this themselves and they are the only ones that really could. do you think after they do invest in their own version, no infringement - you think they will still hire thumbnail artists??? Your essentially advocating for ONLY big corps to have this tech, then everyone will still be out work
  - Tanoc 3y ago
    I'm not advocating, I'm saying that's exactly what's going to, and what's already happening. And I'm saying they won't hire thumbnail artists. Meaning the people who refuse to use AI out of principle or who wouldn't be able to tank the legal and reputational hit will be left to pay more for the work, while the artists themselves get paid less. Right now the average rate for a large news article is $50 for the thumbnail and $1 per word. The total cost for the output on a regular article then would be $650 on an average article. With all resources internal and the sheer size to absorb the damage, the corporation pays nothing. Meanwhile the people who have to rely on other real people are out $650 per article, or $600 if they cut out the thumbnail artist. This is more likely for sources, because the AI the corporation uses has to regurgitate and reassemble the information from somewhere else.
    - NemoNobody 3y ago
      Right... but RN I can go on Bing and access this tech. If the NYT wins their stupid ONLY Msft, Google, and other like them will have access - WE will ALL be left out Some people are going to get cut out - that is happening no matter what. I want to have access still.
NemoNobody 3y ago
Is anyone asking actual creators what they think of AI? Like, you wrote that huge thing about how it's replacing a line of work but that isn't the case. I'm not very good at editing images and tho this has changed my world I the sense of what I can initially accomplish - I still need a graphic designer. I like to occasionally make websites that I never really do anything with, it's been years since I've made one and I'll just say with coding this changes everything for people that actually know what they are doing - it saves so much time. Our time is the most valuable thing we have. AI can help creators accomplish things in a fraction of the time it would take without it. Copyright law isn't for creators it's for corporations - don't pretend otherwise

23 points by SeenNotHeard 3y ago

I seriously question how they believe this, because it doesn't help bring things into public domain when all the training data itself is copyrighted and possibly pulled from trademarked brands. Which is a problem public facing offerings from OpenAI, Google, and Facebook refuse to solve both due to legacy baggage, complexity, and the potential lost profits. Unless you can absolutely 100% prove that all training data was captured and input by yourself at every stage courts will not entertain the idea. If anything this hurts smaller artists or groups while helping larger corporations and organizations because only the large corporations will have the resources to gather that unique wholly-owned training data. The article and comments section also don't seem to understand that corporations will and do use such tools to find the very legal edge in order to consolidate power even more than they already have. There's the first part of that consolidation that if a tool can easily reproduce signature elements it makes it harder to defend against copyright and trademark infringement in court because the copyright and trademark can be diluted. That is a double-edged sword, but the sword is swinging in your direction and not the corporation's. The public will work faster than the court ever can to dilute that copyright or trademark as shown with things like memes using copyrighted images, meaning by the time the case is actually heard it might already be lost. A corporation will always have the resources to disseminate things better than an individual can, allowing them to dilute the copyright or trademark quickly so they can profit off of their own widely distributed derivative version that they can copyright and trademark. An infamous example is the 1960s Loufrani smiley face, where the public diluted the copyright and trademark enough that Wal-Mart attempted to associate it with their brand and trademark it. Wal-Mart only barely lost that court case to Franklin Loufrani. The second part of that consolidation is that it's enabling the eradication of an entire line of work and removing even more financial power from individuals. By using AI that's abusing copyright to fight corporations abusing copyright you're removing an entire group of thumbnail, insert, layout, and title artists that are already being hurt by corporations and are already extremely versed in getting around the broken copyright laws. Those who use AI keep said artists from being involved and paid, making it harder to influence industry standards and for everyone else driving up the cost of getting the work done while reducing the income of the people hired to do the work. You cannot compete with free and lightning fast.

NemoNobody 3y ago
I'm confused how your thought process is working here - your saying corps have the ability to actually do this themselves and they are the only ones that really could. do you think after they do invest in their own version, no infringement - you think they will still hire thumbnail artists??? Your essentially advocating for ONLY big corps to have this tech, then everyone will still be out work
- Tanoc 3y ago
  I'm not advocating, I'm saying that's exactly what's going to, and what's already happening. And I'm saying they won't hire thumbnail artists. Meaning the people who refuse to use AI out of principle or who wouldn't be able to tank the legal and reputational hit will be left to pay more for the work, while the artists themselves get paid less. Right now the average rate for a large news article is $50 for the thumbnail and $1 per word. The total cost for the output on a regular article then would be $650 on an average article. With all resources internal and the sheer size to absorb the damage, the corporation pays nothing. Meanwhile the people who have to rely on other real people are out $650 per article, or $600 if they cut out the thumbnail artist. This is more likely for sources, because the AI the corporation uses has to regurgitate and reassemble the information from somewhere else.
  - NemoNobody 3y ago
    Right... but RN I can go on Bing and access this tech. If the NYT wins their stupid ONLY Msft, Google, and other like them will have access - WE will ALL be left out Some people are going to get cut out - that is happening no matter what. I want to have access still.

NemoNobody 3y ago

Is anyone asking actual creators what they think of AI? Like, you wrote that huge thing about how it's replacing a line of work but that isn't the case. I'm not very good at editing images and tho this has changed my world I the sense of what I can initially accomplish - I still need a graphic designer. I like to occasionally make websites that I never really do anything with, it's been years since I've made one and I'll just say with coding this changes everything for people that actually know what they are doing - it saves so much time. Our time is the most valuable thing we have. AI can help creators accomplish things in a fraction of the time it would take without it. Copyright law isn't for creators it's for corporations - don't pretend otherwise