5 ms·
If the artist's license was for non-commercial use, isn't using it for training an AI for commercial use a clear violation ? I would love to know why not.
by muststopmyths 3y ago
If the artist's license was for non-commercial use, isn't using it for training an AI for commercial use a clear violation ?
I would love to know why not.
- artninja1988 3y agoFair use, if it does indeed apply, doesn't care about license
- croes 3y agoI doubt it's still fair use if you become one of most valuable companies, hence the word "fair" in fair use.
- yreg 3y agoThe value of a company has nothing to do with whether copyright applies.
- croes 3y agoUnless the value of the company is based on one product with alleged copyright infringement. OpenAI has one asset: GPT. >Commercial use does not automatically make the use copyright infringement, but it is an important deciding factor. https://saltiellawgroup.com/2021/10/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bcan-you-profit-from-copyright-fair-use-what-creators-should-know/ https://saltiellawgroup.com/2021/10/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bcan-yo...
- yreg 3y agoThat says nothing about the value of the company. If it's an infringement when OpenAI does it, it would be an infringement when a company with 1/1000th the value did it.
- andybak 3y agoIt's a specific legal term - so the everyday meaning of the words isn't relevant as far as I understand it.
- croes 3y agoThere is a reason why the word was chosen, in essence, it is about the meaning of the word
- tsimionescu 3y agoThe fair in fair use has nothing to do with the size of a company. If Disney produces a satire of Penny Arcade, that's still fair use of Penny Arcade's IP.
- croes 3y agoSatire is always linked to the object of the satire, that's he fair part. LLM text and images aren't.
- andy99 3y agoFair use. Licenses like that are enforced under copyright, if the use is not subject to copyright, the license terms are irrelevant.
- __loam 3y agoWe should note that whether AI training is actually fair use has yet to be tested in court. In particular, there's some wording in fair use about the effect on the market for the original and whether the derivative work can substitute for the original that I think a lot of programmers who blindly say this is fair use ignore. I am not a lawyer though.
- croes 3y agoMaking money from the trained model isn't fair use anymore.
- ipsum2 3y agoNo, fair use does not preclude making money.
- CharlesW 3y agoThat's an over-simplication. Fair use does not necessarily preclude the user from making money, but it definitely can if that action diminishes the value of the copied work.
- croes 3y agoIf we talk about the OpenAI magnitude of money it's definitely precluded, that's way beyond fair.
- ipsum2 3y agoLol what? That's not how any of this works.
- 3y ago
- madeofpalk 3y agoFair use is an argument to explain why you violated the license/copyright. It relies on the fact that you did make a copy without permission.
- munchler 3y agoFair use is not a copyright violation! It’s a limitation placed on copyright to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest.
- encomiast 3y agoIt's seems just like a poor choice of words and semantic argument around the term "violate". Fair use is an affirmative defense — you concede you did this thing that would be illegal if not for this other extenuating information/circumstance. This is similar to claiming self-defense in a murder case — yes I killed that person, but it's not murder since I can show it was self-defense. In this case it would be 'yes, I used this copyrighted work in a way that would be infringement were it not a fair use, but here's why it's fair-use.'
- madeofpalk 3y agoThank you, yes - affirmative defense is exactly what I was trying to think of but couldn't remember.
- jmole 3y agoAnd if so, should that non-commercial-use qualifier extend to works co/created with that AI?