6 ms·

Does copyright law say you can ingest copyrighted work at very large scale and sell derivates of those works to gain massive profit / massive market capitalizat

Does copyright law say you can ingest copyrighted work at very large scale and sell derivates of those works to gain massive profit / massive market capitalizations? Honestly wondering. This seems to be the crux issue here.

Workaccount2 3y ago
It does. See app stores and the endless copy-cat games and apps, right down to the art style.
- freejazz 3y ago
  I sue people for copyright infringement frequently. It's rare that I have a defendant whose defense is "the internet is full of other infringers, why should I be held responsible?" Never have they won. This debate would go better if people didn't base it on assumptions they gleam from the world around them, but with regard to the actual law and not specious reasoning like "well, they did it too!!"
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    I'd love to be the lawyer of the first anime artist then.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      Why engage with nearly 200 years of copyright jurisprudence when you can just insist you are right because anime?
      - Workaccount2 3y ago
        No, I can insist they are copying my style, which is anime. Or maybe you cannot copyright style, and all those apps do fall on legal ground?
        freejazz 3y ago
        Style is not copyrightable. Please make an actual effort to engage with copyright law and not just ask me smarmy questions because you think you are right because you've made no efforts past looking at things immediately in front of you. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+style+copyrightable https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+style+copyrightable
freejazz 3y ago
No, copyright law prohibits that. The best example so far is Google's image search being considered a fair use, notably there, its not commercial in as far as they do not sell the derivative work, though they might sell ads on the image search results. OpenAI sells their service which is the result of the copies, i.e. the a derivative work. It's also probably true that the AI weights themselves are derivatives of the works they are based from.
cmiles74 3y ago
Yes, I believe that is correct. If you do something "transformative" with the material then you are allowed to treat it as something new. There's also the idea of using a portion of a copyrighted work (like a quote or a clip of a song or video), this would be "fair use".
sandworm101 3y ago
>> ingest copyrighted work at very large scale and sell derivates of those works to gain massive profit / massive market capitalizations? Entire industries exist dedicated to such things. News aggregators. TV parody shows. Standup comedians. Fan fiction. Biography writers. Art critics. Movie critics. Sometimes the derivative work even outsells the original, especially when the original was horrible or unappreciated. I have never played Among Us or the new Call of Duty, but I do enjoy watching NeebsGaming do their youtube parodies of them.
derangedHorse 3y ago
Like how Google has parsed webpages of content to develop their page rank algorithm for searching on the web? I'm assuming it does.
- chlorion 3y ago
  Google is not producing something that competes with or is comparable to what it's parsing and displaying, which makes it very different. Google is displaying the exact content and a link to the source, and is functioning as a search engine. Copying music (or whatever), and then outputting music based on the copied music is not the same thing as a search engine, it's outputting a new "art" that is competing with the original. Another way to put it, is that you can't use a search engine to copy something in any meaningful way, but copying music to produce more music is actually copying something.
  - derangedHorse 3y ago
    The goal of my post was not to answer what differentiates google search with LLMs and other generative models, it was to respond to the original post above: > Does copyright law say you can ingest copyrighted work at very large scale and sell derivates of those works to gain massive profit / massive market capitalizations The reasons as to why I don't think training on copyrighted data are stated in my other comments replying to people who have made arguments about its immorality.
    - chlorion 3y ago
      Googles search engine is not selling derivative works. If you search for a Disney movie on Google search, it does not try to sell you a film derived from the movie.
      - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
        They sell you ad space on full Disney movies (re)uploaded by random people who are not affiliated with Disney though: https://www.google.com/search?q=finding+nemo+full+movie https://www.google.com/search?q=finding+nemo+full+movie I can also get Disney coloring book pages directly from Google's cache on Google images: https://www.google.com/search?q=disney+princess+coloring+book+page https://www.google.com/search?q=disney+princess+coloring+boo... Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. determined that Google's wholesale scanning and uploading of books is allowed under the first sale doctrine because the University of Michigan library they borrowed the books to scan from paid for them (or a donor paid for them, at some point). Here's a book of bedtime stories available in its entirety: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Picnics_in_the_Wood_and_Other_Bedtime_St/ey9Brl_v6-kC?gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Picnics_in_the_Wood_and...

Workaccount2 3y ago

It does. See app stores and the endless copy-cat games and apps, right down to the art style.

freejazz 3y ago
I sue people for copyright infringement frequently. It's rare that I have a defendant whose defense is "the internet is full of other infringers, why should I be held responsible?" Never have they won. This debate would go better if people didn't base it on assumptions they gleam from the world around them, but with regard to the actual law and not specious reasoning like "well, they did it too!!"
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  I'd love to be the lawyer of the first anime artist then.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    Why engage with nearly 200 years of copyright jurisprudence when you can just insist you are right because anime?
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      No, I can insist they are copying my style, which is anime. Or maybe you cannot copyright style, and all those apps do fall on legal ground?
      - freejazz 3y ago
        Style is not copyrightable. Please make an actual effort to engage with copyright law and not just ask me smarmy questions because you think you are right because you've made no efforts past looking at things immediately in front of you. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+style+copyrightable https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+style+copyrightable

freejazz 3y ago

No, copyright law prohibits that. The best example so far is Google's image search being considered a fair use, notably there, its not commercial in as far as they do not sell the derivative work, though they might sell ads on the image search results. OpenAI sells their service which is the result of the copies, i.e. the a derivative work. It's also probably true that the AI weights themselves are derivatives of the works they are based from.

cmiles74 3y ago

Yes, I believe that is correct. If you do something "transformative" with the material then you are allowed to treat it as something new. There's also the idea of using a portion of a copyrighted work (like a quote or a clip of a song or video), this would be "fair use".

sandworm101 3y ago

>> ingest copyrighted work at very large scale and sell derivates of those works to gain massive profit / massive market capitalizations? Entire industries exist dedicated to such things. News aggregators. TV parody shows. Standup comedians. Fan fiction. Biography writers. Art critics. Movie critics. Sometimes the derivative work even outsells the original, especially when the original was horrible or unappreciated. I have never played Among Us or the new Call of Duty, but I do enjoy watching NeebsGaming do their youtube parodies of them.

derangedHorse 3y ago

Like how Google has parsed webpages of content to develop their page rank algorithm for searching on the web? I'm assuming it does.

chlorion 3y ago
Google is not producing something that competes with or is comparable to what it's parsing and displaying, which makes it very different. Google is displaying the exact content and a link to the source, and is functioning as a search engine. Copying music (or whatever), and then outputting music based on the copied music is not the same thing as a search engine, it's outputting a new "art" that is competing with the original. Another way to put it, is that you can't use a search engine to copy something in any meaningful way, but copying music to produce more music is actually copying something.
- derangedHorse 3y ago
  The goal of my post was not to answer what differentiates google search with LLMs and other generative models, it was to respond to the original post above: > Does copyright law say you can ingest copyrighted work at very large scale and sell derivates of those works to gain massive profit / massive market capitalizations The reasons as to why I don't think training on copyrighted data are stated in my other comments replying to people who have made arguments about its immorality.
  - chlorion 3y ago
    Googles search engine is not selling derivative works. If you search for a Disney movie on Google search, it does not try to sell you a film derived from the movie.
    - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
      They sell you ad space on full Disney movies (re)uploaded by random people who are not affiliated with Disney though: https://www.google.com/search?q=finding+nemo+full+movie https://www.google.com/search?q=finding+nemo+full+movie I can also get Disney coloring book pages directly from Google's cache on Google images: https://www.google.com/search?q=disney+princess+coloring+book+page https://www.google.com/search?q=disney+princess+coloring+boo... Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. determined that Google's wholesale scanning and uploading of books is allowed under the first sale doctrine because the University of Michigan library they borrowed the books to scan from paid for them (or a donor paid for them, at some point). Here's a book of bedtime stories available in its entirety: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Picnics_in_the_Wood_and_Other_Bedtime_St/ey9Brl_v6-kC?gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Picnics_in_the_Wood_and...