4 ms·

The artist in the article clearly states that his work was free to use only if it was not used to make a profit, those were the terms of their license. In the a

The artist in the article clearly states that his work was free to use only if it was not used to make a profit, those were the terms of their license. In the artist's opinion, OpenAI violated that license by training their tool on their work and then selling that tool. This artist doesn't complain about work similar to their own being generated, and their artwork is very clearly not clothing.

sandworm101 3y ago
>> In the artist's opinion, OpenAI violated that license... So? Why does the author's opinion even enter into the equation? Authors cannot claim ownership beyond the bounds of copyright. If what AI is doing qualifies as fair use, the artist cannot do anything about it. I'm sure that lots of artists would not want anyone to lampoon or criticize their work. They cannot stop such things. I'm sure lots of artists would never want anyone to ever create anything in any way similar to their work. They cannot do that either.
- cmiles74 3y ago
  It is not clear that training an LLM falls under "fair use". We are then left with the license of the work, in this case that license forbids re-selling the work for a profit. It is the artist's license for their work at issue, not their opinion.
  - scheeseman486 3y ago
    If the legality is ambiguous then we're left with an impending court decision. Fair use is an affirmative defense, considered case by case.
Vvector 3y ago
> "...clearly states that his work was free to use only if it was not used to make a profit" Replace "use" with "copy". No one may copy the work to make a profit. Fair Use has long been an exemption to copyright, with Learning an example of Fair Use. But no one expected AIs to learn so quickly. I don't think it is clear either way, and will end up in SCOTUS. Free and redistribute the material
- cmiles74 3y ago
  I disagree that a person learning is the same as an AI model being trained. That aside, typically fair use covers the use of an excerpt or a portion of the material, not reproduction of the work in it's entirety. Agreed: in the end, courts will make the decision.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> Fair Use has long been an exemption to copyright, The proper construction is that copyright is an exemption from the freedom of speech. Fair use is a partial description of freedom of speech, a description to narrow the limits of copyright rather than to broaden the already limitless bounds of freedom of speech. The default for expression is that it is allowed except if copyrighted, as opposed to copyrighted except when covered by fair use.
wlonkly 3y ago
Her work. (Dorothy Gambrell.)

sandworm101 3y ago

>> In the artist's opinion, OpenAI violated that license... So? Why does the author's opinion even enter into the equation? Authors cannot claim ownership beyond the bounds of copyright. If what AI is doing qualifies as fair use, the artist cannot do anything about it. I'm sure that lots of artists would not want anyone to lampoon or criticize their work. They cannot stop such things. I'm sure lots of artists would never want anyone to ever create anything in any way similar to their work. They cannot do that either.

cmiles74 3y ago
It is not clear that training an LLM falls under "fair use". We are then left with the license of the work, in this case that license forbids re-selling the work for a profit. It is the artist's license for their work at issue, not their opinion.
- scheeseman486 3y ago
  If the legality is ambiguous then we're left with an impending court decision. Fair use is an affirmative defense, considered case by case.

Vvector 3y ago

> "...clearly states that his work was free to use only if it was not used to make a profit" Replace "use" with "copy". No one may copy the work to make a profit. Fair Use has long been an exemption to copyright, with Learning an example of Fair Use. But no one expected AIs to learn so quickly. I don't think it is clear either way, and will end up in SCOTUS. Free and redistribute the material

cmiles74 3y ago
I disagree that a person learning is the same as an AI model being trained. That aside, typically fair use covers the use of an excerpt or a portion of the material, not reproduction of the work in it's entirety. Agreed: in the end, courts will make the decision.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> Fair Use has long been an exemption to copyright, The proper construction is that copyright is an exemption from the freedom of speech. Fair use is a partial description of freedom of speech, a description to narrow the limits of copyright rather than to broaden the already limitless bounds of freedom of speech. The default for expression is that it is allowed except if copyrighted, as opposed to copyrighted except when covered by fair use.

wlonkly 3y ago

Her work. (Dorothy Gambrell.)