30 ms·

This is fantastic. If companies want to create AI models, they should license the content they use for the training data. As long as there are not sufficient le

This is fantastic. If companies want to create AI models, they should license the content they use for the training data. As long as there are not sufficient legal protections and the EU/Congress do not act, tools like these can serve as a stopgap and maybe help increase pressure on policymakers

Kuinox 3y ago
> they should license the content they use for the training data You mean like OpenAI and Adobe ? Only the free and open source models didn't licensed any content for the training data.
- galleywest200 3y ago
  Adobe is training off of images stored in their cloud systems, per their Terms of Service. OpenAI has provided no such documentation or legal guarantees, and it is still quite possible they scraped all sorts of copyright materials.
  - devmor 3y ago
    There is in fact, an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence that they intentionally and knowingly violated copyright en mass. It’s been quite a popular subject in tech news the past couple weeks.
  - Kuinox 3y ago
    > OpenAI has provided no such documentation OpenAI and Shutterstocks publicly announced their collaboration, Shutterstocks sells AI generated images, generated with OpenAI models.
  - luma 3y ago
    Google scrapes copyrighted material every day and then presents that material to users in the form of excerpts, images, and entire book pages. This has been ruled OK by the courts. Scraping copyrighted information is not illegal or we couldn't have search engines.
    - kg 3y ago
      Google is not presently selling "we trained an AI on people's art without permission, and you can type their name in along with a prompt to generate a knockoff of their art, and we charge you money for this". So it's not really a 1:1 comparison, since there are companies selling the thing I described right now.
      - luma 3y ago
        That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work. It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting painting.
        kg 3y ago
        Humans and AI are not the same thing, legally or physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of any kind.
        luma 3y ago
        If a human isn't violating the law when doing that thing, then how is the machine violating the law when it cannot even hold copyright itself?
        kg 3y ago
        I'm not sure how to explain this any clearer: Humans and machines are legally distinct. Machines don't have the rights that humans have.
        Ukv 3y ago
        Fair Use is the relevant protection and is not specific to manual creation. Traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) are already covered by it.
        3y ago
  - mesh 3y ago
    No they are not. They train their models on Adobe Stock content. They do not train on user content. https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learnin... "The insights obtained through content analysis will not be used to re-create your content or lead to identifying any personal information." "For Adobe Firefly, the first model is trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content, and public domain content where the copyright has expired." (I work for Adobe)
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  There is a small difference between any and all. OpenAI certainly didn't licence all of the image they use for training.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  source for OpenAI paying anyone a dime? don't you think that would set a precedent that everyone else deserves their cut?
popohauer 3y ago
It's going to be interesting to see how the lawsuits against OpenAI by content creators plays out. If the courts rule that AI generated content is a derivative work of all the content it was trained on it could really flip the entire gen AI movement on its head.
- luma 3y ago
  If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    "sufficiently transformational" is carrying a lot of water here. At minimum it would cloud the issue and might expose anyone using AI to lawsuits where they'd potentially have to defend each generated image.
    - ufocia 3y ago
      Sufficiently transformational only applies to copyrightability, but AI works are not copyrightable under current US law, so it's a non-issue.
  - popohauer 3y ago
    Oh, interesting, I didn't realize that's how it worked. Thanks for the additional context around this. Guess it's not as upending as I thought it could be.
  - ufocia 3y ago
    Not if it is AI generated. So far only humans can be original enough to warrant copyrights, at least in the US . BTW, the right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder of the reference work. I doubt that many AI works are in fact derivative works. Sure, some bear enough similarity, but a gross majority likely doesn't.

Kuinox 3y ago

> they should license the content they use for the training data You mean like OpenAI and Adobe ? Only the free and open source models didn't licensed any content for the training data.

galleywest200 3y ago
Adobe is training off of images stored in their cloud systems, per their Terms of Service. OpenAI has provided no such documentation or legal guarantees, and it is still quite possible they scraped all sorts of copyright materials.
- devmor 3y ago
  There is in fact, an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence that they intentionally and knowingly violated copyright en mass. It’s been quite a popular subject in tech news the past couple weeks.
- Kuinox 3y ago
  > OpenAI has provided no such documentation OpenAI and Shutterstocks publicly announced their collaboration, Shutterstocks sells AI generated images, generated with OpenAI models.
- luma 3y ago
  Google scrapes copyrighted material every day and then presents that material to users in the form of excerpts, images, and entire book pages. This has been ruled OK by the courts. Scraping copyrighted information is not illegal or we couldn't have search engines.
  - kg 3y ago
    Google is not presently selling "we trained an AI on people's art without permission, and you can type their name in along with a prompt to generate a knockoff of their art, and we charge you money for this". So it's not really a 1:1 comparison, since there are companies selling the thing I described right now.
    - luma 3y ago
      That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work. It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting painting.
      - kg 3y ago
        Humans and AI are not the same thing, legally or physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of any kind.
        luma 3y ago
        If a human isn't violating the law when doing that thing, then how is the machine violating the law when it cannot even hold copyright itself?
        kg 3y ago
        I'm not sure how to explain this any clearer: Humans and machines are legally distinct. Machines don't have the rights that humans have.
        Ukv 3y ago
        Fair Use is the relevant protection and is not specific to manual creation. Traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) are already covered by it.
        3y ago
- mesh 3y ago
  No they are not. They train their models on Adobe Stock content. They do not train on user content. https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learnin... "The insights obtained through content analysis will not be used to re-create your content or lead to identifying any personal information." "For Adobe Firefly, the first model is trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content, and public domain content where the copyright has expired." (I work for Adobe)
KeplerBoy 3y ago
There is a small difference between any and all. OpenAI certainly didn't licence all of the image they use for training.
jazzyjackson 3y ago
source for OpenAI paying anyone a dime? don't you think that would set a precedent that everyone else deserves their cut?

popohauer 3y ago

It's going to be interesting to see how the lawsuits against OpenAI by content creators plays out. If the courts rule that AI generated content is a derivative work of all the content it was trained on it could really flip the entire gen AI movement on its head.

luma 3y ago
If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
- kevingadd 3y ago
  "sufficiently transformational" is carrying a lot of water here. At minimum it would cloud the issue and might expose anyone using AI to lawsuits where they'd potentially have to defend each generated image.
  - ufocia 3y ago
    Sufficiently transformational only applies to copyrightability, but AI works are not copyrightable under current US law, so it's a non-issue.
- popohauer 3y ago
  Oh, interesting, I didn't realize that's how it worked. Thanks for the additional context around this. Guess it's not as upending as I thought it could be.
- ufocia 3y ago
  Not if it is AI generated. So far only humans can be original enough to warrant copyrights, at least in the US . BTW, the right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder of the reference work. I doubt that many AI works are in fact derivative works. Sure, some bear enough similarity, but a gross majority likely doesn't.