4 ms·

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

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.
torginus 3y ago
My biggest fear is that the big players will drop a few billion dollars to silence the copyright holders with power go away, and new rules are put in place that will make open-source models that can't do the same essentially illegal.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
…then I'll keep enjoying my Stable Diffusion and pirated models.
int_19h 3y ago
If the courts do rule that way, I would expect a legislative race between different countries to amend the relevant laws. Visual generative AI is just too lucrative a thing.

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.

torginus 3y ago

My biggest fear is that the big players will drop a few billion dollars to silence the copyright holders with power go away, and new rules are put in place that will make open-source models that can't do the same essentially illegal.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

…then I'll keep enjoying my Stable Diffusion and pirated models.

int_19h 3y ago

If the courts do rule that way, I would expect a legislative race between different countries to amend the relevant laws. Visual generative AI is just too lucrative a thing.