4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat 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 agoHumans and AI are not the same thing, legally or physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of any kind.
- luma 3y agoIf 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 agoI'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 agoFair 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.
- estebank 3y agoIn some locales sitting on the street writing down a list of people coming and going is legal, but leaving a camera pointed at the street isn't. Legislation like that makes a distinction between an action by a person (which has bounds on scalability) and mechanized actions (that do not).
- ufocia 3y agoWhat's not prohibited is allowed, at least in the US.