4 ms·

Most of a creator’s content is consumed for free as is by their audience. Their compensation arrives in the form of payments from a few large subscribers or fro

Most of a creator’s content is consumed for free as is by their audience. Their compensation arrives in the form of payments from a few large subscribers or from an ad distribution platform or other such sponsorship deals. I’m not sure why you and others think that using someone’s work as inspiration for creating some new work requires payment. Are we required to pay someone when sharing a meme, or using a sound for a reel or a TikTok? A lot of these creators are just creating shit they saw someone else create.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
> Are we required to pay someone when sharing a meme I suspect that, if the image in the meme is copyrighted, the answer is "yes." I haven't come across too many memes with Mickey Mouse, but I do see the occasional Marvel one (I have forwarded these, myself).
- deadbabe 3y ago
  Under the OP’s logic, you and everyone who shared those memes owes money. Everyone.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Yup. Welcome to the RIAA's worldview. It can get nasty.
- qeternity 3y ago
  There is a little something called "fair use".
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Yeah...that gets fuzzy. Satire of the work is allowed, but I don't think using the work, itself, in satire of something else, is allowed. I think that the example a lot of folks use is the "Pissing Calvin" decal. Watterson never allowed any commercialization of his characters. Every "Pissing Calvin" decal is actually a copyright violation, but I think that they never enforced it, so it may be considered "OK" to use, as the copyright has been allowed to wither. But IANAL. Things get sticky, here.
    - deadbabe 3y ago
      The original work isn’t used. It’s satirized in the form of training data that a model will understand.
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      Family Guy made a scene for scene recreation of Star Wars.
    - qeternity 3y ago
      It’s actually fuzzy in favor of fair use though. This is more akin to buying multiple books on a topic and then writing a new book on the topic using the aggregate learnings from the original books.
AmericanChopper 3y ago
I don’t think there’s any legal issue with using data for training. I think the problem is how do you subsequently prevent your model from creating copyright violations. If you watch a Spider-Man movie and take some inspiration from it, you know that you go and make a movie with similar themes or whatever, but you can’t just go out and create your own Spider-Man movie. An AI model doesn’t know this, and I don’t know how you’d teach it this concept. Especially when properly educated humans frequently have disputes about what is/isn’t allowed.
- deadbabe 3y ago
  The copyright isn’t violated unless shared. So it’s the end user’s responsibility. Not the AI model.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    It was shared when OpenAI (or whoever else) created it and then shared it with you (or likely sold it to you if you’re a subscriber). But even if you think that’s fine it makes using AI models for your own commercial applications more risky.
  - SJC_Hacker 3y ago
    Most likely these models are going be hidden behind the network. Aside from the issues of size, which will probably run into the terabytes, I can't see companies willing to risk including them in downloadable code them given how expensive they are to generate, for fear of being copied. A single network transfer alone is enough to qualify "sharing". Heck some of the content creators are even arguing that the models are essentially a form of lossy compression, because no one quite knows exactly how they work. Also the users probably won't be the ones with deep pockets, unless it was a studio. And the lawyers are generally going to after the ones with deep pockets.
- SJC_Hacker 3y ago
  Spiderman was released 1962. Copyright runs out in 2057. What you could do is what some of of the original comic book creators did when they ripped off each others work (Doom Patrol/Xmen, Quicksilver/Flash, etc.) - create an alternative version that was close the original but was different enough that it wasn't a straight up copy. So it wouldn't be Spiderman, but Venom or something, and the suit wouldn't be red/blue but like maybe purple/green or something.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

> Are we required to pay someone when sharing a meme I suspect that, if the image in the meme is copyrighted, the answer is "yes." I haven't come across too many memes with Mickey Mouse, but I do see the occasional Marvel one (I have forwarded these, myself).

deadbabe 3y ago
Under the OP’s logic, you and everyone who shared those memes owes money. Everyone.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Yup. Welcome to the RIAA's worldview. It can get nasty.
qeternity 3y ago
There is a little something called "fair use".
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Yeah...that gets fuzzy. Satire of the work is allowed, but I don't think using the work, itself, in satire of something else, is allowed. I think that the example a lot of folks use is the "Pissing Calvin" decal. Watterson never allowed any commercialization of his characters. Every "Pissing Calvin" decal is actually a copyright violation, but I think that they never enforced it, so it may be considered "OK" to use, as the copyright has been allowed to wither. But IANAL. Things get sticky, here.
  - deadbabe 3y ago
    The original work isn’t used. It’s satirized in the form of training data that a model will understand.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    Family Guy made a scene for scene recreation of Star Wars.
  - qeternity 3y ago
    It’s actually fuzzy in favor of fair use though. This is more akin to buying multiple books on a topic and then writing a new book on the topic using the aggregate learnings from the original books.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

I don’t think there’s any legal issue with using data for training. I think the problem is how do you subsequently prevent your model from creating copyright violations. If you watch a Spider-Man movie and take some inspiration from it, you know that you go and make a movie with similar themes or whatever, but you can’t just go out and create your own Spider-Man movie. An AI model doesn’t know this, and I don’t know how you’d teach it this concept. Especially when properly educated humans frequently have disputes about what is/isn’t allowed.

deadbabe 3y ago
The copyright isn’t violated unless shared. So it’s the end user’s responsibility. Not the AI model.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  It was shared when OpenAI (or whoever else) created it and then shared it with you (or likely sold it to you if you’re a subscriber). But even if you think that’s fine it makes using AI models for your own commercial applications more risky.
- SJC_Hacker 3y ago
  Most likely these models are going be hidden behind the network. Aside from the issues of size, which will probably run into the terabytes, I can't see companies willing to risk including them in downloadable code them given how expensive they are to generate, for fear of being copied. A single network transfer alone is enough to qualify "sharing". Heck some of the content creators are even arguing that the models are essentially a form of lossy compression, because no one quite knows exactly how they work. Also the users probably won't be the ones with deep pockets, unless it was a studio. And the lawyers are generally going to after the ones with deep pockets.
SJC_Hacker 3y ago
Spiderman was released 1962. Copyright runs out in 2057. What you could do is what some of of the original comic book creators did when they ripped off each others work (Doom Patrol/Xmen, Quicksilver/Flash, etc.) - create an alternative version that was close the original but was different enough that it wasn't a straight up copy. So it wouldn't be Spiderman, but Venom or something, and the suit wouldn't be red/blue but like maybe purple/green or something.