3 ms·

> If it's used in a reference/"inspiration" capacity (as opposed to verbatim copying), I doubt the rightsholder have anything to stand on here. Sure, their work

> If it's used in a reference/"inspiration" capacity (as opposed to verbatim copying), I doubt the rightsholder have anything to stand on here. Sure, their works might have been used to make other competing works, but all art is derivative, and I don't see why it would be legal for a human artist to "train" on past works of art but not AI. The "all art is derivative" line is essentially something people try to convince others of to justify breaking copyright law. It's not grounded in reality or law. It devalues creative work by implying the machine, with no lived experiences, is doing the same thing. And it's also completely wrong about what the specific term derivative work actually means in the context of copyright. Derivative works deal in specific. If your LLM reproduces a substantial portion of the story beats from Jurassic Park, you can bet it'd wind up in court. If it reuses identifiable characters, that is usually gonna be derivative unless it can otherwise qualify under an exemption. "But fanfic, fanart, etc." Is a common counterpoint but misses the commerce aspect of it. Here Open AI and similar are offering paid services based upon harvesting all of this information. When they produce for you the response to the prompt, they are, effectively, distributing that to you for money. That's the point at which it becomes a problem. As an aside, it's an act of drinking the LLM Kool-Aid to believe it can be "inspired". > Alleging that AI models can reproduce some works verbatim is probably the stronger argument, but AFAIK you have to coax them pretty hard to do so, and therefore AI companies might be able to argue they're tools like photocopiers or such. They can try that argument but it'll fall flat when you consider that a photocopier is reproduction agnostic, while LLMs generally have a ton of work going into them to prevent them from outputting damaging things (and they still fail). That fact makes them not at all comparable to a photocopier, setting aside the more obvious "subscription software service" different. Also, you "know" pretty wrong about the effort required. For a recent example, see: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-06-24/riaa-suno-udio-lawsuit-ai-copyright-songs-music https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20... Here a number of people noticed getting specific producer tags basically unaltered in the output when just asking for songs of a certain genre, which then also often sound similar to existing songs.

bb88 2y ago
I don't understand how AI is any different than going to Fiverr. I can specify what I want in the style I want, and have a human do it versus a computer. "I want a black and white logo in the style of an 1960's Archie comic for an ice cream shop named 'Bettys'" Once I say "1960's Archie comic", why doesn't the work instantly become derivative whether a human does it versus a computer? If I understand your argument correctly, the person from Fiverr will not pay license fees to the owner of Archie Comics, even though he may use it as reference material.
- BeefWellington 2y ago
  > I don't understand how AI is any different than going to Fiverr. I can specify what I want in the style I want, and have a human do it versus a computer. I mean, if you ignore all the massive differences in paying a human to do something versus paying an LLM service to do it, sure. But you're effectively throwing at least ethics and care for the environment out the window in one case. > Once I say "1960's Archie comic", why doesn't the work instantly become derivative whether a human does it versus a computer? It does. Just because you can commission art from someone doesn't mean you won't get sued if you start trying to use it as the logo for your business. If you put Foghorn Leghorn on the logo of your chicken business, you'll be sued. Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued, though by doing it on commission the terms likely mean the requestor is the one who's liable Earlier I noted clean room implementations. The software industry went to incredible lengths to be able to interoperate with competitors without violating copyright.
  - bb88 2y ago
    > Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued. I agree with that. But then at what point does AI output becomes transformative versus not? No one owns the 1960's comic art style. But did mentioning "Archie" somehow make a difference? I don't think it does. I might be wrong. So I don't understand how it becomes a problem once a computer does it versus a human. If it's a legal issue, then I might be more persuaded. If it's an ethical issue only, well... this can be thrown on top of the heap of ethical issues businesses have long ignored -- and your arguments is screaming into the wind, as it were. I think if you argue for UBI, or some kind of remuneration then we can argue about who deserves it. Truck Drivers who lose there jobs to AI? Open Source Software Engineers? Artists? Writers? Normally this would normally be served by things like unemployment insurance in the US, but we as a society hate freeloaders. I think with UBI or something similar we could have more people doing things they enjoy, so maybe we would have more artists, rather than less. But again, that would be, socialism, which we also hate.
gruez 2y ago
>They can try that argument but it'll fall flat when you consider that a photocopier is reproduction agnostic, while LLMs generally have a ton of work going into them to prevent them from outputting damaging things (and they still fail). That fact makes them not at all comparable to a photocopier, setting aside the more obvious "subscription software service" different. And what about my other point about coaxing google books to give you a full copy of a book via multiple snippets? >Here a number of people noticed getting specific producer tags basically unaltered in the output when just asking for songs of a certain genre, which then also often sound similar to existing songs. Can you provide an alternate source for this? I skimmed your link and it does not substantiate that claim.
- BeefWellington 2y ago
  > And what about my other point about coaxing google books to give you a full copy of a book via multiple snippets? Sure, given enough time and effort maybe a person can. That's not really relevant to the lawsuit or its details though. Is your argument here they won the lawsuit which cleared the way for mass copying and redistribution? > Can you provide an alternate source for this? I skimmed your link and it does not substantiate that claim. If you want to hear it yourself: https://youtu.be/_wuKZR0Pv-Q https://youtu.be/_wuKZR0Pv-Q

bb88 2y ago

I don't understand how AI is any different than going to Fiverr. I can specify what I want in the style I want, and have a human do it versus a computer. "I want a black and white logo in the style of an 1960's Archie comic for an ice cream shop named 'Bettys'" Once I say "1960's Archie comic", why doesn't the work instantly become derivative whether a human does it versus a computer? If I understand your argument correctly, the person from Fiverr will not pay license fees to the owner of Archie Comics, even though he may use it as reference material.

BeefWellington 2y ago
> I don't understand how AI is any different than going to Fiverr. I can specify what I want in the style I want, and have a human do it versus a computer. I mean, if you ignore all the massive differences in paying a human to do something versus paying an LLM service to do it, sure. But you're effectively throwing at least ethics and care for the environment out the window in one case. > Once I say "1960's Archie comic", why doesn't the work instantly become derivative whether a human does it versus a computer? It does. Just because you can commission art from someone doesn't mean you won't get sued if you start trying to use it as the logo for your business. If you put Foghorn Leghorn on the logo of your chicken business, you'll be sued. Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued, though by doing it on commission the terms likely mean the requestor is the one who's liable Earlier I noted clean room implementations. The software industry went to incredible lengths to be able to interoperate with competitors without violating copyright.
- bb88 2y ago
  > Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued. I agree with that. But then at what point does AI output becomes transformative versus not? No one owns the 1960's comic art style. But did mentioning "Archie" somehow make a difference? I don't think it does. I might be wrong. So I don't understand how it becomes a problem once a computer does it versus a human. If it's a legal issue, then I might be more persuaded. If it's an ethical issue only, well... this can be thrown on top of the heap of ethical issues businesses have long ignored -- and your arguments is screaming into the wind, as it were. I think if you argue for UBI, or some kind of remuneration then we can argue about who deserves it. Truck Drivers who lose there jobs to AI? Open Source Software Engineers? Artists? Writers? Normally this would normally be served by things like unemployment insurance in the US, but we as a society hate freeloaders. I think with UBI or something similar we could have more people doing things they enjoy, so maybe we would have more artists, rather than less. But again, that would be, socialism, which we also hate.

gruez 2y ago

>They can try that argument but it'll fall flat when you consider that a photocopier is reproduction agnostic, while LLMs generally have a ton of work going into them to prevent them from outputting damaging things (and they still fail). That fact makes them not at all comparable to a photocopier, setting aside the more obvious "subscription software service" different. And what about my other point about coaxing google books to give you a full copy of a book via multiple snippets? >Here a number of people noticed getting specific producer tags basically unaltered in the output when just asking for songs of a certain genre, which then also often sound similar to existing songs. Can you provide an alternate source for this? I skimmed your link and it does not substantiate that claim.

BeefWellington 2y ago
> And what about my other point about coaxing google books to give you a full copy of a book via multiple snippets? Sure, given enough time and effort maybe a person can. That's not really relevant to the lawsuit or its details though. Is your argument here they won the lawsuit which cleared the way for mass copying and redistribution? > Can you provide an alternate source for this? I skimmed your link and it does not substantiate that claim. If you want to hear it yourself: https://youtu.be/_wuKZR0Pv-Q https://youtu.be/_wuKZR0Pv-Q