3 ms·
I think it's clearly wrong to use generative AI, or any tool, to produce what are basically copies of a work, and then profit off that as if you were the origin
by ALittleLight 2y ago
I think it's clearly wrong to use generative AI, or any tool, to produce what are basically copies of a work, and then profit off that as if you were the original creator.
I think it's just as clearly okay to use content that other people produce as part of learning to create your own stuff.
Generative AI can be used for copyright infringement - just like any creator technology could be.
- avian 2y ago> Generative AI can be used for copyright infringement - just like any creator technology could be. And yet, all generative AI services are pretty confident that copyright infringement is not something you should worry about when using their outputs. For a example, this FAQ from Cursor: > Who owns the code generated in Cursor? > You! Regardless of whether you use the free, pro or business version of Cursor, all generated code is yours and free to be used however you like, including commercially. Note how it's specifically not saying "it's up to you to determine if the code infringes on any of the million codebases we trained our models on". The difference with video and Sora is that it does this with properties of entities that actually have some considerable legal departments behind them.
- bdhcuidbebe 2y agoSeems like a ongoing trend where wealthy AI companies ignore copyright and try to settle outside court using money they raised from the hype created using said copyrighted material. Meanwhile the RIAA and the new generation of streaming companies is attacking non-wealthy consumers left and right.