4 ms·
No. We knew this already because it's evident in the output. For example, when MidJourney can perfectly replicate the visual style of a specific artist whose
by khazhoux 2y ago
No. We knew this already because it's evident in the output. For example, when MidJourney can perfectly replicate the visual style of a specific artist whose work is copyrighted.
- alphan0n 2y agoCould you point out the text in copyright law that entitles anyone to ownership of a visual style? Nor have I ever heard of a hardware or software tool ever being responsible for the output of the end user. If I use a copy machine to make a duplicate of your work, is Xerox responsible? I copy your clip art in Illustrator, is Adobe the infringing party? If I make a pencil copy, are we to name Ticonderoga as a defendant? What if I coaxed the entirety of your copyrighted work out of the word suggestion engine on my phone’s keyboard?
- dylan604 2y agoNo, you could guess, surmise, postulate, theorize, but until it was proven, it wasn't known
- khazhoux 2y agoI don't understand your point. The whistleblower didn't "prove" it either. There is already enough publicly-visible info for copyright holders to sue OpenAI even without the whistleblower. And when a judge allows the civil suit to proceed then the internal documents will come out during discovery, even without the whistleblower. So, yeah the whistleblower lends more weight to the argument, but there was already enough to go on even without him.